The article is two years old now. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was right. A very strange thing is that Trump proved to be
very good for weapon industry and not so bad for neocons. Still the coup is continuing.
Notable quotes:
"... There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump. ..."
"... The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress. ..."
"... The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue. ..."
"... The institutional Trump enemies are: ..."
"... The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
"... The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit. ..."
"... The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes. ..."
"... The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed European peoples will support the coup against Trump. ..."
"... PCR has gone senile. Trump IS the elite ..."
"... And Trump will continue the MidEast wars. He made it clear. ..."
"... The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ..."
"... 1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress ..."
"... 2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator ..."
"... 3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law. ..."
The below theses are thus far only a general outlay...
There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The
case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency
to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business,
which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling
U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get
the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures.
The institutional Trump enemies are:
The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts
of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan
and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President
Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists'
benefit.
The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary
power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The article is a documented and accurate description of a coup that is underway. The extraordinary lies that are being perpetrated
by the media and by members of the US government have as their obvious purpose the prevention of a Donald Trump presidency. There
is no other reason for the extraordinary blatant lies for which there is not a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is massive real evidence
to the contrary. Yet the coup proceeds and gathers steam.
President Eisenhower warned us more than a half century ago of the danger that the military/security complex presents to US democracy.
In the decades since Eisenhower's warning, the military/security complex has become more powerful than the American people and is
demonstrating its power by overturning a presidential election.
Will the coup succeed?
In my opinion, former and present members of the US government and the media would not dare to so obviously and openly participate
in a coup against democracy and an elected president unless they expect the coup to succeed.
It is an easy matter for the ruling interests to bribe electors to vote differently than their states. The cost of the bribes
is miniscule compared to the wealth and income streams that a trillion dollar annual budget provides to the military/security complex.
The fake news of a Putin/Trump election-stealing plot generated by unsupported allegations of present and former members of US intelligence,
the lame-duck President Obama, and the presstitute media provide the cover for electors to break with precedent "in order to save
America from a Russian stooge."
The CIA-controlled European media, the politicians in Washington's European vassal states, NATO officials, and the brainwashed
European peoples will support the coup against Trump.
The only ones speaking against the coup are the voters who elected Trump-all of whom are alleged to have been deceived by Russian
fake news -- the Russian government, and the 200 websites falsely described by the Washington Post and the secret organization PropOrNot
as Russian agents.
In other words, those objecting to the coup are the ones described by the coup leaders as those who made the coup necessary.
I do not know that the coup will succeed, but looking at the commitment so many high level people have made to the coup, I conclude
that those bringing the coup expect it to succeed.
Therefore, we should take very seriously the expectation of success that those who control levers of power are demonstrating.?
As usual, Paul Craig Roberts is dead-on correct. Just wish Mr. T. would hook him up in some way in the new admin as an economic
adivosor of some sorts. He could make a yuuuuuuuge difference.
Above and beyond what is going on behind the scenes they are pushing for all out civil war. If the electors vote for Trump then
it's on to Jan.20 where multiple sources are calling out for an outright riot. Michael Moore is calling for a not a protest but
a revolution. In response, Trump supporters are now being encouraged to be 2nd amendment patriots to defend against a left wing
radical takeover. No matter what happens you can sure you won't hear the truth on the MSM. In fact TPTB are making sure right
now they shut down the "alt- right" lest any more muppets awaken.
"A whole group of trolls has been assigned to denigrate PCR's warning, which underlines its importance."
Count me in as one of those trolls, because I find PCR to be a sensationalist. In less than two weeks, limp-dick Obama won't
have another word to say about the "Russian hack", aka bullshit, and nothing Hillbilery has to say about anything will make any
more noise than a goose flying backwards and farting in a thunderstorm.
The CIA, along with Boeing and all the other contractors, banks, insurers, and rabble of the Wall Street machine are the
Military Industrial Complex.
The Imperial City (D.C.) of Isengard and Mordor (Wall Street) want fresh bodies and blood to enrich themselves. No more pointless
wars! No more body bags for blood money!
When the hell will the U.S. Military cut off the head of the beast and restore the Republic?
We can hope Trump can hack his way there, but if not, step up soldiers!
This may be the last chance, tipping point is here.
I have believed PCR is controlled opposition for a while now. I also believe the electors will, like the American People, deliver
Trump to the Oval Office. I also believe this whole mess is mainly aimed at undermining Trump's mandate from the People so repugs
in CONgress can give him a hard time. That won't work either because they'll be inundated with demands from their constituencies.
Screw 'em.
I agree with the premise of this article, but disagree that the deep state expects to succeed in a coup via the Electors. Using
the tired metaphor, the deep state plays chess. They are merely laying the groundwork for something later.
Paul Craig Roberts...the Armed Forces are with Trump. The CIA are a bunch of effete college girly-boys that should be outed
and either be arrested or die for crimes against the state.
FUCK THE CIA and their contractors. Whores for sale to the highest bidder. Enemies of the Republic. Death to them all!
If the Defense-Industrial Complex does overturn the election, their victory will be their pyrrhic last stand and it will be the
end of its dominance. The American people will totally destroy it.
what the United States and NATO are doing on Russia's western frontier is similar to what the German Wehrmacht did in preparation
for Operation Barbarossa.
...but we lost because every POTUS since JFK is a show pony or he goes to the glue factory (and he knows it). The establishment
won again so we wait in the shadows for the aging angry beast to die...
So, all indications are that he will receive > 270 electoral votes on 12/19, so the next day of action for this cabal is Jan.
6th when they can again attempt to overturn?
So we will have a lot of propaganda thrown at us yet again trying to influence that, but a) how many people actually pay attention
to this crap expecially over the holiday season, and b) how many people pay attention to the MSM anymore anyhow.
That is a large part of their angst - nobody seems to be listening to their bullshit.
I think that's when the House actual gives there nihil obstat and impramatur to the electoral college votes, and so members can
attempt to hang the process up there as per this below which was in the original article.
Andrea Chalupa @AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan.
6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member
& 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out
in federal law.
...
Once Trump gets in office the resultant corruption probe afterwards should be epic! We'll know by Monday if the electoral college
stays the course or steers the country towards anarchy.
Seems to me the CIA and the POTUS has made a complete mess of the world. Do the people really have a desire for them to solve
the problem when they caused the problem??? I think not!
I have CIA contacts.
They are freaked. .. It is even affecting some of them in the physical health department. (Not enough of them. IMHO.)
Now is NOT the time to fold to intimidation or threats. Now is the time to double down and make them back up threats and/or
expose themselves and show exactly which side they are on.
They DO NOT have enough manpower or assets in the states (or anywhere) to silence everyone.
If the Satanic Witch or other Ass Wipes Inc puppet other than Donald Trump (I'm not 100% sure about him but he is the best
shot we have, IMO.) gets put into office, shaking off these assholes will be much harder or impossible all together.
And BTW, in case you think you can just close your eyes and tuck back in a hole until the battle is over they have plans well
under way to kill you and your family anyway. .. I'm sure if you have read any of my previous posts you know what some of those
ways are.
That's my field report and firm recommendations for 12/17/16.
Live Hard, The CIA / CeyeA Are Not The Good Guys Here, Not Even Close, Die Free
I notice Trump has more than a few ex military people around him. A few generals. I wonder if the would call to active military
to stand down? Or to counter a coup?
My first thoughts after Trump selected the Generals was to organize a Military-lead counter coup. He has also aligned a massive
amount of wealth by his other appointments. I pray & hope I am correct.
The Republican electors their families and the GOP have way too much to lose. Republicans will never get elected again...and all
their lives would be in danger. Plus you would get domestic terror groups spring up across the country. Remember Trump won most
of the counties so his support is strong and getting stronger.
The soros and clintons of the world will not be able to control the backlash as they think..and you really would then see russia
and china stiring up big trouble in america.
Donald Trump, doesn't strike me as the type of person, that would lay down for such criminality... and if he puts up a fight,
like I think he will, anyone that supports him will fight with him. You can count me in that fighting group!
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... ' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers. ..."
"... The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers. ..."
"... Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns. ..."
"... The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite. ..."
"... The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists. ..."
"... In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters. ..."
Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ' populism' has become
the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media's ' anti-populism' campaign has been
used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract,
discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating
concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ' populism' and its multiple usages. Then we will turn
to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements
and parties dubbed ' populist' by the ideologues of ' anti-populism' .
Conceptual Manipulation
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ' anti-populism ' it is necessary to
examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19 th and 20 th century as an ideology, movement and government in
opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian
struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing
monopolistic practices of the 'robber barons', the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access
to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19 th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial
elites.
In early 20 th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking
to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia
and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas's term (1951-1954)
was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers
despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron's first
terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist
capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement
(MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule
from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations
and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban
workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power.
What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters ('compradores'),
bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted 'third way' politics by opposing imperialism on the
right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation
of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported
state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism
as 'authoritarian' and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as 'a threat to Western Christian civilization'.
Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as 'fascists' . . . even as they won
numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today's ' anti-populists'
in the media are calling ' populism' . In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism
, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class.
Both 'anti's' have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their 'pro-capitalist'
privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as 'pro-capitalist', pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state
subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ' anti-populist' .
' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist,
pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers
and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the
need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism',
the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary
jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic 'anti-populism' has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects
their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance
growing fiscal deficits.
The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ' populism' has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements
and parties, denounced as 'populist' by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ' populists' attack
the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ' populists' support
imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations
with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning
popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics
of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ' populist' Donald Trump with the truly populist US President
Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution,
and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media
campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact
opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health
insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland,
Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead
of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining
the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone,
austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class
voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the 'right' with the 'left'; to sidelight the latter and promote
the former; to amalgamate rightwing 'rallies' with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular
mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the 'anti-populist' chorus. They have failed
to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate
populists in the name of 'anti-fascism'. Leftwing writers, claiming to 'combat the far-right enemies of the people'
, overlook the fact that they are 'fellow-travelling' with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts
in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees- not immigrants
–and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today's ' anti-populist' left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at
fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!
"... ' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers. ..."
"... The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers. ..."
"... Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns. ..."
"... The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite. ..."
"... The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists. ..."
"... In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters. ..."
Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ' populism' has become
the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media's ' anti-populism' campaign has been
used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract,
discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating
concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ' populism' and its multiple usages. Then we will turn
to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements
and parties dubbed ' populist' by the ideologues of ' anti-populism' .
Conceptual Manipulation
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ' anti-populism ' it is necessary to
examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19 th and 20 th century as an ideology, movement and government in
opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian
struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing
monopolistic practices of the 'robber barons', the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access
to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19 th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial
elites.
In early 20 th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking
to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia
and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas's term (1951-1954)
was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers
despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron's first
terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist
capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement
(MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule
from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations
and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban
workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power.
What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters ('compradores'),
bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted 'third way' politics by opposing imperialism on the
right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation
of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported
state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism
as 'authoritarian' and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as 'a threat to Western Christian civilization'.
Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as 'fascists' . . . even as they won
numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today's ' anti-populists'
in the media are calling ' populism' . In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism
, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class.
Both 'anti's' have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their 'pro-capitalist'
privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as 'pro-capitalist', pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state
subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ' anti-populist' .
' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist,
pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers
and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the
need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism',
the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary
jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic 'anti-populism' has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects
their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance
growing fiscal deficits.
The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ' populism' has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements
and parties, denounced as 'populist' by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ' populists' attack
the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ' populists' support
imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations
with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning
popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics
of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ' populist' Donald Trump with the truly populist US President
Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution,
and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media
campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact
opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health
insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland,
Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead
of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining
the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone,
austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class
voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the 'right' with the 'left'; to sidelight the latter and promote
the former; to amalgamate rightwing 'rallies' with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular
mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the 'anti-populist' chorus. They have failed
to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate
populists in the name of 'anti-fascism'. Leftwing writers, claiming to 'combat the far-right enemies of the people'
, overlook the fact that they are 'fellow-travelling' with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts
in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees- not immigrants
–and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today's ' anti-populist' left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at
fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
Hunt was a member of the White House "plumbers," the secret team assembled
to stop government leaks after defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the press. A former CIA operative, Hunt organized the bugging of the
Democratic headquarters in the Watergate -- as well as a break-in at the office of
Ellsberg's psychiatrist. Hunt's phone number in address books belonging to the
Watergate burglars helped investigators -- and reporters -- connect the break-in to
the president and his reelection campaign. Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and
wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison.
By the time of the Watergate burglary, Hunt was already moonlighting as a spy
novelist. He has since penned dozens of books, including a memoir and "Dragon
Teeth," a thriller published this May.
In 1981, Hunt won $650,000 in a libel suit against the Liberty Lobby for a 1978
article that appeared in the right-wing group's conspiracy-minded newspaper, The
Spotlight. The article linked Hunt to the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
suggesting the CIA man was in Dallas on the day of the 1963 shooting. Mark Lane,
author of the best-selling "Rush to Judgment," successfully defended Liberty Lobby
in a second trial in 1985, overturning the original libel award. Lane outlined his
theory about Hunt's and the CIA's role in Kennedy's murder in a 1991 book,
"Plausible Denial."
Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors in June 1995. He died at
a Miami hospital after a lengthy bout with pneumonia Jan. 23, 2007.
The Watergate Break-In
June 16, 1972: In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., seven men gathered to
finalize their plans to break in to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters,
located on the sixth floor of one of the Watergate complex's six buildings. One of these men,
G. Gordon Liddy , was a former FBI agent. Another, E. Howard Hunt , had retired from the CIA.
James McCord would handle the bugging, Bernard Barker would photograph documents, and Virgilio
Gonzalez would pick the locks. The remaining two, Eugenio Martinez and Frank Sturgis, would
serve as lookouts. Several of these men were Cuban exiles who had met Hunt through their
participation in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion back in 1961.
"... . . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . . 30 ..."
During his later years at the CIA, Helms witnessed the Agency and the whole enterprise of
intelligence fall into disrepute as Congress and the public subjected US foreign policy to
unprecedented criticism. Helms took the occasion of his only public speech as DCI to affirm
that "the nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men devoted to her
service."
28 By the end of his directorship, however, years of political protest, social
upheaval, and revelations of government incompetence and wrongdoing had depleted much of that
faith. Helms became a (not entirely blameless) casualty of that rapid and sweeping change in
the American people's sense of what their government should and should not do. He had once said
that Americans "want an effective, strong intelligence operation. They just don't want to hear
too much about it."
29 But now prominent voices demanded of the CIA far more accountability than Helms
was used to or thought appropriate. As he wrote in this journal in 1967:
. . . it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the intensity of our public
critics. Criticism of our efficiency is one thing, criticism of our responsibility quite
another. I believe that we are . . . a legitimate object of public concern . . . I find it
painful, however, when public debate lessens our usefulness to the nation by casting doubt on
our integrity and objectivity. If we are not believed, we have no purpose. . .
30
Helms declined a presidential request to submit his resignation after the 1972 elections,
not wanting to set a precedent that he thought would politicize the position of DCI. After he
was forced out in 1973 -- he believed that Nixon was mad at him for refusing to use the CIA in
the Watergate cover up -- Helms spent several years coping with controversies ensuing in part
from some of his acts of omission and commission while at the Agency. He became a lightning rod
for criticism of the CIA during its "time of troubles" in the mid-1970s. He was called back
many times from his ambassadorial post in Tehran to testify before investigatory bodies about
assassination plots, domestic operations, drug testing, the destruction of records, and other
activities of dubious legality and ethicality known collectively as the "Family Jewels." He
responded to inquiries about them cautiously, sometimes testily, as he tried to walk the
increasingly fuzzy line between discretion and disclosure.
Helms ran into legal troubles resulting from his judgment about when and when not to reveal
secrets. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just after leaving the
Agency, he denied that the CIA had tried to influence the outcome of the Chilean presidential
election in 1970. Helms described his quandary this way: "If I was to live up to my oath and
fulfill my statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods from
unauthorized disclosure, I could not reveal covert operations to people unauthorized to learn
about them."
31 He eventually pleaded no contest to charges of not testifying "fully, completely
and accurately" to the committee. His statement to the federal judge who was about to sentence
him, although addressed to the immediate situation, could also summarize nearly his whole
experience as DCI: "I was simply trying to find my way through a difficult situation in which I
found myself
Notes: (1) Although these excerpts do not contain footnotes, the book itself is heavily
footnoted and exhaustively sourced. (2) To distinguish between George Bush, father and son,
George H.W. Bush is sometimes referred to by his nickname Poppy, and George W. Bush by his, W.
(3) Additional context can be found in the preceding chapters.
Before you read this second installment, please go
here to read the first installment.
***********
Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest? ascribed to Henry II
On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.
Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary -- or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.
But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.
Hanky-Panky, Cuban-Style
Almost no one has better expressed reasons to doubt Nixon's involvement
than Nixon himself. In his memoirs, Nixon described how he learned about
the burglary while vacationing in Florida, from the morning newspaper. He
recalled his reaction at the time:
It sounded preposterous. Cubans in surgical gloves bugging the DNC! I dismissed it as some sort of prank . . . The whole thing made so little sense. Why, I wondered. Why then? Why in such a blundering way . . . Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that a national committee headquarters was a useless place to go for inside information on a presidential campaign. The whole thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of a setup.
Nixon was actually suggesting not just a setup, but one intended to harm
him.
Perhaps because anything he might say would seem transparently self-
serving, this claim received little attention and has been largely forgotten.
Notwithstanding Nixon's initial reaction to the news of the break-in,
less than a week later he suddenly learned more -- and this gave him much
to ponder.
On June 23, Nixon's chief of staff, H. R. "Bob" Haldeman, came into the
Oval Office to give the president an update on a variety of topics, including
the investigation of the break-in. Haldeman had just been briefed by John
Dean, who had gotten his information from FBI investigators.
HALDEMAN: . . . The FBI agents who are working the case, at this point, feel that's what it is. This is CIA .
Nixon's response would show that he had already realized this:
NIXON: Of course, this is a, this is a [E. Howard] Hunt [operation, and exposure of it] will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves This will open the whole Bay of Pigs thing
Of course, it is important to remember that Nixon knew every word he
uttered was being recorded. Like his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson,
he had decided to install a taping system so that he could maintain a record
of his administration. He was, in a way, dictating a file memo for future historians.
But that doesn't make everything he said untrue. While Nixon undoubtedly
spun some things, he still had to communicate with his subordinates,
and the tape was rolling while he was trying to run the country. Those were
actual meetings and real conversations, tape or no tape. And though the
result was 3,700 hours of White House tape recordings, Nixon evinced
merely sporadic consciousness of the fact that the tape was rolling. Only after
his counsel John Dean defected to the prosecutors did Nixon appear to
be tailoring his words.
Nixon's memoirs, combined with the tape of June 23, make clear that
Nixon recognized certain things about the implementation of the burglary.
The caper was carried out by pros, yet paradoxically was amateurish, easily
detected -- an instigation of the crime more easily pinned on someone else.
A break-in at Democratic Party headquarters: On whom would that be
blamed? Well, who was running against a Democrat for reelection that
fall? Why, Richard Nixon of course. Nixon, who frequently exhibited a grim
and self-pitying awareness of how he generally was portrayed, might have
grasped how this would play out publicly. Dick Nixon: ruthless, paranoid,
vengeful -- Tricky Dick. Wouldn't this burglary be just the kind of thing that
that Dick Nixon -- the "liberal media's" version of him -- would do? Nixon's
opponent, George McGovern, made this charge repeatedly during the 1972
campaign.
Though Nixon would sweep the election, it would become increasingly
apparent to him that, where Watergate was concerned, the jury was stacked.
The path was set. Someone had him in a corner.
But who?
Many people, including those within Nixon's own base of support, were
not happy with him -- even from early in his administration. As Haldeman
noted in his diary, one month after the inauguration in 1969:
Also got cranking on the political problem. [President's] obviously concerned about reports (especially Buchanan's) that conservatives and the South are unhappy. Also he's annoyed by constant right- wing bitching, with never a positive alternative. Ordered me to assemble a political group and really hit them to start defending us, including Buchanan . . . [and political specialist Harry] Dent.
There would be growing anger in the Pentagon about Nixon and Kissinger's
secret attempts to secure agreements with China and the Soviet Union without
consulting the military. And there were the oilmen, who found Nixon
wasn't solid enough on their most basic concerns, such as the oil depletion
allowance and oil import quotas.
As for the burglary crew, Nixon recognized them instantly, because he
knew what they represented. While serving as vice president, Nixon had
overseen some covert operations and served as the "action officer" for the
planning of the Bay of Pigs, of which these men were hard-boiled veterans.
They had been out to overthrow Fidel Castro, and if possible, to kill him.
Nixon had another problem. These pros were connected to the CIA, and
as we shall see, Nixon was not getting along well with the agency.
One of the main reasons we fundamentally misunderstand Watergate is
that the guardians of the historical record focused only on selected parts of
Nixon's taped conversations, out of context. Consider a widely cited portion
of a June 23 meeting tape, which would become known forever as the
"smoking gun" conversation:
HALDEMAN: The way to handle this now is for us to have [CIA deputy director Vernon] Walters call [FBI interim director] Pat Gray and just say, "Stay the hell out of this this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it." NIXON: Um hum.
Short excerpts like this seem especially damning. This one sounds right
off the bat like a cover-up - Nixon using the CIA to suppress an FBI investigation
into the break-in.
But these utterances take on a different meaning when considered with
other, less publicized parts of the same conversation. A prime example:
Haldeman went on to tell Nixon that Pat Gray, the acting FBI director, had
called CIA director Richard Helms and said, "I think we've run right into
the middle of a CIA covert operation."
Although the first excerpt above sounds like a discussion of a cover-up,
when we consider the information about the CIA involvement, it begins to
seem as if Nixon is not colluding. He may well have been refusing to take the
rap for something he had not authorized -- and certainly not for something
that smelled so blatantly like a trap. Nixon would have understood that if the
FBI were to conduct a full investigation and conclude that the break-in was indeed
an illegal operation of the CIA, it would all be blamed squarely on the
man who supposedly had ultimate authority over both agencies -- him. And
doubly so, since the burglars and their supervisors were tied not just
to the CIA but also directly back to Nixon's reelection committee and the
White House itself.
Yet, however concerned Nixon certainly must have been at this moment,
he played it cool. He concurred with the advice that his chief of staff was
passing along from the counsel John Dean, which was to press the CIA to
clean up its own mess.
If the CIA was involved, then the agency would have to ask the FBI to
back off. The CIA itself would have to invoke its perennial escape clause --
say that national security was at stake.
This must have sounded to Nixon like the best way to deal with a vexing
and shadowy situation. He had no way of knowing that, two years later, his
conversation with Haldeman would be publicly revealed and construed as
that of a man in control of a plot, rather than the target of one.
Sniffing Around the Bay of Pigs
How could Nixon have so quickly gotten a fix on the Watergate crew? He
might have recognized that the involvement of this particular group of
Cubans, together with E. Howard Hunt -- and the evidence tying them back
to the White House -- was in part a message to him. One of the group leaders,
G. Gordon Liddy, would even refer to the team as a bunch of "professional
killers." Indeed
, several of this Bay of Pigs circle had gone to Vietnam
to participate in the assassination-oriented Phoenix Program; as noted in
chapter 7, Poppy Bush and his colleague, CIA operative Thomas Devine,
had been in Vietnam at the peak of Phoenix, and Bush had ties to at least
some from this émigré group.
So Nixon recognized this tough gang, but this time, they weren't focused on
Fidel Castro; they were focused on Dick Nixon.
Hunt was a familiar figure from the CIA old guard. A near contemporary of
Poppy Bush's at Yale , Hunt had, as noted in earlier
chapters, gone on to star in
numerous agency foreign coup operations, including in Guatemala. He had
worked closely with Cuban émigrés and had been in sensitive positions at the
time John F. Kennedy was murdered and Lee Harvey Oswald named the lone
assassin. Moreover, Hunt had been a staunch loyalist of Allen Dulles, whom
Kennedy had ousted over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; he allegedly even
collaborated on Dulles's 1963 book, The Craft of Intelligence. Hunt was one
connected fellow, and his presence in an operation of this sort, particularly with
veterans of the Cuba invasion, was not something to pass over lightly.
Nixon had further basis for viewing the events of Watergate with special
trepidation. From the moment he entered office until the day, five and a half
years later, when he was forced to resign, Nixon and the CIA had been at
war. Over what? Over records dating back to the Kennedy administration
and even earlier.
Nixon had many reasons to be interested in the events of the early 1960s.
As noted, he had been the "action officer" for the planning of the Bay of Pigs
and the attempt to overthrow Castro. But even more interestingly, Nixon had,
by coincidence, been in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and had left the city
just hours before the man he barely lost to in 1960 had been gunned down.
Five years after the Kennedy assassination, as Richard Nixon himself assumed
the presidency, one of his first and keenest instincts was to try to learn more
about these monumental events of the past decade.
Both of Nixon's chief aides, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, noted
in their memoirs that the president seemed obsessed with what he called
the "Bay of Pigs thing." Both were convinced that when Nixon used the
phrase, it was shorthand for something bigger and more disturbing. Nixon
did not tell even those closest to him what he meant.
When Nixon referred to the Bay of Pigs, he could certainly have been using
it as a euphemism, because any way one thought about it, it spelled
trouble. The Bay of Pigs invasion itself had been a kind of setup of another
president. JFK had made clear that he would not allow U.S. military forces
to be used against Castro. When the invasion by U.S.-backed Cuban exiles
failed, the CIA and the U.S. military hoped this would force Kennedy to
launch an all-out invasion. Instead, he balked, and blamed Dulles and his
associates for the botched enterprise, and, to their astonishment, forced
them out of the agency. As noted in chapter 4, these were the roots of the hatred
felt by Hunt, Dulles, and the Bush family toward Kennedy.
Nixon was keenly aware that Kennedy's battle with powerful internal elements
had preceded JFK's demise. After all, governments everywhere have
historically faced the reality that the apparatus of state security might have
the chief of state in its gun sights -- and that it certainly possesses the ability
to act.
Moreover, Richard Nixon was a curious fellow. Within days of taking
office in 1969, Nixon had begun conducting an investigation of his own regarding
the turbulent and little-understood days leading up to the end of the
Kennedy administration. He had ordered Ehrlichman, the White House
counsel, to instruct CIA director Helms to hand over the relevant files, which
surely amounted to thousands and thousands of documents. Six months
later, Ehrlichman confided to Haldeman that the agency had failed to produce
any of the files.
"Those bastards in Langley are holding back something," a frustrated
Ehrlichman told Haldeman. "They just dig their heels in and say the President
can't have it. Period. Imagine that. The Commander-in-Chief wants to
see a document and the spooks say he can't have it . . . From the way they're
protecting it, it must be pure dynamite."
Nixon himself then summoned Helms, who also refused to help. Helms
would later recall that Nixon "asked me for some information about the Bay
of Pigs and I think about the Diem episode in Vietnam and maybe something
about Trujillo in the Dominican Republic" -- all events involving the
violent removal of foreign heads of state.
Fidel Castro had managed to survive not only the Bay of Pigs but also multiple
later assassination attempts. Diem and Trujillo were not so fortunate.
And President Kennedy, who made a lot of Cuban enemies after the botched
Bay of Pigs operations, had also succumbed to an assassin's bullet. This was a
legacy that might well seize the attention of one of Kennedy's successors.
The explosiveness of the mysterious "Bay of Pigs thing" became abundantly
apparent on June 23, 1972, the day Nixon instructed Haldeman to tell
CIA director Helms to rein in the FBI's Watergate investigation. Recalled
Haldeman:
Then I played Nixon's trump card. "The President asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs might be blown . . ."
Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs." . . . I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?
Nixon made clear to his top aides that he was not only obsessed with the
CIA's murky past, but also its present. He seemed downright paranoid about
the agency, periodically suggesting to his aides that covert operatives lurked
everywhere. And indeed, as we shall see, they did.
In all likelihood, the practice of filling the White House with intelligence
operatives was not limited to the Nixon administration, but an ongoing effort.
To the intelligence community, the White House was no different than
other civil institutions it actively penetrated. Presidents were viewed less as
elected leaders to be served than as temporary occupants to be closely monitored,
subtly guided, and where necessary, given a shove.
If the CIA was in fact trying to implicate Nixon in Watergate (and, as we
shall see, in other illegal and troubling covert operations), the goal might
have been to create the impression that the agency was joined at the hip
with Nixon in all things. Then, if Nixon were to pursue the CIA's possible
role in the assassination of Kennedy, the agency could simply claim that
Nixon himself knew about these illegal acts, or was somehow complicit in
them.
A Little Exposure Never Hurts
Something had been gnawing at Nixon since November 22, 1963. Why had
he ended up in Dallas the very day the man who he believed had stolen the
presidency from him was shot? Nixon had been asked to go there just a few
weeks before, for the rather banal purpose of an appearance at a Pepsi-Cola
corporate meeting -- coinciding with a national soda pop bottlers' convention.
The potential implications could not have been lost on this most shrewd and
suspicious man.
Nixon was no shrinking violet in Dallas. He called a press conference in
his hotel suite on November 21, the day before Kennedy's murder, criticizing
Kennedy's policies on civil rights and foreign relations but also urging
Texans to show courtesy to the president during his visit.
More significantly, he declared his belief that Kennedy was going to replace
Vice President Johnson with a new running mate in 1964. This was
an especially incendiary thing to say, since the whole reason for Kennedy's
visit was to cement his links to Texas Democrats, help bridge a gap between
the populist and conservative wings of the state party, and highlight his partnership
with Johnson. Nixon's comment was hot enough that it gained a place in the
early edition of the November 22 Dallas Morning News, under the headline
"Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson."
This was likely to get the attention of Johnson, who would be in the motorcade
that day -- and of conservatives generally, the bottlers included, whom Johnson
had addressed as keynote speaker at their convention earlier in the week.
Nixon had finished his business and left the city by 9:05 on the morning
of the twenty-second, several hours before Kennedy was shot. He learned
of the event on his arrival back in New York City. Like most people, he no
doubt was shocked and perhaps a bit alarmed. Many people, Nixon included,
believed that Kennedy had stolen the presidential election in 1960 by fixing
vote counts in Texas and Illinois.
At the very least, the appearance of Nixon's November 21 press conference
remarks in the newspaper just hours before Kennedy's death was a
stark reminder of the large and diverse group of enemies, in and out of politics,
that JFK had accumulated.
Certainly, Nixon himself was sensitive to the notion that his appearance
in Dallas had somehow contributed to Kennedy's bloody fate. According to
one account, Nixon learned of the assassination while in a taxi cab en route
from the airport. He claimed at the time and in his memoirs that he was
calm, but his adviser Stephen Hess remembered it differently. Hess was
the
first person in Nixon's circle to see him that day in New York, and he recalled
that "his reaction appeared to me to be, 'There but for the Grace of
God go I.' He was very shaken."
As Hess later told political reporter Jules Witcover: "He had the morning
paper, which he made a great effort to show me, reporting he had held a
press conference in Dallas and made a statement that you can disagree with
a person without being discourteous to him or interfering with him. He
tried to make the point that he had tried to prevent it . . . It was his way of
saying, 'Look, I didn't fuel this thing.' "
Nixon's presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963, along with LBJ's --
and Poppy Bush's quieter presence on the periphery -- created a rather remarkable
situation. Three future presidents of the United States were all present in a
single American city on the day when their predecessor was assassinated
there. Within days, a fourth -- Gerald Ford -- would be asked by LBJ to join
the Warren Commission investigating the event.
Bottled Up
Nixon's unfortunate timing resulted from a series of events that seem, in retrospect,
almost to have benefited from a guiding hand. In mid-1963, friends
had persuaded him that his long-term prospects required a move from California,
where he had lost the 1962 race for the governorship. Now that he
was a two-time loser, Nixon's best hope, they counseled, was to find a position
in New York that would pay him handsomely, and let him politick and
keep himself in the public eye. His friend Donald Kendall, the longtime head
of Pepsi's international operations, offered to make him chairman of the
international division. But the consensus was that a law firm job would suit
him better, so he joined the firm of Mudge, Stern, Baldwin, and Todd.
Kendall sweetened the deal by throwing the law firm Pepsi's lucrative legal
business. In September, Kendall himself was promoted to head the entire
Pepsi company.
On November 1, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, a corrupt
anti-Communist, was overthrown and assassinated. On November 7, Nixon
wrote to GOP strategist Robert Humphreys, expressing outrage over Diem's
death and blaming the Kennedy administration. "Our heavy-handed complicity
in his murder can only have the effect of striking terror in the hearts
of leaders of other nations who presumably are our friends."
Historians disagree on what exactly Kennedy knew about Diem's death,
though Kennedy registered shock at the news -- just as he had when Patrice
Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, was assassinated in 1961.
Kennedy realized that he could be blamed. Later on, it would be established
by the Senate Intelligence Committee that the CIA had been attempting to
kill Lumumba.
Also of interest is a little-noticed comment made by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1966, caught by his own recording equipment, in which he
declared about Diem: "We killed him. We all got together and got a god-
damn bunch of thugs and assassinated him." It is not clear whom he
meant by "we."
Kendall asked Nixon to accompany him to Dallas for the Pepsi corporate
gathering coinciding with the bottlers' convention in late November. The
convention was an important annual event for Pepsi, and so would have
been on Kendall's schedule for a while, though the necessity of Nixon's
presence is less apparent. And with LBJ as keynote speaker, and appearances
by Miss USA, Yogi Berra, and Joan Crawford, Nixon, the two-time loser, did
not even appear at the convention.
For his part, Nixon seems to have agreed to go because it was an opportunity
to share the limelight surrounding Kennedy's visit. And since Nixon was
traveling as a representative of Pepsi, and flying on its corporate plane --
something noted in the news coverage -- Kendall was getting double duty out
of Nixon's play for media attention. That was something Kendall understood
well.
Donald Kendall was, like Nixon and Poppy Bush, a World War II Navy
vet who had served in the Pacific. But instead of politics, he had gone into
the business world, joining the Pepsi- Cola company and rising quickly
through the ranks. Like Nixon and Bush, he was enormously ambitious.
And in his oversight of Pepsi operations abroad, he also shared something
else with them: a deep concern about Communist encroachment -- which
was just about everywhere. Plus Kendall had a passion for covert operations.
Kendall's particular reason for being interested in Cuba was sugar, for
many years a key ingredient of Pepsi-Cola. Cuba was the world's leading
supplier; and Castro's expropriations, and the resulting U.S. embargo, had
caused chaos in the soft drink industry. (It also had affected the fortunes of
Wall Street firms such as Brown Brothers Harriman, which, as noted in
chapter 3, had extensive sugar holdings on the island.)
Indeed, articles from the Dallas papers anticipating the bottlers' convention
talked openly about all these problems with Cuba. One of the articles, titled
"Little Relief Seen for Sugar Problem," explains the pressure
felt by soft drink
bottlers in light of a crisis concerning high sugar prices. The president of a major
New York-based sugar company is quoted explaining why the crisis had
not yet been averted: "The government probably thought the Castro regime
might be eliminated."
It is in this context that we consider a June 1963 letter from Nixon to
Kendall, then still running Pepsi's foreign operations. A researcher working
for me found it in Nixon's presidential library archives; it appears to be previously
unpublished.
Dear Don: In view of our discussion yesterday morning with regard to Cuba, I thought you might like to see a copy of the speech I made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in which I directed remarks toward this problem. When I return from Europe I am looking forward to having a chance to get a further fill-in with regard to your experiences on the Bay of Pigs incident.
Dick
The letter rings a little odd. Nixon and Kendall were close, and more than
two years had passed since the Bay of Pigs; it was unlikely that this would be
the first chance Nixon got to discuss the subject with his friend. Furthermore,
Kendall is not known to have had any "experiences" in relation to the invasion.
In a 2008 interview, Kendall, by then eighty-seven years old but still maintaining
an office at Pepsi and seeming vigorous, said that he could not recall the letter
nor provide an explanation for it.
Given this, the use of the phrase in the letter appears to be some form of
euphemism between friends, a sort of discreet wink. Nixon, the former
coordinator of covert operations under Ike, clearly knew that Kendall was
more than a soda pop man. Nixon's experiences representing Pepsi instilled
in him a lasting -- and not altogether favorable -- impression of what he
acidly termed "the sugar lobby." Haldeman got the message that treading
carefully was wise. Some of his notes are intriguing in this respect. He
urges special counsel Charles Colson:
0900 Cols[on] -- re idea of getting pol. Commitments -- Sugar people are richest & most ruthless before we commit -- shld put screws on & get quid pro quo ie Fl[anigan] -- always go to Sugar lobby or oil etc. before we give them anything
The CIA also knew the soft drink industry well. The agency used bottling
plants, including those run by Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other companies, for
both cover and intelligence. Moreover, the local bottling franchises tended
to be given to crucial figures in each country, with ties to the military and
the ruling elites. It was not just bottlers that played such a role; there were
marketing monopolies for all kinds of products, from cars to sewing machines,
given out on recommendations of the CIA.
Kendall was a close friend of the Bush family and a fellow resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut. In 1988, he would serve in the crucial position of
finance chairman for Poppy Bush's successful run for the presidency. His
support for the Bushes included donating to George W. Bush's 1978 Midland
congressional campaign.
And as noted by the New York Times , Kendall was
identified with the successful
effort to overthrow the elected democratic socialist president of Chile, Salvador
Allende.
As the Times would report in July 1976:
One of Mr. Kendall's great passions is international trade, and his interest in foreign affairs won him a footnote in a 1975 interim report of a Senate Select Committee. The report was called "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," and discussed in part the assassination of Salvador Allende Gossens, the Marxist Chilean president who was killed in 1973. The report stated that Mr. Kendall had requested in 1970 that Augustin Edwards, who was publisher of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, as well as a Pepsi bottler in Chile, meet with high Nixon Administration officials to report on the political situation in Chile. (Pepsi bottling operations were later expropriated by the regime.) That meeting, which included Mr. Kendall, Mr. Edwards, Henry Kissinger and John N. Mitchell, was indeed held, and later the same day, Mr. Nixon met with Dr. Kissinger and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Helms later testified that President Nixon had ordered at the follow-up meeting that Chile was to be saved from Allende "and he didn't care much how." Mr. Kendall says he sees nothing sinister, or for that matter even controversial, in his action.
Like many on the right, quite a few bottlers regarded the Kennedy administration's
policy toward Castro's Cuba as dangerously soft. Declassified FBI
files show that, after Kennedy's death, one man contacted the FBI regarding
threatening remarks that his brother, a bottler, had made in reference to the
president. Another convention attendee was identified in FBI reports as
having had a drink with Jack Ruby, the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald, on
the night of November 21.
Though unhappy with Kennedy, these independent businessmen clearly
wanted to hear what Johnson had to say, which is why the Texas-born vice
president was the convention's keynote speaker.
By some estimates, the convention included close to eight thousand
bottlers -- so many, in fact, that it had taken over Dallas's largest venue, the
new Market Hall. This meant that when Kennedy's trip planners determined
where he would speak on November 22, one of the very few sufficiently large
and central venues had long since been taken. The Dallas Trade Mart thereby
became the most likely location for Kennedy's speech, with the route through
downtown to the Trade Mart, past the Texas School Book Depository, as the
most likely for the presidential motorcade.
In fact, the Trade Mart was secured by that most unlikely group of "friends"
of JFK, the Dallas Citizens Council, whose members' views were described by
the New York Times as "very conservative and range rightward." The council
had cosponsored the luncheon as a putative peace offering to JFK. Indeed, it
seems that JFK's itinerary in Dallas was circumscribed by the bottlers and the
Citizens Council.
The mere fact that eight thousand strangers had poured into Dallas in
the days before JFK's arrival should presumably have been of interest, yet
the Warren Commission ignored the event altogether.
Another interesting thing about the bottlers' convention is that the Army
Reserves volunteered to help facilitate an unusual extracurricular activity.
As noted in chapters 6 and 7, Poppy Bush's friend Jack Crichton was head of
a local Army Intelligence unit. Associates of Crichton's who were involved
with the Army Reserves had managed to get into the pilot car of Kennedy's
procession, with one as the driver. Crichton would also provide the interpreter
for Marina Oswald after her husband's arrest as the prime suspect in
Kennedy's murder.
According to a short item in the Dallas Morning News the day before
Kennedy was shot, members of the Dallas unit of the 90th Artillery Division
of the Army Reserve would be providing trucks and drivers to transport two
hundred orphans to a livestock arena for a rodeo sponsored by the bottlers'
group. This was to take place at nine P.M. on the night before Kennedy's arrival.
The arena was at Fair Park, near the site under which Crichton's Dallas
Civil Defense maintained its underground emergency bunker and communications
facility. Putting aside the Dickensian aspect of moving orphans in
Army trucks within an affluent American city, this raises some questions
about the reason for this odd maneuver. Whatever the true purpose of a small
platoon of Army vehicles being permitted to move about Dallas on purportedly
unrelated civilian business as the president's arrival was imminent, it appears
investigators never considered this incident worthy of a closer look.
Cumulatively, the bottlers' convention was responsible for a number of
curious circumstances that may be said to have some relevance to the
events surrounding Kennedy's death:
• The convention brought Nixon to Dallas.
• It brought eight thousand strangers to Dallas.
• It sent army vehicles into action on city streets the night before the
assassination.
• Its early reservation of one large venue helped determine Kennedy's
ultimate destination and thus the motorcade route.
In any event, as Nixon's adviser Stephen Hess has recounted, the former
vice president emerged deeply shaken about the timing of his Dallas visit. It
served to remind him that if he ever occupied the Oval Office, he too could
be vulnerable and targeted -- by the very same players. And his presence in
this incriminating spot was suggestive of wheels within wheels, to which he
of all people would have been alert. Were these intrigues what fueled President
Nixon's obsession with the CIA and its cloak-and-dagger activities in
the Kennedy era? This little-noted tug-of-war, a struggle over both current
policy and past history, would become an ongoing theme throughout Nixon's
term in office.
The Loyalist in Chief
At one time, Poppy Bush had worked hard to position himself as Richard
Nixon's most loyal servant. An example appeared in a 1971 profile of Poppy
in his role as Nixon's United Nations ambassador. Under the banner headline
"Bush Working Overtime," the Dallas Morning News of September 19,
1971, portrayed the ambassador as poised at the center of world affairs.
Leaning forward at his desk, a large globe next to him, his lean face bearing
a look of calm intensity, George H. W. Bush looked almost presidential.
The reporter for the Texas paper picked up on that. But he was equally
struck by Poppy's devotion to the sitting president. Ambassador Bush, he
noted, "is loyal -- some say to a fault -- to President Nixon, and frequently
quotes him in conversation."
It was the image Poppy wanted to convey. Even when the reporter asked
for his own views, he quickly deferred. "I like to think of myself as a pragmatist,
but I have learned to defy being labeled," Bush said. "What I can say
is that I am a strong supporter of the President."
Of course, when someone defies being labeled, it gives him extraordinary
flexibility to move in different circles, to collect information, to spin on
a dime -- in short, to behave a lot like a covert intelligence officer.
The image of Poppy as the ultimate loyalist was one he would project for
three more years -- right up to the final days of the Nixon presidency. Not
even Nixon, who was famously distrustful, seemed to doubt it. After winning
the 1972 election in the midst of the Watergate scandal, Nixon decided
to hedge his bets and clean house.
Planning to fire all but his most trusted aides, Nixon instructed Ehrlichman
to "eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for
our cause." This trust endured to the end of Nixon's presidency.
If indeed Bush was ever a Nixon loyalist, he certainly flipped the moment
the tide turned. This new stance emerged with the 1974 public release of
the transcript of Nixon's smoking gun conversation with Haldeman. As
Bush would record in his diary after Nixon's final cabinet meeting, the taped
conversation was irrefutable proof that "Nixon lied about his knowledge of
the cover-up of the Watergate scandal . . . I felt betrayed by his lie . . . I want
to make damn clear the lie is something we can't support."
Added Poppy: "This era of tawdry, shabby lack of morality has got to end."
This purported diary entry was most likely part of Poppy's perennial alibi
trail. It could have been Bush family tradecraft, something like Barbara's
Tyler, Texas, hair salon letter from November 22, 1963 -- always intended
for public view. Perhaps the most revealing part is the point at which Bush
summarizes the content of the smoking gun conversation. Poppy selectively
paraphrases a tiny part of that session, making it look as if Nixon had
ordered Haldeman (as Bush put it) to "block the FBI's investigation of the
Watergate break-in." This, Poppy asserted, "was proof [that] the President
had been involved, at least in the cover-up."
What Poppy omitted were two key things: that it was actually John Dean's
suggestion, not Nixon's, to block the investigation -- and that the CIA was at
the center of the intrigue to begin with.
Watergate's Unknown Prelude
The series of scandals that undid Richard Nixon's presidency are principally
identified with the 1972 burglary at the Democratic party offices in the Watergate
complex. But one could argue that Watergate -- and Nixon's
downfall -- really began in late 1969, during Nixon's first year in office, with
a phone call from a man almost no one today has heard of.
An independent oilman named John M. King dialed in to offer ideas for
improving Nixon's hold over Congress. Former White House staffer Jack
Gleason remembered the episode: "[King] called one day in '69 and said,
'You know, we have to start planning for 1970.' "
King's call suggested he was principally concerned about helping Nixon,
but in retrospect, there may have been more at stake. For one thing, King
was a member of the fraternity of independent oilmen who were growing
increasingly unhappy with Nixon. As we saw in the last chapter, the oil barons
were up in arms over threats to the oil depletion allowance, convinced that
Nixon was not solidly enough in their corner. But they had other gripes.
As Haldeman noted in a diary entry in December 1969: "Big problem persists
on oil import quotas. Have to make some decision, and can't win. If
we do what we should, and what the task force recommends, we'd apparently
end up losing at least a couple of senate seats, including George Bush in
Texas. Trying to figure out a way to duck the whole thing and shift it to Congress."
On a more personal level, King was mired in problems. The Denver-based
King had assembled a global empire with oil drilling and mining operations
in a hundred countries; he was known for a high-flying lifestyle and a gift
for leveraging connections. He even had two Apollo astronauts on
his board. In 1968, King had donated $750,000 to Nixon, and as a big donor,
his calls always got attention. But King was, according to a Time magazine
article of the period, something of a huckster. By late 1969, his empire
was on the verge of collapse. In the end, he would face jail and ruin.
Perhaps he was looking to secure intervention from the White House.
Perhaps it was just general business insurance. Or perhaps he was speaking
on behalf of his fellow in dependent oilmen.
In any event, King's pitch sounded like a good idea. He was proposing
that the Nixon White House funnel money from big GOP donors directly to
Senate and House candidates of its choice, rather than following the customary
method: letting the Republican Party determine the recipients. To do this
without provoking the wrath of the GOP establishment, King suggested
it be kept under wraps.
This idea appealed to the White House brass, and soon, a special operation
was being convened.
"As it matured, we had a couple of meetings with Ehrlichman and Haldeman
and went over some of the ground rules," said Gleason. Haldeman
brought the bare bones of the idea to Nixon, who thought it sounded fine.
Anything that involved secrecy and centralized White House control was
likely to find a receptive ear. Gleason's recollection is confirmed by a notation
in Haldeman's diary of December 11: "I had meeting with [Maurice]
Stans, Dent, and Gleason about setting up our own funding for backing the
good candidates in hot races. A little tricky to handle outside the RNC but
looks pretty good."
The White House political unit assigned the job of organizing and running
the new fund to its operative Gleason, an experienced GOP fundraiser.
Gleason was instructed by his boss, Harry Dent, to find an office for the operation.
When he suggested renting space in one of those prefurnished office
suites that come with secretarial and other services, he was told that this
would be too expensive.
That struck Gleason as odd, since it would not have cost much more and
would have been a pittance in relation to the large sums that would be
raised. But he followed his orders and rented something cheaper and more
discreet. Dent directed him to a townhouse on Nineteenth Street, in a residential
area near Dupont Circle. The space was not just in a townhouse but
in the basement of a townhouse. And not only that, it was in the back of the
basement. Reporters would later describe it as a "townhouse basement back
room" -- an arrangement guaranteed to raise eyebrows if ever discovered.
The way in which the funds were to be handled also struck Gleason as
unnecessarily complicated, and even furtive. While donors could simply --
and legally -- have written a single check to each candidate's campaign committee,
they were instructed instead to break up their donations into a number of
smaller checks. The checks were then routed through the townhouse,
where Gleason would pick them up and deposit them in a "Jack
Gleason, Agent" account at American Security and Trust Bank. Gleason
then would convert the amounts into cashier's checks and send them on to
the respective campaign committees, often further breaking each donation
up into smaller ones and spreading them over more than one campaign
committee of each candidate.
The ostensible reason for these complex arrangements was to enable the
White House to control the money. The actual effect, however, was to create
the impression of something illicit, such as a money-laundering operation
aimed at hiding the identities of the donors.
Somewhere along the way Gleason began to detect an odor stronger than
that of quotidian campaign operations. What seemed suspect to him was
not that Nixon would help Republican candidates -- that was how things
worked. What bothered him were the operational details. Many seemed
positively harebrained, the kind of things with which no president should be
associated. But Gleason just figured that Richard Nixon, or his subordinates,
had a blind spot when it came to appearances of impropriety.
Deep-Sixing Nixon
Late in the election season, Gleason's superiors told him to add a new component
to the Townhouse Operation. Gleason found this new development
particularly disturbing. It was called the "Sixes Project." Launched in October
1970, when the midterm elections were almost over, it provided an extra
personal donation of six thousand dollars to each of thirteen Senate
candidates -- in cash.
Gleason's job was simple enough: get on a plane, fly out to meet each of
the candidates, and personally hand over an envelope of cash. He was to add
a personal message: "Here's a gift from Dick and Pat." And he was to keep
meticulous receipts, noting who received the cash and the date of the transaction.
Gleason was not happy about his role as dispenser of envelopes full of
cash. As he told me in a 2008 interview,
Of all the silly things I've ever been asked to do in this life, traveling around with six thousand dollars to give the guy and say, "This is from Dick and Pat," was colossally bad . . . Now you crank me up, leave a paper trail a mile long and a mile wide of flight tickets, hotel reservations, rental cars, everything, and have me traipsing all over the country giving these guys six thousand dollars in cash, [and besides], the six thousand doesn't matter, doesn't get you anywhere. If we give you a quarter of a million, what's another six thousand? . . . The six thousand dollars itself was a disconnect, because everything else was largely done to keep the whole thing under wraps.
In those days, the campaign finance laws, most of which were at the state
level, were limited and rarely enforced. Reporting requirements were thin,
but those candidates who wanted to abide by the law made sure to report
any cash they received to their respective campaign committees. That posed
a challenge for a candidate caught in a grueling nonstop schedule, who was
handed an envelope of cash. It would be easy enough to forget to report it,
whether deliberately or accidentally.
Even back in 1973, Gleason could come to only one conclusion. When
special prosecutors in the Watergate investigation later grilled him about
the Townhouse Operation, he told them as much. "The purpose of these
contributions was to set up possible blackmail for these candidates later
on." However, at that point Gleason assumed that the sponsors of the
blackmail were Nixon loyalists -- perhaps even authorized by the president
himself.
Alarmed at this arrangement, and cognizant that he might be generating
myriad campaign law violations, Gleason asked the White House for a legal
analysis. But despite multiple requests, he never got it. Finally, he asked for
a letter stating that nothing he was being asked to do was illegal. (That letter,
Gleason later explained, would somehow disappear before it could arrive at
the offices of the Watergate prosecutors.)
Since the six-thousand-dollar donations were ostensibly generated by
"Dick and Pat," one could easily surmise that Richard Nixon, or those under
his authority, were indeed out to get something on Republican candidates.
Once they took the cash, the recipients would have to do as he wanted, or
else risk exposure. As Assistant Special Prosecutor Charles Ruff wrote to
his boss: "It has been our guess that [the Nixon White House] hoped to gain
some leverage over these candidates by placing cash in their hands which
they might not report."
Had this become known, Nixon would have had trouble explaining it.
Few would have believed that such a scheme could have been run under
White House auspices without Nixon's approval. And yet that seems to have
been the case. In fact, Nixon's name rarely appears in the Townhouse files of
Watergate prosecutors -- for whom the evidence of Nixon's wrongdoing
would have been the ultimate prize.
Even the complex and calculating Charles Colson, who served as special
counsel to the president in 1970, admitted to prosecutors that Nixon was
not involved. Colson said that he had sat in on a Townhouse planning meeting
and later briefed the president about "political prospects in that race" -
but "did not recall that the fundraising aspects were discussed with the
President."
John Mitchell, who was attorney general before he resigned in 1972 to
head up Nixon's reelection campaign, attended a meeting for "substantial
contributors" and later told prosecutors that "the President stopped by, but
was not present during discussions of campaign finances." Mitchell himself
denied participation in or knowledge of the Town house plan. Even
Herb Kalmbach, Nixon's personal lawyer, seems to have been involved only
in the most benign part of the operation: the legal solicitation of funds from
wealthy donors. Of course, all this could be about denials and deniability -
but as we shall see, it apparently was not.
Meet John Dean
At the time Town house was becoming operational, the position of counsel
to the president opened up. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's trusted aide, was
moving to head up domestic affairs, and Ehrlichman was looking for someone
to replace him -- a smart lawyer and good detail man who was also loyal
to the president. The man who came on board on July 27, 1970, was John
Wesley Dean III.
Dean arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue just as President Nixon was
trying to figure out how to deal with massive street demonstrations against
the Vietnam War. A month before, a White House staffer named Tom Huston
had drawn up a plan to spy on the demonstrators through electronic
surveillance, recruitment of campus informants, and surreptitious entry
into offices and meeting places.
In hindsight, this sounds especially odious, and it was, but at the time, and
from the vantage point of the administration and its supporters in the "silent
majority," America was besieged. The general atmosphere in the country
and the domestic violence, actual and hinted, surrounding the Vietnam War
debate, felt like chaos was descending. Even so, Attorney General John
Mitchell shot down the notorious "Huston Plan." John Dean, however, took
an immediate interest in some of the proposals.
Although his official duties centered on giving the president legal advice --
often on arcane technical matters -- Dean was considered a junior staffer and
had virtually no contact with Nixon. Nevertheless, the White House neophyte
quickly began taking on for himself the far edgier and dubious mantle of
political intelligence guru.
Among the bits of intelligence Dean collected were the details of the
Townhouse Operation. In November 1970, following the midterm elections,
Jack Gleason turned over all his files to the White House, where
Haldeman had them delivered to Dean. Watergate investigators would later
discover that "Haldeman also gave Dean several little notebooks which pertained
to the 1970 fundraising." Those little notebooks would have told Dean who the
donors were, how much they gave, and the identity of the recipients.
Shortly after the files ended up in Dean's hands, the media began
receiving -- perhaps coincidentally -- leaks about the Townhouse Operation.
One of the first reports was an AP article with no byline that appeared
in the New York Times on December 27, 1970. It said that seven
ambassadors had received their positions as rewards for their contributions
to the Townhouse Operation: "Mr. Jack Gleason left the staff of a
White House political operative, Harry Dent, this fall to run the fund-
raising campaign from a basement back office in a Washington townhouse."
And there it was: Gleason caught up in something that sounded
sinister, complete with the townhouse basement back office, all purportedly
on behalf of Richard Nixon.
In February 1972, someone cranked Townhouse back up again. Jim Polk,
an investigative reporter at the Washington Star with an impressive track
record on campaign finance matters, got more information about the fund
from "inside sources."
Polk published an article headlined "Obscure Lawyer Raises Millions for
Nixon." It sounded even more disturbing than the previous one. Polk's article
did two things: it introduced the public to Nixon's personal lawyer Kalmbach
and it provided many new details about the Townhouse fund.
A little-known lawyer in Newport Beach, Calif., has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions as an unpublicized fund- raiser . . . [and] as Nixon's personal agent . . . to collect campaign checks from Republican donors Kalmbach helped to raise nearly $3 million in covert campaign money . . . The checks were sent through a townhouse basement used by former Nixon political aide Jack A. Gleason. But the operation was run from inside the White House by presidential assistant H.R. (Bob) Haldeman . . . Only a portion of this money has shown up on public records. The rest of the campaign checks have been funneled through dummy committees.
When I spoke to Polk in 2008, not surprisingly, he no longer recalled the
identity of his source. But whoever had leaked this story to him was no
friend of Nixon's. Yet if it was intended to provoke further interest, it failed.
Someone had attempted to light a fuse with Townhouse, but it did not ignite.
Just four months later, however, another fuse was lit. And this one would
burn on and on.
The Brazen Burglary
If Townhouse was engineered to discredit Nixon, it had one potential flaw.
The wrongdoing involved technical financial matters that reporters might
find daunting. Watergate, on the other hand, was inherently sexy; it had all
the elements of the crime drama it became. The break-in was brazen and
easily grasped, and carried out in such a manner as to just about guarantee
both failure and discovery. It also involved a cast of characters that neither
reporters nor television cameras could resist (as the Watergate hearings later
would demonstrate). It was like a made-for-TV movie: burglars in business
suits, living in a fancy suite near the scene of the crime; Cuban expatriates;
documents in pockets leading to the White House. Even Nixon had to interrupt
his reelection campaign to confront it.
But the burglars didn't appear to take anything, so what was the intended
crime? Breaking and entering -- for what purpose?
As with the JFK assassination, theories abound. The burglars were found
with bugging equipment. But that made little sense; Nixon didn't have
much to worry about from his presumed Democratic opponent, George
McGovern. The risks of a bugging operation far outweighed any conceivable
gains. And if Nixon had really wanted inside dope on the McGovern
campaign, which he hardly needed, he could have sent teams into McGovern's
headquarters up on Capitol Hill, or to Miami, where the Democrats
would hold their convention.
If, on the other hand, the intent was to fire the public imagination, the
Watergate complex was far better -- and Washington itself a necessary locale
if the national press was to stay with the story week after week.
With all this in mind, Nixon's observation in his memoirs that "the whole
thing was so senseless and bungled that it almost looked like some kind of
a setup" seems on the mark.
If the Cubans were really trying to do the job, their supervisors were
guilty of malpractice. They might as well have called the D.C. police to reserve
an interrogation room.
The flubs were so obvious it was as if they were the work of amateurs --
which it was not. Burglary team member James McCord left tape horizontally
over a lock, so that it could be spotted, as it was, by a security guard
when the door was closed. If he had taped the lock vertically, it would have
been invisible to a passerby. And if the intent was to pull off a real burglary,
there was no need for tape anyway -- as the burglars were already inside.
Even so, after the security guard discovered and removed the tape, McCord
put it right back.
The entire operation reflected poor judgment. An experienced burglar
would have known not to carry any sort of identification, and certainly not
identification that led back to the boss. How elementary is that? Among the
incriminating materials found on the Watergate burglars was a check with
White House consultant E. Howard Hunt's signature on it -- and Hunt's
phone number at the White House, in addition to checks drawn on Mexican
bank accounts. Despite the obvious risks, the burglars were also instructed
by Hunt to register at the Watergate Hotel, and to keep their room keys in
their pockets during the mission. These keys led investigators straight back
to an array of incriminating evidence, not the least damaging of which was
a suitcase containing the burglars' ID cards. Everything pointed back to
CREEP and the White House.
The most interesting thing was that the materials identified the burglars
as connected not just to the White House, but to the CIA as well. And not
just to the CIA, but to a group within the CIA that had been active during
the controversial period that included the Bay of Pigs invasion and the
assassination of JFK.
Hunt, whose status in the CIA was described earlier, was a high-ranking
(GS-15) officer and a member of the "Plumbers," a White House special
investigations unit ostensibly dedicated to stopping government leaks to the
media. As discussed in chapter 6, Hunt had been a key player in the coup in
Guatemala and the Bay of Pigs invasion, in addition to working very closely
with Allen Dulles himself. As noted previously, Dulles was in Dallas shortly
before November 22.
And Hunt had been there on the very day of the assassination, according
to an account confirmed in 1978 by James Angleton, the longtime CIA
counterintelligence chief. Angleton, clearly concerned that investigations
would uncover Hunt's presence in Dallas anyway, went so far as to alert a
reporter and a House Committee to Hunt's being in the city that day, and
then opined that Hunt had been involved in unauthorized activities while
there; 'Some very odd things were going on that were out of our control."
Watergate burglar and electronic surveillance expert James McCord, like
Hunt, had also been a GS-15 agent, serving for over a decade in the CIA's
Office of Security. Around the time of the Kennedy assassination, he began
working with anti-Castro Cubans on a possible future invasion of the island.
Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel, saying,
"This man is the best man we have." Regarding Nixon, McCord dismissed
him to a colleague as not a team player, not "one of us."
In a long-standing tradition, both Hunt and McCord had officially "resigned"
from the agency prior to the Watergate time frame. But their continued
involvement in CIA-related cover operations suggested otherwise.
Indeed, as noted earlier in the book, many figures, including Poppy Bush's
oil business colleague Thomas J. Devine, officially took retirement prior to
participating in seemingly independent operations in which deniability was
crucial.
Though Hunt claimed to have cut his CIA ties, he actually went out of
his way to draw attention to those ties while working in the Nixon White
House. He ostentatiously ordered a limousine to drive him from the
White House out to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. It was as though
he was trying to broadcast the notion that Nixon was working closely with
the agency -- with which, as we now know, the president was in reality battling.
After Hunt's alleged retirement, he was employed at the Mullen Company,
a public relations firm that served as a CIA cover. In a 1973 memo, Charles
Colson recounted a meeting he'd just had with Senate Republican minority
leader Howard Baker. Charles Colson wrote, "Baker said that the Mullen
Company was a CIA front, that [Hunt's] job with the Mullen Company was
arranged by [CIA director] Helms personally." Baker also informed Colson
that, during Hunt's time at the Mullen Company, his pay had been adjusted to
the exact salary he would have been making had he stayed at the spy agency.
Eugenio Martinez, one of the anti-Castro Cuban burglars, was another
CIA operative in the break-in crew. Indeed, he was the one member of the
team who remained actively on the CIA payroll, filing regular reports on the
activities of the team to his Miami case officer. Then there was Bernard L.
Barker, who first worked as an FBI in formant before being turned over to
the CIA during the run-up to the Bay of Pigs. Frank Sturgis, too, had CIA
connections. Martinez, Barker, and Sturgis had worked with Hunt and Mc-
Cord on the Second Naval Guerrilla operation.
So Nixon, who had been trying to see the CIA's file on the Bay of Pigs,
was now staring at a burglary purportedly carried out in his name by veterans
of the same "Bay of Pigs thing" with strong CIA ties. It was like a flashing
billboard warning. CIA professionals, Cuban exiles, all tied to the events
of 1961 through 1963, suddenly appearing in the limelight and tying themselves
and their criminal activity to the president.
If most of us ever knew, we have probably long since forgotten that before
the June 1972 Watergate break-in, there was another Watergate break-in
by the same crew. With this earlier one, though, they were careful to avoid
detection and were not caught. At that time, they installed listening devices.
The second burglary, the one that seemingly was designed for detection,
and designed to be traced back to the Nixon White House, ostensibly revolved
around removing listening devices installed earlier -- and therefore drawing
attention to the devices and the surveillance.
The conclusion one would likely draw from their being caught red-handed
is that Dick Nixon is up to yet another manifestation of his twisted and illegal
inclinations. And what were they listening to? Purportedly, DNC personnel
were arranging for "dates" for distinguished visitors with a call-girl ring. The
ring was operating from down the street, not far from where the bugs were
being monitored. The conclusion is that Nixon was perhaps trying to sexually
blackmail the Democrats. It got more and more objectionable.
But the fact is that no evidence shows Nixon wanting to sexually blackmail
Democrats, nor wanting to install bugs at the DNC, nor wanting to
order a burglary to remove the bugs. Yet somebody else clearly had a good
imagination, and a talent for executing a script that was magnificently inculpatory
of someone who would appear to deserve removal from the highest
office in the land.
Eventually, Americans would learn that the Watergate break-ins were
not the first such operation that made Nixon look bad, and not the first coordinated
by Hunt and featuring Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Back in September 1971, the team hit the Beverly Hills office of Dr.
Lewis Fielding, the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the whistle-blower who
leaked the explosive Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. First, though,
Nixon, who was initially indifferent over the leak, was persuaded to take on
the Times for publishing the documents, a posture that would position him
as a foe of public disclosure. It also escalated his already adversarial relationship
with the news media -- a relationship that would become a severe
disadvantage to Nixon as the Watergate "revelations" began to emerge.
Nixon was also persuaded to authorize the formation of a leak-busting
White House group, which was soon dubbed "the Plumbers." Soon, purportedly
operating on Nixon's behalf -- but without his actual approval -- the
Hunt team broke into Dr. Fieldingís office, having been told to photograph
Ellsberg's patient files.
However, as with Watergate, the burglary appears to have had an ulterior
motive. Senator Baker, ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee,
learned of this, according to White House special counsel Charles
Colson, when Baker interviewed the Cuban émigré Eugenio Martinez, who
participated in the burglaries of both Fielding's office and the DNC office in
Watergate:
Baker told me of his interview with Martinez who said that there were no patient records in Dr. Fielding's office, that he, Martinez, was very disappointed when they found nothing there, but Hunt on the other hand seemed very pleased and as a matter of fact broke out a bottle of champagne when the three men returned from the job. Martinez says that he has participated in three hundred or four hundred similar CIA operations, that this was clearly a 'cover' operation with no intention of ever finding anything.
In fact, though the burglars were ostensibly seeking records while on a
covert mission, they did not act like people who wished to avoid discovery. In
addition to smashing the windows and prying open the front door with a crowbar,
the burglars proceeded to vandalize the office, scattering papers, pills, and
files across the floor. The result was to ensure the generation of a crime report,
establishing a record of the burglary. The break-in would not become public
knowledge until John Dean dramatically revealed it two years later --
and implicitly tied Nixon to it by citing the involvement of Egil Krogh, the man in
charge of Nixon's so-called Plumbers unit.
Dean and his lawyers showed far greater enthusiasm for pursuing the
Beverly Hills break-in than even the prosecutors. As Renata Adler wrote in
the New Yorker: "Dean's attorney, Charles Shaffer, practically had to spell it
out to [the prosecutors] that they would be taking part in an obstruction of
justice themselves if they did not pass the information on."
Like Watergate, the Fielding office break-in was on its face a very bad idea
that was not approved by Nixon but certain to deeply embarrass him and
damage his public standing when it was disclosed. The principal accomplishment
of the break-in was to portray Nixon as a man who had no decency
at all -- purportedly even stooping to obtain private psychiatric records
of a supposed foe. This was almost guaranteed to provoke public revulsion.
The notion that a group surrounding the president could be working to
do him in might sound preposterous to most of us. But not to veterans of
America's clandestine operations, where the goal abroad has often been to
do just that. And Nixon was a perfect target: solitary, taciturn, with few
friends, and not many more people he trusted. Because of this, he had to
hire virtual strangers in the White House, and as a result, the place was
teeming with schemers. Nixon was too distrustful, and yet not distrustful
enough. It was supremely ironic. Nixon, ridiculed for his irrational hatred
and "paranoia" toward the Eastern Establishment, may in the end have been
done in by forces controlled by that very establishment. Of course, it was
nothing less than that level of power to remove presidents, plural, one after
the other if necessary.
Among the myriad plots was the so-called Moorer-Radford affair, cited in
chapter 9, in which the military actually was spying on Nixon and stealing
classified documents in an attempt to gain inside information, influence
policy, and perhaps even unseat the president.
That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the
perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional
stake in Nixon's guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on
Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion:
that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes
a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on
essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984's Secret Agenda,
by former Harper's magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991's Silent
Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin; and 2008's The Strong Man, by
James Rosen.
Rosen's The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate is a biography
of Nixon's close friend, attorney general, and campaign chief, the
highest-ranking official ever to be sentenced to prison. The book, on which
Rosen labored for seventeen years, is based on sources not previously interviewed
and also on unprecedented access to documents generated by the Senate
Watergate Committee and Watergate special prosecutors. Rosen asserts
that the Watergate operation was authorized behind Mitchell's back by his
subordinate Jeb Magruder and by John Dean and was deliberately sabotaged
in its execution by burglar and former CIA officer James McCord. As Rosen
puts it:
Mitchell knew he had been set up. In later years, his mind reeled at the singular confluence of amazing characters that produced Watergate -- Dean, Magruder, Liddy, Helms, Hunt, McCord, Martinez -- and reckoned himself and the president, neither of whom enjoyed foreknowledge of the Watergate break-in, victims in the affair. "The more I got into this," Mitchell said in June 1987, "the more I see how these sons of bitches have not only done Nixon in but they've done me in."
Rosen also writes:
The [Watergate] tapes unmasked Nixon not as the take-charge boss of a criminal conspiracy but rather as an aging and confused politician lost in a welter of detail, unable to distinguish his Magruders from his Strachans, uncertain who knew what and when, what each player had told the grand jury, whose testimony was direct, whose hearsay.
My independent research takes the argument one step further, and the facts in a completely
new direction. It leads to an even more disturbing conclusion as to what
was really going on, and why.
Woodward at His Post
The accepted narrative of Nixon as the villain of Watergate is based largely on
the work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They both were young reporters
on the Washington Post's Metro desk when the story fell into their
laps.
When it was over, they were household names. Woodward in particular would
go on to become the nation's most visible investigative journalist, and indeed
the iconic representation of that genre. The work of "Woodstein" would play a
key role in enhancing the franchise of the Post itself. Yet this oeuvre -- in
particular the role of Woodward -- has become somewhat suspect among those
who have taken a second and third look -- including Columbia Journalism
Review contributing editor Steve Weinberg, in a November/December 1991
article.
Woodward did not fit the profile of the typical daily print reporter. Young,
midwestern, Republican, he attended Yale on an ROTC scholarship and
then spent five years in the Navy. He had begun with a top-secret security
clearance on board the USS Wright, specializing in communications, including
with the White House.
His commanding officer was Rear Admiral Robert O. Welander, who
would later be implicated in the military spy ring in the Nixon White
House, mentioned in chapter 9. According to Silent Coup, an exhaustive
study of the military espionage scandal, Woodward then arrived in Washington,
where he worked on the staff of Admiral Thomas Moorer, chief of naval
operations, again as a communications officer, this time one who provided
briefings and documents to top brass in the White House on national security
matters. According to this account, in 1969-70, Woodward frequently
walked through the basement offices of the White House West Wing with
documents from Admiral Moorer to General Alexander Haig, who served
under Henry Kissinger.
In a 2008 interview, Woodward categorically denied having any intelligence
connections. He also denied having worked in the White House or
providing briefings there. "It's a matter of record in the Navy what I did,
what I didn't do," Woodward said. "And this Navy Intelligence, Haig and so
forth, you know, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge it if it's true. It just
isn't. Can you accept that?"
Journalist Len Colodny, however, has produced audiotapes of interviews
by his Silent Coup coauthor, Robert Gettlin, with Admiral Moorer, former defense
secretary Melvin Laird, Pentagon spokesman Jerry Friedheim -- and
even with Woodward's own father, Al -- speaking about Bob's White House
service.
At a minimum, Woodward's entry into journalism received a valuable
outside assist, according to an account provided by Harry Rosenfeld, a retired
Post editor, to the Saratogian newspaper in 2004:
Bob had come to us on very high recommendations from someone in the White House. He had been an intelligence officer in the Navy and had served in the Pentagon. He had not been exposed to any newspaper. We gave him a tryout because he was so highly recommended. We customarily didn't do that. We wanted to see some clips, and he had none of that. We tried him out, and after a week or two I asked my deputy, "What's with this guy?" And he said well, he's a very bright guy but he doesn't know how to put the paper in the typewriter. But he was bright, there was that intensity about him and his willingness, and he acted maturely. So we decided because he had come so highly recommended and he had shown certain strengths that we would help get him a job at the Montgomery County Sentinel.
In 2008, some time after I spoke to Woodward, I reached Rosenfeld. He
said he did not recall telling the Saratogian that Woodward had been hired
on the advice of someone in the White House. He did, however, tell me that
he remembered that Woodward had been recommended by Paul Ignatius,
the Post's president. Prior to taking over the Post's presidency, Ignatius had
been Navy secretary for President Johnson.
In a 2008 interview, Ignatius told me it was possible that he had a hand
in at least recommending Woodward. "It's possible that somebody asked
me about him, and it's possible that I gave him a recommendation," Ignatius
said. "I don't remember initiating anything, but I can't say I didn't." I
asked Ignatius how a top Pentagon administrator such as himself would
even have known of a lowly lieutenant, such as Woodward was back in
those days, and Ignatius said he did not recall.
In September 1971, after one year of training at the Maryland-based Sentinel,
Woodward was hired at the Washington Post . The Post
itself is steeped
in intelligence connections. The paper's owner, the Graham family, were, as
noted in chapter 3, aficionados of the apparatus, good friends of top spies,
and friends also of Prescott Bush. They even helped fund Poppy Bush's earliest
business venture. Editor Ben Bradlee was himself a Yale graduate who,
like Woodward, had spent time in naval intelligence during World War II.
(As noted earlier, Poppy Bush had also been associated with naval intelligence
during World War II: prior to beginning his work with the CIA, he had
been involved with top-secret aerial reconnaissance photography.)
Woodward demonstrated his proclivity for clandestine sources a month
before the Watergate break-in, in his coverage of the shooting and serious
wounding of presidential candidate George Wallace at a shopping center in
Washington's Maryland suburbs. A lone gunman, Arthur Bremer, would be
convicted. Woodward impressed his editors with his tenacity on the case,
and his contacts. As noted in a journalistic case study published by Columbia
University:
At the time, according to [Post editors Barry] Sussman and [Harry]
Rosenfeld, Woodward said he had "a friend" who might be able to
help. Woodward says his "friend" filled him in on Bremer's background
and revealed that Bremer had also been stalking other
presidential candidates.
As to Woodward's initial introduction to the newspaper, nobody seems to
have questioned whether a recommendation from someone in the White
House would be an appropriate reason for the Post to hire a reporter. Nor
does anyone from the Post appear to have put a rather obvious two and two
together, and noted that Woodward made quick work of bringing down the
president, and therefore wondered who at the White House recommended
Woodward in the first place -- and with what motivation.
Others, however, were more curious. After Charles Colson met with Senator
Howard Baker and his staff -- including future senator Fred Thompson --
he recounted the session in a previously unpublished memo to file:
The CIA has been unable to determine whether Bob Woodward was employed by the agency. The agency claims to be having difficulty checking personnel files. Thompson says that he believes the delay merely means that they don't want to admit that Woodward was in the agency. Thompson wrote a lengthy memo to Baker last week complaining about the CIA's non-cooperation, the fact that they were supplying material piecemeal and had been very uncooperative. The memo went into the CIA relationship with the press, specifically Woodward. Senator Baker sent the memo directly to [CIA Director] Colby with a cover note and within a matter of a few hours, Woodward called Baker and was incensed over the memo. It had been immediately leaked to him.
Woodward's good connections would help generate a series of exclusive-
access interviews that would result in rapidly produced bestselling books.
One was Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, a controversial book
that relied in part, Woodward claimed, on a deathbed interview -- not
recorded -- with former CIA director William Casey. The 543-page book,
which came out as Poppy Bush was seeking the presidency, contained no
substantive mentions of any role on the part of Bush in these "secret wars,"
though Bush was both vice president with a portfolio for covert ops and a
former CIA director.
Asked how it was possible to leave Bush out of such a detailed account of
covert operations during his vice presidency, Woodward replied, "Bush was,
well, I don't think he was -- What was it he said at the time? I was out of the
loop?" Woodward went on to be blessed with unique access to George W.
Bush -- a president who did not grant a single interview to America's top
newspaper, the New York Times, for nearly half his administration -- and the
automatic smash bestsellers that guaranteed. Woodward would also distinguish
himself for knowing about the administration's role in leaking the
identity of CIA undercover officer Valerie Plame but not writing or saying
anything about it, despite an ongoing investigation and media tempest.
When this was revealed, Woodward issued an apology to the Post.
To its credit, the Washington Post in these years had other staffers doing
some of the best reporting on the intelligence establishment. Perhaps the
most revealing work came prior to Nixon's tenure, while Woodward was still
doing his naval service. In a multipart, front-page series by Richard Harwood
in early 1967, the paper began reporting the extent to which the CIA
had penetrated civil institutions not just abroad, but at home as well. "It was
not enough for the United States to arm its allies, to strengthen governmental
institutions, or to finance the industrial establishment through economic
and military programs," Harwood wrote. "Intellectuals, students, educators,
trade unionists, journalists and professional men had to be reached directly
through their private concerns." Journalists too. Even Carl Bernstein later
wrote about the remarkable extent of the CIA's penetration of newsrooms,
detailing numerous examples, in a 1977 Rolling Stone article. As for the Post
itself, Bernstein wrote:
When Newsweek was purchased by the
Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press. Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
In 1965-66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.
Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.
When the Watergate burglary story broke, Bob Woodward got the assignment,
in part, his editor Barry Sussman recalled, because he never
seemed to leave the building. "I worked the police beat all night," Wood-
ward said in an interview with authors Tom Rosenstiel and Amy S.
Mitchell, "and then I'd go home -- I had an apartment five blocks from the
Post -- and sleep for a while. I'd show up in the newsroom around 10 or 11
[in the morning] and work all day too. People complained I was working too
hard." So when the bulletin came in, Woodward was there. The result was
a front-page account revealing that E. Howard Hunt's name appeared in the
address book of one of the burglars and that a check signed by Hunt had
been found in the pocket of another burglar, who was Cuban. It went further:
Hunt, Woodward reported, worked as a consultant to White House counsel
Charles Colson.
Thus, Woodward played a key role in tying the burglars to Nixon.
Woodward would later explain in All the President's Men (coauthored with
Bernstein) that to find out more about Hunt, he had "called an old friend
and sometimes source who worked for the federal government." His friend
did not like to be contacted at this office and "said hurriedly that the break-
in case was going to 'heat up,' but he couldn't explain and hung up." Thus
began Woodward's relationship with Deep Throat, that mysterious source
who, Woodward would later report, served in the executive branch of government
and had access to information in the White House and CREEP.
Based on tips from Deep Throat, Woodward and Bernstein began to "follow
the money," writing stories in September and October 1972 on a political
"slush fund" linked to CREEP. One story reported that the fund had
financed the bugging of the Democratic Party's Watergate headquarters as
well as other intelligence-gathering activities. While Nixon coasted to a
landslide victory over the liberal Democrat George McGovern, the story
seemed to go on hiatus. But just briefly.
Poppy Enters, Stage Right
If someone did want to undermine the president from outside the White
House, he couldn't have found a better perch than the chairmanship of the
Republican Party.
Right after the election, Poppy Bush, again utilizing his pull with Nixon,
had persuaded the president to bring him back from his cushy U.N. post
and install him at the Republican National Committee. This put him at the
very epicenter of the nationwide Republican elite that would ultimately
determine whether Nixon would stay or go.
As chairman of the RNC, Poppy was expected to be the president's chief
advocate, especially to the party faithful. He would travel widely, interact
with big donors and party activists. If anyone would have their finger on the
pulse of the loyalist base, it was Poppy. He would have a good sense of what
would keep supporters in line, and conversely, what might convince them to
abandon ship.
But Poppy was unique among RNC chairmen over the years in that he
had convinced Nixon to let him maintain an official presence at the White
House. Just as Nixon had permitted him to participate in cabinet meetings
as U.N. ambassador, he now continued to extend that privilege while Poppy
ran the RNC. This was unprecedented for someone in such an overtly partisan
position.
Here was a man closely connected to the CIA, as we have seen, now both
running the Republican Party and sitting in on cabinet deliberations. An
intelligence officer couldn't have asked for a better perch. Moreover, this put
him in the catbird seat just as Watergate began heating up.
But Poppy was even more wired into Nixonworld. When he came to the
RNC, he hired Harry Dent and Tom Lias, the top officials of Nixon's Political
Affairs office, which had established the Town house Operation. Dent was
the architect of Nixon's Southern strategy, with which Poppy Bush and his
backers were closely allied. Lias had ties to Poppy from before working in
the White House. He had been a top organizer for the Republican Congressional
Campaign Committee, strategizing how to elect people like Poppy to
formerly Democratic seats in the South.
After Poppy came to Washington, the two often socialized. According to
Pierre Ausloos, stepfather of Lias's daughter, and a friend of the family, "On
weekends, Bush would always invite [Lias] for a barbecue party at his house
here in Washington." Ausloos also remembers that during the 1968
Republican convention, Liasís daughter's babysitter was Poppy's son, George
W. Bush.
Thus, at the time Dent and Lias were installed in the White House Political
Affairs office, they were already close with Bush. Indeed, right after the
1970 election and the termination of the Town house Operation, Bush took
Lias with him to New York, where Lias served as a top aide on Poppy's
United Nations staff. The U.N. choice struck people who knew Lias as odd.
Lias had no relevant qualifications or knowledge for the U.N. post, just as
Poppy himself didn't.
Poppy's decision, once he moved to the RNC, to hire both Lias and
Dent -- the two men supervising Jack Gleason's Town house Operation --
is surely significant.
Meanwhile, Poppy Bush and his team had already been in contact with
John Dean.
In a brief 2008 conversation, in which a prickly Dean sought to control
the conditions of the interview, I asked him whether he had any dealings
with Bush. "I think there are some phone calls on my phone logs, but I
never met with him personally," he said.
Indeed, phone logs show that on June 24, 1971, Ambassador Bush called
Dean, and on December 6, 1971, Tom Lias of Ambassador Bush's office
called. The logs show other calls from Lias as well. It is not clear -- nor did
Dean volunteer an opinion -- why Bush and Lias would have been calling
him at all.
Slumming in Greenwich
When the Senate created a committee to investigate Watergate, there was no
guarantee that anything would come of it. The perpetrators -- the burglars
and their supervisors, Hunt and Liddy -- were going on trial, and it was uncertain
whether the hearings would produce any further insights. Moreover,
the committee featured four rather somnolent Democrats and three Republicans,
two of them staunch Nixon loyalists.
This left only one wild card: Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican from
Connecticut.
A freshman, and an independent one, Weicker was not disposed to knee-
jerk defense of Nixon. Furthermore, he saw himself as a crusader. At six feet
six, Weicker was imposing, considered basically well-intentioned, a little
naive, and in love with publicity. He had gotten his political start in the
Bush hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut; and like the Bushes, he was
heir to a family fortune, in his case from two grandfathers who owned the
Squibb pharmaceutical company.
But there the similarities ended. Weicker chose for his base Greenwich's
Third Voting District, which consisted almost entirely of working-class
Italians. "Just decent, hard-working, down-to-basics families," Weicker
would say. "Had I been raised as a typical Republican in the salons of Fair-
field County, discussing international issues at teas and cocktail parties,
I know my career would have been a short one once off the Greenwich
electoral scene." In 1960, Weicker aligned himself with Albert Morano,
a congressional candidate opposed by the Bush family. Now the Bushes
saw Weicker as a traitor to his class. Over the years, Weicker and Bush
would generally maintain a cool but civil relationship, driven by political
expediency.
"I think he was viewed as an outsider from day one, and it was a perspective
he relished," said Townhouse operative Jack Gleason. "Because he
always used to joke about 'the Round Hill boys out to get me again' every
time he was up for reelection."
Weicker had arrived in Washington in 1968, following his election to the
House of Representatives. Given the past, this would have made him a
not-very-welcome colleague of Poppy Bush. And Poppy probably was not
enthused when, after only two years in the House, Weicker was elected
to Prescott Bush's old Senate seat -- in the same year Poppy lost his second
Senate bid. Weicker's star was rising faster than Poppy's -- and in the Bush
home state to boot. It must have rankled.
Still, Weicker's least endearing qualities -- his considerable ambition,
love of publicity, and penchant for self-aggrandizement -- would shortly
prove useful in at least one respect: as a champion of the "truth" on the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, commonly
known as the Watergate Committee. The same Republican maverick who
had no qualms about challenging his party's leadership in Connecticut
would soon debut his maverick persona on the national stage.
In his memoirs, Weicker writes that he was given the Watergate Committee
assignment because he was one of only two Republicans who volunteered
and that his interest in "campaign financing" and dwindling faith in
the democratic process spurred his personal interest. Interestingly, the
other Republican volunteer, stalwart conservative Edward J. Gurney of Florida,
had won his seat with the help of Bush's top political lieutenant, Jimmy
Allison -- and eldest son George W. Bush, who took the extraordinary step of
securing a leave from his National Guard unit in 1968, when he had barely
begun his military training. The other Republican on the committee was Minority
Leader Howard Baker, a moderate. Weicker was the only Republican
on the committee with the inclination to prove his independence from the
party and openly challenge the president.
By the spring of 1973, six defendants had been sentenced in the DNC burglary,
and the Watergate hearings were due to begin. There was now an opportunity
for Nixon to put the whole Watergate affair behind him, without
mortal damage to his presidency. Weicker, however, already saw his role as
an honest broker, and he criticized Nixon's attempts at tamping down the
matter. "I think the national interest is achieved by opening, not closing, the
White House doors," he said. He added that he would vote in favor of subpoenas
for White House officials to appear before the committee.
Poppy Bush apparently agreed. On March 20, the day after Weicker's remarks,
Poppy went to see Nixon at the Oval Office. In his usual oblique way,
ascribing his advice to others, he urged Nixon to send John Dean to testify.
BUSH: We're getting hit a little bit, Mr. President . . . It's building, and the mail's getting heavier . . . NIXON: What do you think you can do about it? . . . We've got hearings coming up. The hearings will make it worse. BUSH: . . . I was speaking with the executives at the Bull Elephants The guy said to me, why doesn't the President send Dean? . . . The disclosure is what they're calling for. NIXON: We are cooperating They don't want any cooperation. They aren't interested in getting the facts. They're only interested in [politicalgains?] I wish there were an answer to Watergate, but I just don't know any . . . I don't know a damn thing to do. [emphasis added]
John Ehrlichman remembers that meeting well, as noted in his memoirs.
"Bush argued that the only way to blunt the current onslaught in the newspapers
and on television was for the president to be totally forthcoming -- to
tell everything he knew about all aspects of Watergate."
This was a significant moment, where Poppy demonstrates a possible
connection to and interest in Dean. It was a sort of specific advice that warrants
attention, because it is an indication that the outsider Bush is unusually
well informed about who knows what inside the White House --
and encourages Nixon to let Dean begin confessing his knowledge. When I
asked Dean in 2008 why he thought Poppy Bush was suggesting he testify,
he said he had no idea.
Nixon resisted Poppy's advice to have Dean testify because, Nixon maintained,
there was no White House staff involvement in Watergate, and
therefore Dean's testimony would serve only to break executive privilege,
once and for all. "The president can't run his office by having particularly
his lawyer go up and testify," Nixon told Poppy.
If Poppy Bush seemed to have unusually good intelligence as to what
was happening in the Oval Office, it might have had something to do with
a good friend of his who was right in there with Nixon and Dean during the
most critical days of Watergate. Richard A. Moore, a lawyer who served as a
kind of elder statesman off of whom Nixon and Mitchell could bounce
ideas, was, like Poppy, an alumnus of Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.
Moore served as special assistant to the chief of military intelligence during
World War II and is believed to have transitioned to civilian intelligence
after the war. Over the years, Moore was practically a member of the
extended Bush clan, exchanging intimate notes with Poppy and even joining
family dinners.
Moore shows up in background roles on a number of Nixon tapes, and
phone logs show a flurry of phone calls between Moore and Dean, especially
in the final weeks before Dean turned on Nixon. In a little-reported taped telephone
conversation from March 16, Dean tells Nixon that he and Moore are
working on a Watergate report; he also mentions that he and Moore drive
home together. On March 20, in an Oval Office meeting featuring Nixon,
Dean, and Moore -- just prior to Nixon's meeting with Poppy Bush --
Moore can be heard typing the report in the background.
Dean would later write that the term "cancer" as used in his famous "cancer
on the presidency" briefing had been suggested by Moore -- who though a close
Nixon adviser in these sensitive days, managed to emerge from Watergate
obscure and unscathed. His Watergate testimony did not support Dean, but
he tended to be ambiguous. As Time magazine noted on July 23, 1973,
"The Moore testimony was certainly not evidence that the President
had had prior knowledge of the Plumbers' felonious break-in. But it seemingly
betrayed a curious nonchalance on the President's part toward questionable
activities by White House staffers."
Later, with Nixon departing and Ford preparing to become president,
Moore urged Ford to make Poppy Bush his vice president, arguing that
Bush had strong economic credentials. Moore specifically cited Poppy's ties
to Wall Street through his father and grandfather, "both highly respected investment
bankers in New York." Moore would go on to work on all of Poppy
Bush's presidential campaigns, including his unsuccessful 1980 bid, and
would in 1989 be named by Poppy as his ambassador to Ireland.
Repeat After Me
Immediately after Poppy tried to convince Nixon to send Dean to testify,
Dean himself telephoned the president. Dean asked to urgently meet the
following morning and carefully explained to Nixon that there were important
details of which the president was unaware and that he would tell him
about these things -- but did not yet tell him:
DEAN: I think that one thing that we have to continue to do, and particularly right now, is to examine the broadest, broadest implications of this whole thing, and, you know, maybe about thirty minutes of just my recitations to you of facts so that you operate from the same facts that everybody else has. NIXON: Right. DEAN: I don't think -- we have never really done that. It has been sort of bits and pieces. Just paint the whole picture for you, the soft spots, the potential problem areas [emphasis added]
In other words, Dean was admitting, nine months into the scandal, that
he knew quite a bit about Watergate that he had never revealed to the president.
Now Dean planned to clue him in.
Nixon then inquired about the progress on a public statement Dean was
to be preparing -- and was made to understand that the statement was going
to try to avoid specifics, i.e., employ a common practice, stonewalling:
NIXON: And so you are coming up, then with the idea of just a stonewall then? Is that -- DEAN: That's right. NIXON: Is that what you come down with? DEAN: Stonewall, with lots of noises that we are always willing to cooperate, but no one is asking us for anything.
Nixon went on to pressure Dean to issue a statement to the cabinet explaining,
in very general terms, the White House's willingness to cooperate in any
investigations. Without going into detail, Nixon wanted to publicly defend the
innocence of White House officials whom he believed were innocent:
NIXON: I just want a general -- DEAN: An all-around statement. NIXON: That's right. Try just something general. Like "I have checked into this matter; I can categorically, based on my investigation, the following: Haldeman is not involved in this, that and the other thing. Mr. Colson did not do this; Mr. So- and- so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this." Right down the line, taking the most glaring things. If there are any further questions, please let me know. See? DEAN: Uh huh, I think we can do that.
But Dean apparently didn't intend to "do that." He was seemingly waiting
for the right moment to create the right effect -- and that moment would not
come until he had jumped the wall to the other side and become the key witness
for the prosecution.
In Haldemans diary entry of the same day, he observes that Nixon wants
to come clean, but that Dean is warning him not to:
[The president] feels strongly that we've got to say something to get ourselves away from looking like we're completely on the defensive and on a cover-up basis. If we . . . are going to volunteer to send written statements . . . we might as well do the statements now and get them publicized and get our answers out. The problem is that Dean feels this runs too many leads out. [emphasis added]
Thus, according to this account, Nixon was interested in facing his problems.
This included, it appears, telling what they knew -- Nixon's version, in
any case.
And John Dean was urging Nixon not to do that. To make that case, Dean
was feeding Nixon's paranoia. In other words, Dean seemed to be saying:
Too many leads out. Let me control this process.
In response to a combination of events -- Weicker's call for more disclosure,
Bush's intervention with Nixon aimed at forcing Dean to testify, and
Dean's own insistence that there was more to the story -- Nixon met with
Dean the next day. That conversation, together with the smoking gun episode,
would help seal Nixon's fate.
On the morning of March 21, Nixon's White House counsel stepped
into the Oval Office and proceeded to deliver a speech that would make
Dean famous for the rest of his life. He would dramatically warn the president
of a "cancer on the presidency" soon to become inoperable. This
speech, which would shortly become Dean's principal evidence against
Nixon, may have been carefully calculated based on Dean's awareness
that the conversations were being taped. (Dean would later say he suspected
he was being taped, but as we shall see, he may have known for certain.)
In fact, for this dramatic moment, Dean had begun performing dress
rehearsals some eight days earlier. This is borne out by earlier taped
conversations -- ones whose very existence has been largely suppressed in
published accounts. In these earlier tapes, we hear Dean beginning to tell
Nixon about White House knowledge related to Watergate. (Most of these
tapes are excluded from what is generally considered the authoritative compendium
of transcripts, Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes, by Stanley Kutler,
who told me in a 2008 interview that he considers himself a close friend
of John Dean.)
In one unpublicized taped conversation, from March 13, Dean told Nixon
that Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan had foreknowledge of the break-in,
was already lying about it in interviews, and would continue to do so before
a grand jury. The Watergate prosecutors, for whom Dean was a crucial witness,
had the March 13 tape, but did not enter it into evidence.
DEAN: Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and -- NIXON: You don't think so? DEAN: No. Absolutely not. NIXON: Did Strachan? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: He knew? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: About the Watergate? DEAN: Yes. NIXON: Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN: He was, he was judicious in what he, in what he relayed, and, uh, but Strachan is as tough as nails. I -- NIXON: What'll he say? Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN: He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews.
This is significant since Strachan, a junior staff member, was essentially
reporting to Dean -- a fact that Dean failed to point out to Nixon. Although
Strachan was Haldeman's aide, when it came to matters like these, he
would, at Dean's request, deal directly with Dean.
"As to the subject of political intelligence-gathering," Strachan told the Senate Watergate
Committee,
"John Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee
to Re-elect the President." Thus, if Strachan knew anything about Watergate,
even after the fact, it seems to have been because Dean included him in
the flow of "intelligence."
On March 17, in another tape generally excluded from accounts of Watergate,
Dean told Nixon about the Ellsberg break-in. He also provided a long list of
people who he felt might have "vulnerabilities" concerning Watergate,
and included himself in that list.
NIXON: Now, you were saying too, ah, what really, ah, where the, this thing leads, I mean in terms of the vulnerabilities and so forth. It's your view the vulnerables are basically Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman, indirectly, possibly directly, and of course, the second level is, as far as the White House is concerned, Chapin. DEAN: And I'd say Dean, to a degree. NIXON: You? Why? DEAN: Well, because I've been all over this thing like a blanket. NIXON: I know, I know, but you know all about it, but you didn't, you were in it after the deed was done. DEAN: That's correct, that I have no foreknowledge . . . NIXON: Here's the whole point, here's the whole point. My point is that your problem is you, you have no problem. All the others that have participated in the God-damned thing, and therefore are potentially subject to criminal liability. You're not. That's the difference.
In the heavily publicized "cancer" speech of March 21, Dean essentially
reiterated what he had told Nixon previously, if in more detail. But he added
an important element -- one which would cause Nixon serious problems
when the "cancer" tape was played for the public: a request for one million
dollars in "hush money" for the burglars. Informed by Dean of a "continual
blackmail operation by Hunt and Liddy and the Cubans," Nixon asked how
much money they needed. Dean responded, "These people are going to cost
a million dollars over the next two years." There is debate as to whether
Nixon actually agreed with Dean's suggestion to pay money or merely ruminated
over it. He never did pay the money.
Dean's behavior did not appear to be that of a lawyer seeking to protect
his client, let alone advice appropriate to the conduct of the presidency.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
So now we know who requested the raw intelligence on Team Trump with the names of American
Citizens 'unmasked'. It was then National Security Advisor Susan Rice:
White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan
Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of
occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the
government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not
targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally.
Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in
reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Maybe she will claim a video caused her to commit a felony?
As I noted
a while back , while Obama and Loretta Lynch authorized the expansion of who could request
the unmasking of Americans caught up in surveillance, the process still required a paper trail
of who the request was from and for what purpose. From the law itself:
For every entity in the US Intelligence Community involved with the intercepts of Team
Trump, the head of that entity should have filled out this request, including:
(U) Use of information. The IC element will explain how it will use the raw SIGINT,
to include identifying the particular authorized foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence missions or functions that are the basis for its request .
Skipping down, we get to another key item: who reviewed and approved these requests:
C. (U) Evaluation of requests. A high-level NSA official designated by the DIRNSA will
review requests for raw SIGINT covered by these Procedures. NSA will document its
approval decisions in writing and include a statement explaining how the request fully
complies with paragraph A.
OK, a key person who should have participated in the legal distribution of intercepts
involving members of Team Trump would be the Director of NSA and whomever they designated
to review the requests.
Note that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) is accepting the requests made
by the National Security Advisor (a different NSA). Today that would be one Michael Rogers, who
had to review and concur on Rice's request.
Interesting enough, one would have thought the FBI would be the organization with due cause
to unmask Americans for investigation. Why would the head of NSA be investigating Americans and
violating their 4th Amendment rights?
Well, that seems pretty obvious given that all this ill-gotten information landed in the
hands of the left wing news media, to fuel diversionary stories about some elusive
Trump-Russian connection. The fact this information takes a left turn through the office of NSA
on its way to the news media is telling in itself.
Clearly what caught Susan Rice was the paper trail of her requests, as is confirmed in the
article:
In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in
intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the
attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests
and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The strange thing is, if not for all the leaks to the newspapers, I doubt this review of the
logs would have happened! She and Team Obama triggered their own demise.
Of course, all this was leaked to a Dem-Friendly news outlet, which tried to spin this as a
nothing-burger and claim this is not the smoking gun.
But of course it's the smoking gun!
Let's pick up where the left wing news media tried to stop us from proceeding. Who tipped
off Rice on which raw data to unmask? And who was unmasked? The answers will inform us on her
intentions.
For example, if Rice's request was broad and yielded a range of Americans unmasked that
would be a general request without a target.
But if her request was against specific events with specific foreign players, which only
yielded results that led to only Team Trump, then that is a different matter. That
would be political targeting and a felony.
Finally, Susan Rice would never, ever do this on her own initiative. She would
never risk "The Obama Legacy" over this. A legacy, I must say, that is now in tatters based on
this news. It is just a question of whether the destruction of his legacy was due to ineptitude
or criminal intent.
There is much more to learn here. Everyone who did this knew they were crossing some serious
lines. They knew this because they had to put in place the processes to allow it. And since
these unmasking processes were laid out in January of this year, everyone knew they were up to,
if not over, those Constitutional lines.
Rice should be pulled in front of Congress and asked point blank under what authority was
she, the National Security Advisor, requesting names of US Citizens and their communication
contenrs? Recall, some of these requests are not related to Russia at all!
Color revolutions are false flag operations of regime change based on deception, fueling the resentment and delegitimization+ of
the elected government and fake promises to population.
Notable quotes:
"... color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception. ..."
"... It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership. ..."
"... Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks. ..."
"... History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. ..."
"... to help deconstruct the deception ..."
"... A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ ..."
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader
immediately wonder what a "color revolution" is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
"Color revolution(s)is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed
in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events
a revolutionary wave .
"Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used
nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance . Such methods as demonstrations,
strikes and interventions havebeen [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate
democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their
symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly
student activists in organizing creative non-violent
resistance.
"These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the
Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia's
Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine's
Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon's
Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the
previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005),
in Kuwait's Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq's Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution (1989), but
failed in Iran's Green Revolution
(2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation
or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be
authoritarian ."
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions
are psychosocial operations of deception.
It's a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend
millions of dollars to co-opt and "channel" local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations:
destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows
that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other,
sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov's dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive,
so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often -- or in what context
-- they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last
ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear
alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the emotional spectrum, and by
that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public
relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each
of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes
and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences' intellect,
the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular
one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers
in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents,
local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental
organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets
with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with
the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to
veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading
interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception .
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe.
A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy--only a tool -- the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages
gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ . It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive)
is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions
of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate
upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more
attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer
this site.
"Never utter these words: 'I do not know this, therefore it is false.' One must study to know; know to understand; understand
to judge." --Apothegm of Narada
This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his
election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and
neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president
of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump
are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal
Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not
want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially
oppose the entire political system.
... ... ...
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of
the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian
masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for
English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or
"rabble").
It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are
now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.
And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people –
so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation
their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to
Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again
in 2017.
Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I
do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far.
Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to
deal with relation.
Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his
wife.
My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a
champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as
Crosstalk recently characterized him?)
So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each
and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we
have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.
He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he
is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.
We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.
we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally
out side of east Asia.
I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled
support.
Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of
neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really
is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot
of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be
readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely
the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us
with their own words.
Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as
outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people,"
whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for
their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent
from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how
radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to
make it happen.
The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal
narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in
power.
Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion.
Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do
not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause
some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.
Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that
I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class."
Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."
I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class
like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with
homogeneous interests.
A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social
elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed
the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as
a guest.
He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.
As we move into 2018, I am swinging away from the Republicans. I don't support the Paul Ryan "Better Way" agenda . I don't
support neoliberal economics. I think we have been going in the wrong direction since the 1970s
and don't want to continue going down this road.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
Former FBI Director James Comey is in meltdown mode after his good buddy, the Deputy
Director of the FBI Andy McCabe, just "spilled the beans" to the House Intelligence Committee.
It was a "closed door" hearing, but we now have evidence that you need to know. McCabe
incriminated his pals, and that's really bad news for Comey. Immediately, Comey sent out a
cryptic message to President Donald Trump as he sees his life crumbling before him.
Source:
Comey Panics & Sends Message To Trump After His FBI Buddy Andy McCabe 'Spills The Beans'
https://goo.gl/2oK75n
What do you think of this video? Let us know in the comments below, and in addition, share
this on social media.
Don't let them get you down: "We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who tell
us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all
before us, and with just as much apparent reason." Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1830)
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
(VIDEO) There is a provable corruption at high level of FBI and group of high level official which
engaged in constant and deliberate undermining the rule of law and enforce their opinion on
American people.
Newt Gingrich says they're all going to jail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with Fox
News' Sean Hannity called the spying on President Trump and the cover-up of Hillary Clinton's
wrongdoing one of the worst breaches of our justice system ever
Presidential Leadership and Abuse in the Workplace
Several Presidents have been accused of gross sexual abuse and humiliation of office staff
and interns, most ignobly William Jefferson Clinton. However, the Congressional Office of
Compliance, in accord with the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 does not collect
statistics on presidential abuses and financial settlements. Nevertheless, we can examine the
number of Congressional victims and payments during the tenures of the various Presidents
during the past 20 years. This can tell us if the Presidents chose to issue any directives or
exercise any leadership with regard to stopping the abuses occurring during their
administrations.
Under Presidents William Clinton and Barack Obama we have data for 12 years 1997-2000, and
2009-2016. Under President George W Bush and Donald Trump we have data for 9 years 2001-2008
and 2017.
Under the two Democratic Presidents, 148 legislative employees were abused and the Treasury
paid out approximately $5 million dollars and under the Republican Presidents, 116 were abused
and Treasury and over $12 million dollars was paid out.
Under the Democratic Presidents, the average number of abuse victims was 12 per year; under
the Republicans the average number was 13 per year. As in the case of Congressional leadership,
US Presidents of both parties showed remarkable bipartisan consistency in tolerating
Congressional abuse.
Congressional Abuse: The Larger Meaning
Workplace abuse by elected leaders in Washington is encouraged by Party cronyism, loyalties
and shameless bootlicking. It is reinforced by the structure of power pervasive in the ruling
class. Congress people exercise near total power over their employees because they are not
accountable to their peers or their voters. They are protected by their financial donors, the
special Congressional 'judicial' system and by the mass media with a complicity of silence.
The entire electoral system is based on a hierarchy of power, where those on the top can
demand subordination and enforce their demands for sexual submission with threats of
retaliation against the victim or the victim's outraged family members. This mirrors a feudal
plantation system.
However, like sporadic peasant uprisings in the Middle Ages, some employees rise up, resist
and demand justice. It is common to see Congressional abusers turn to their office managers,
often female, to act as 'capos' to first threaten and then buy off the accuser – using US
taxpayer funds. This added abuse never touches the wallet of the abuser or the office enforcer.
Compensation is paid by the US Treasury. The social and financial status of the abusers and the
abusers' families remain intact as they look forward to lucrative future employment as
lobbyists.
This does not occur in isolation from the broader structure of class and power.
The sexual exploitation of workers in the Halls of the US Congress is part of the larger
socio-economic system. Elected officials, who abuse their office employees and interns, share
the same values with corporate and cultural bosses, who exploit their workers and subordinates.
At an even larger level, they share the same values and culture with the ImperialState as it
brutalizes and rapes independent nations and peoples.
The system of abuse and exploitation by the Congress and the corporate, cultural, academic,
religious and political elite depends on complicit intermediaries who frequently come from
upwardly mobile groups. The most abusive legislators will hire upwardly mobile women as public
relations officers and office managers to recruit victims and, when necessary, arrange
pay-offs. In the corporate sphere, CEOs frequently rely on former plant workers, trade union
leaders, women and minorities to serve as 'labor relations' experts to provide a progressive
façade in order to oust dissidents and enforce directives persecuting whistleblowers. On
a global scale, the political warlords work hand in glove with the mass media and humanitarian
interventionist NGO's to demonize independent voices and to glorify the military as they
slaughter resistance fighters, while claiming to champion gender and minority rights. Thus, the
US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was widely propagandized and celebrated as the
'liberation of Afghan women'.
The Congressional perverts have their own private, secret mission: to abuse staff, to
nurture the rich, enforce silence and approve legislation to make taxpayers pay the bill.
Let us hope that the current ' Me Too !' movement against workplace sexual abuse
will grow to include a broader movement against the neo-feudalism within politics, business,
and culture and lead to a political movement uniting workers in all fields.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
This is American Maydan -- a plot to depose legitimate (albeit widely hated) government. History repeats. And Mueller is a part
of the game to depose Trump for sure. As he is is supported by by powerful anti-Trump forces Trump can't simply fire him without risk
of provoking political crisis. He is in Yanukovich position now and need to negotiate from the position of weakness, not strength.
Now it looks more and more plausible that Steele dossier was a joint operation of CIA and MI6 to discredit Trump: an insurance as
Peter Strzok told his paramour.
The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump's campaign staff colluded with Russian state
actors is approaching infinity.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only 'proof' the FBI
and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited "Trump Dossier."
This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS. McCabe
stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn't point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known
knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.
And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.
Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let's not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.
McCabe has to stonewall on this issue
otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.
Because that's where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually
know as opposed to what we 'just know to be true.'
Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.
Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to
'protect the sanctity of our elections' are a bunch of simpering morons.
And I'm sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.
For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.
This is the session that happened just before appointment of the Special prosecutor. So it was a interesting moment which relael
the growd work for the appointment of the Special prosecutor and the extent US Congress was involved in this activity. So a part
of Congress was also active in the plot to depose Trump.
It is also interesting due to the fact that McCabe, the person at the center of Steele dossier controversy at FBI
was present. As you can see everybody try to hype Russian threat for their own political gain. And McCabe clearly played into
inflaming this paranoia further with his answers.
Also interesting is that while answering "yes" about Russian interference in election was the most safe answer to give, but the
real question is not about Russian interference per se, but whether the level of Russian interference exceeded in scope British interference
(criminal story with Stele dossier and wiretapping of Trump tower), Israel (via Israel lobbyists, NGOs, Kushner and Trump donors)
and Saudi interference (donations to Clinton campaign) to name a few. If the answer is "no", then this is clearly a witch hunt.
Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalism unclear. It does resist enlargement of
the US neoliberal empire as it has its own geopolitical interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia helped
to depose legitimate government in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government
would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And
there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016
election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee
assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting
FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links
between Russia and the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we
have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee
supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release
of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the
type of tactics that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved
in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform
-- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats
I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it
was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what
the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met
with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though,
the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So
it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers
to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into
any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the
Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How
are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for
Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across
the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us --
each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human
or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand
strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back
at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind
the intervention in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed
against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make
a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think
the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted
any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any
decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women
of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software
is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable
with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right,
this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their
deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you
-- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election,
efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue
to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics;
particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not
simply something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's
-- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities
that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness
and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where
it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't
quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly
think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits
a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive
-- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of
the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also
adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily
expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in --
and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought
to take a look at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is
wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people
about where the investigation he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates
I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk
in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians
to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that
is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him
that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes
or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about
conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and
the president of the United States had that conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of
the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney
General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting
attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question,
this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for
the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail
by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations.
I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant
percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence
on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press
stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant
to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way
to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get
your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian
money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly
not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and
the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more
obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people
some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an
observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats,
to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration.
And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far
as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic
issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the
intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And
I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration
and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of
what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and
a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need
to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that
we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking
questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General
McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats,
how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put
a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes
exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors
to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that
-- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in
through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most
urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're
doing our work in the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration
-- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're
not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership
around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in
a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge
difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience
that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from
the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more
direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details
of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of
rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported
Director Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the
moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running
the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable
abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell
you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about
many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection
to Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the
-- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and
I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence
threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual
who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would
you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed.
I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector
general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election
last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday
indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into
Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I --
I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian
investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is
a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative
practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the
verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard
practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI
director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target,
is that correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and
what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was
behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly
tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data
that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result
of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have
said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in
the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make
sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the
Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian
efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is
that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that
an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One
of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation
of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that
being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state
level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference
in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working
on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled,
I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with
-- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed,
was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications
in that incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to
the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need
for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his
release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious
way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being
here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think
that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back
from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election
such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier
Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are
also a fiercely independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved
in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the
outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about
Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and
people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with
KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line
but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph)
their involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky
software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no
connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that
continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure
they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're
not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk
about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is
-- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within
our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat.
It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the
country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia
uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016
and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's
one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates,
in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed
at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January
18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified
version of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy
to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that
it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in
the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert
influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping
with these past practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures
to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One
would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials
who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United
States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials
asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential
election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I
don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate
of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate
the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that
estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information,
or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy
rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel.
I assume you have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702
(inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly,
and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with
this committee during the course of this open hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity,
including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they
need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation,
in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California.
So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been
fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information
or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources.
And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would
make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia
investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will
not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are
-- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they
understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals
staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission.
But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with
those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI,
given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I
apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect
that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting
whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what
they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number
of people who are in acting positions of authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats;
stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me.
And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by
the Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that
the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You
have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're
a foreign intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge
of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very
hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on
many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall
every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical
question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department
of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report
confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated
with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits,
resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions.
These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities
and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent
plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I
think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take
charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department
of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government
to the private sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability,
the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director,
glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how
many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in
itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have
security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading
peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have
a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed
and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to
a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I
learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant
statements as to that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine
whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address
-- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe --
we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why
it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the
number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security
and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to
re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people
or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United
States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the
population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost
their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's
history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the
"clinically insane," political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in
the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates
and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the
majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the
"choice" -- overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional
representation scheme -- regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to
have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates,"
according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30
countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30
countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home
front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence
that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the
1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine
operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist
Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10
million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592
and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing." In the case of
the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM) -- which were both important
attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and
top-down class warfare -- the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and
destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members
of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or
on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the
movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white
supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.
Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs
within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid
spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously
scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only
allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also
provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought
to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these
nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in
indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization,
anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has
sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign
to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of "democracy" (which has sometimes required
integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class
in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and
perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so
indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its
halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to
the fact that it never was one. Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is
precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the
radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces -- not those that have been
deployed to destroy them -- should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the
people.
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient ..."
"... While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First, that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments ..."
"... the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct, or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently. ..."
"... Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids. ..."
"... The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid evidence of anything. ..."
"... Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents ..."
"... The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel ..."
"... The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general ..."
"... That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller. Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because he's so obviously a criminal himself ..."
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient
While it's clear that this political cage-match is going to persist for some time to come, we'd like to make two points. First,
that there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe
that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been
met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None. And that's been the main criticism of the investigation from
the get go. It's fine for the New York Times and the Washington Post to reiterate the same tedious, unsubstantiated claims over and
over again ad nauseam. Their right to fabricate news is guaranteed under the First Amendment and they take full advantage of that
privilege. But it's different for professional attorney operating at the highest level of the Justice Department to appoint a Special
Counsel to rummage through all manner of private or privileged documents, transcripts, tax returns, private conversations, intercepted
phone calls and emails -- of the democratically-elected president -- based on nothing more than the spurious and politically-motivated
allegations made in the nation's elite media or by flagrantly-partisan actors operating in the Intelligence Community or law enforcement.
Can you see the problem here? This is not just an attack on Trump (whose immigration, environmental, health care, tax and foreign
policies I personally despise.) It is an attempt to roll back the results of the election by bogging him down in legal proceedings
making it impossible for him to govern. These attacks are not just on Trump, they're on the legitimate authority of the people to
choose their own leaders in democratic elections. That's what's at stake. And that's why there must be a high threshold for launching
an investigation like this.
Consider this: On May 17, 2017, when Rosenstein announced his decision to appoint a Special Counsel he said the following:
"In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and
appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed
or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree
of independence from the normal chain of command." Rosenstein wrote that his responsibility is to ensure a "full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election." As special counsel, Mueller is charged with
investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump."
That's not good enough. There's no evidence that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" were improper, unethical or illegal. Nor do any such presumed "links and/or
coordination" imply a crime was committed. Rather, the loosey-goosy standard Rosenstein has applied is an invitation for an open
ended fishing expedition aimed at derailing the political agenda of the elected government. This puts too much power in the hands
of unelected agents in the bureaucracy who may be influenced by powerbrokers operating behind the scenes who want to disrupt, obstruct,
or paralyze the government. And this, in fact, is exactly what is taking place presently.
Naturally, a broad-ranging mandate like Rosenstein's will result in excesses, and it has. Of the four people who have been
caught up in Mueller's expansive dragnet, exactly zero have been indicted on charges even remotely connected to the original allegation
of "collusion with Russia to sway the presidential election in Trump's favor." Clearly, people's civil liberties are being violated
to conduct a political jihad on an unpopular president and his aids.
So, how does one establish whether there's a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed?
The daily blather in the media does not meet that standard nor does the much ballyhooed Intelligence Community Assessment that
was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the elections. The ICA even offered this sweeping disclaimer at the
beginning of the report which admits that the intelligence gathered therein should not in any way be construed to represent solid
evidence of anything.
Here's the from the report:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
... ... ...
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
"The skepticism about Mueller probably has less to do with the man, than it does with Washington in general."
That may be the case among those who have never bothered to look past the mainstream TV news for information about Mueller.
Those who have kept up with his career in the swamp have been skeptical (to say the least) about Mueller's appointment because
he's so obviously a criminal himself.
That segment of the general public, as it were, have been opposed to the establishment of the investigation itself from the
first day it was proposed.
According to Politico , a group of frustrated Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Devin Nunes (R-CA) have been
gathering in secret for several weeks to build a case against senior leaders of the Justice Department and the FBI for what they
say is "improper" and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page Trump-Russia dossier, according to four
sources familiar with their plans.
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
A subset of the Republican members of the House intelligence committee, led by Chairman Devin Nunes of California, has been
quietly working parallel to the committee's high-profile inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. [ ]
The people familiar with Nunes' plans said the goal is to highlight what some committee Republicans see as corruption and conspiracy
in the upper ranks of federal law enforcement. The group hopes to release a report early next year detailing their concerns about
the DOJ and FBI, and they might seek congressional votes to declassify elements of their evidence. -
Politico
When pressed for details, Reps Mike Conway (R-TX) and Peter King (R-NY) were mum, with Conway telling POLITICO, "I don't want
talk about what we do behind closed doors."
Nunes' has gone on record several times to discuss his feelings over the government law enforcement, telling Fox News "I hate
to use the word corrupt, but they've become at least so dirty that who's watching the watchmen? Who's investigating these people?"
adding "There is no one."
House and Senate Republicans have joined countless voices, including President Trump's outside counsel,
Jay Sekulow
, to launch a second Special Counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department to find out what role the salacious dossier played
in the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as a trove of anti-Trump text messages sent between lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok
to his FBI attorney mistress Lisa Page while the two of them were working together on both the Clinton email investigation and the
Trump-Russia investigation.
Republicans in the Nunes-led group suspect the FBI and DOJ have worked either to hurt Trump or aid his former campaign rival
Hillary Clinton, a sense that has pervaded parts of the president's inner circle. Trump has long called the investigations into
whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election a "witch hunt," and on Tuesday, his son Donald Trump Jr.
told a crowd in
Florida the probes were part of a "rigged system" by "people at the highest levels of government" who were working to hurt
the president.
House Intel Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH) told Fox News yesterday that they are now considering contempt of the FBI and DOJ
leadership and subpoenas over anti-Trump bias:
I think they were putting together a plan to stop Donald Trump from being the next president of the United States. I think
it's amazing in spite of the fact that the Democrats were against him, the Republican establishment was against him, the mainstream
press was against him. and now I believe the FBI and the Justice Department were against him , the American people still said
that's the guy we want to be the next president.
" I believe that fake dossier was used as the basis to get Warren to now what we learn about Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr and the
FBI and the Justice Department ," said Jordan, adding, " Everything points to the fact that there was an orchestrated plan to try
to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the President of the United States ."
Meanwhile, Trey Gowdy - who notably chose not to call on key witness Peter Strzok or demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr for testimony
- is apparently not included in the group seeking to build a case. As POLITICO reports, "A congressional aide with knowledge of the
meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. " While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made
decisions worth looking into, he is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel ," the aide said.
I think he's intimating that she would have been responded to with extreme violence from the 'deplorables'. Gotta admit: had
she gotten in, we may have already had a revolution. Instead, we get this slow death by a thousand cuts. I'm not sure what is
worse.
At this point I would not trust Mr Gowdy, in fact it's my hope his time with the state of SC ends soon. He's simply shown an
extreme level in lacking execution. After what happened this week with McCabe's closed door testimony, it's clear Gowdy isn't
on the side of the American people. It's called being able to close & he doesn't have it or is holding something back.
The corruption in the FBI is too broad and too deep. This organization is a nest of traitorous vipers who actively worked to
overthrow a constitutionally elected president.
The organisation must be gutted and it's mission absorbed by other agencies. The current FBI management should water the tree
of liberty.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
Nice illustration of ideologically based ostrakism as practiced in Academia: "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
Notable quotes:
"... A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned. ..."
"... The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for ..."
"... Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same role which Marxism was installed in the USSR. With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities. ..."
"... To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality be damned. Money does not smell. ..."
"... Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys. ..."
"... "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders." ..."
At the risk of oversimplifying might it not be as simple as stronger leanings towards IS-LM and kind are indicative of a bias
towards full employment and stronger leanings towards DSGE, microfoundations, and kind are indicative of a bias towards low inflation?
IN general I consider over-simplification a fault, if and only if, it is a rigidly adhered to final position. This is to say
that over-simplification is always a good starting point and never a good ending point. If in the end your problem was simple
to begin with, then the simplified answer would not be OVER-simplified anyway. It is just as bad to over-complicate a simple problem
as it is to over-simplify a complex problem. It is easier to build complexity on top of a simple foundation than it is to extract
simplicity from a complex foundation.
A lot of the Chicago School initiative into microfoundations and DSGE may have been motivated by a desire to bind Keynes in
a NAIRU straight-jacket. Even though economic policy making is largely done just one step at a time then that is still one step
too much if it might violate rentier interests.
Darryl FKA Ron -> Barry...
There are two possible (but unlikely) schools of (generously attributed to as) thought for which internal consistency might
take precedence over external consistency. One such school wants to consider what would be best in a perfect world full of perfect
people and then just assume that is best for the real world just to let the chips fall where they may according to the faults
and imperfections of the real world. The second such school is the one whose eyes just glaze over mesmerized by how over their
heads they are and remain affraid to ask any question lest they appear stupid.
A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment
to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned.
Richard H. Serlin
Consistency sounds so good, Oh, of course we want consistency, who wouldn't?! But consistent in what way? What exactly do you
mean? Consistent with reality, or consistent with people all being superhumans? Which concept is usually more useful, or more
useful for the task at hand?
Essentially, they want models that are consistent with only certain things, and often because this
makes their preferred ideology look far better. They want models, typically, that are consistent with everyone in the world having
perfect expertise in every subject there is, from finance to medicine to engineering, perfect public information, and perfect
self-discipline, and usually on top, frictionless and perfectly complete markets, often perfectly competitive too.
But a big thing to note is that perfectly consistent people means a level of perfection in expertise, public information, self-discipline,
and "rationality", that's extremely at odds with how people actually are. And as a result, this can make the model extremely misleading
if it's interpreted very literally (as so often it is, especially by freshwater economists), or taken as The Truth, as Paul Krugman
puts it.
You get things like the equity premium "puzzle", which involves why people don't invest more in stocks when the risk-adjusted
return appears to usually be so abnormally good, and this "puzzle" can only be answered with "consistency", that people are all
perfectly expert in finance, with perfect information, so they must have some mysterious hidden good reason. It can't be at all
that it's because 65% of people answered incorrectly when asked how many reindeer would remain if Santa had to lay off 25% of
his eight reindeer ( http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2013/12/surveys-showing-massive-ignorance-and.html ).
Yes, these perfect optimizer consistency models can give useful insights, and help to see what is best, what we can do better,
and they can, in some cases, be good as approximations. But to say they should be used only, and interpreted literally, is, well,
inconsistent with optimal, rational behavior -- of the economist using them.
Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...
Of course, unless the economist using them is doing so to mislead people into supporting his libertarian/plutocratic ideology.
dilbert dogbert
As an old broken down mech engineer, I wonder why all the pissing and moaning about micro foundations vs aggregation. In strength
of materials equations that aggregate properties work quite well within the boundaries of the questions to be answered. We all
know that at the level of crystals, materials have much complexity. Even within crystals there is deeper complexities down to
the molecular levels. However, the addition of quantum mechanics adds no usable information about what materials to build a bridge
with.
But, when working at the scale of the most advanced computer chips quantum mechanics is required. WTF! I guess in economics
there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories.
Poor economists, doomed to argue, forever, over how many micro foundations can dance on the head of a pin.
RGC -> dilbert dogbert...
Endless discussions about how quantum effects aggregate to produce a material suitable for bridge building crowd out discussions
about where and when to build bridges. And if plutocrats fund the endless discussions, we get the prominent economists we have
today.
Darryl FKA Ron -> dilbert dogbert...
"...I guess in economics there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories..."
[I guess it depends upon what your acceptable confidence interval on reliability is. Most important difference that controls
all the domain differences between physical science and economics is that underlying physical sciences there is a deterministic
methodology for which probable error is merely a function of the inaccuracy in input metrics WHEREAS economics models are incomplete
probabilistic estimating models with no ability to provide a complete system model in a full range of circumstances.
YOu can design and build a bridge to your load and span requirements with alternative models for various designs with confidence
and highly effective accuracy repeatedly. No ecomomic theory, model, or combination of models and theories was ever intended to
be used as the blueprint for building an economy from the foundation up.
With all the formal trappings of economics the only effective usage is to decide what should be done in a given set of predetermined
circumstance to reach some modest desired effect. Even that modest goal is exposed to all kinds of risks inherent in assumptions,
incomplete information, externalities, and so on that can produce errors of uncertain potential bounds.
Nonetheless, well done economics can greatly reduce the risks encountered in the random walk of economics policy making. So
much so is this true, that the bigger questions in macro-economics policy making is what one is willing to risk and for whom.
The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers
are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for.]
Darryl FKA Ron -> Peter K....
unless you have a model which maps the real world fairly closely like quantum mechanics.
[You set a bar too high. Macro models at best will tell you what to do to move the economy in the direction that you seek to
go. They do not even ocme close to the notion of a theory of everything that you have in physics, even the theory of every little
thing that is provided by quantum mechanics. Physics is an empty metaphor for economics. Step one is to forgo physics envy in
pursuit of understanding suitable applications and domain constraints for economics models.
THe point is to reach a decision and to understand cause and effect directions. All precision is in the past and present. The
future is both imprecise and all that there is that is available to change.
For the most part an ounce of common sense and some simple narrative models are all that are essential for making those policy
decisions in and of themselves. HOWEVER, nation states are not ruled by economist philosopher kings and in the process of concensus
decision making by (little r)republican governments then human language is a very imprecise vehicle for communicating logic and
reason with respect to the management of complex systems. OTOH, mathematics has given us a universal language for communicating
logic and reason that is understood the same by everyone that really understands that language at all. Hence mathematical models
were born for the economists to write down their own thinking in clear precise terms and check their own work first and then share
it with others so equipped to understand the language of mathematics. Krugman has said as much many times and so has any and every
economist worth their salt.]
likbez -> Syaloch...
I agree with Pgl and PeterK. Certain commenters like Darryl seem convinced that the Chicago School (if not all of econ) is driven
by sinister, class-based motives to come up justifications for favoring the power elite over the masses. But based on what I've
read, it seems pretty obvious that the microfoundation guys just got caught up in their fancy math and their desire to produce
more elegant, internally consistent models and lost sight of the fact that their models didn't track reality.
That's completely wrong line of thinking, IMHO.
Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking
oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after
New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same
role which Marxism was installed in the USSR.
With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to
ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities.
To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality
be damned. Money does not smell.
Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining
this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys.
But the key problem with neoliberalism is that the cure is worse then disease. And here mathematical masturbations are very
handy as a smoke screen to hide this simple fact.
likbez -> likbez...
Here is how Rubin's neoliberal boy Larry explained the situation to Elizabeth Warren:
"Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People
- powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize
other insiders."
he Department of Justice is refusing to release details of the process that
led to FBI Director Robert Mueller being granted an ethics waiver to be able to serve as
special counsel investigating Trump's campaign involvement with Russia during the 2016
election.
On Friday, the agency released a one-sentence memo that confirmed Mueller was granted a
conflict-of-interest waiver to serve in the position.
The waiver is believed to be related to Mueller's previous work as a partner at WilmerHale
law firm, which is also the firm that represented former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
and White House adviser Jared Kushner. However, documents signed by the Justice's top career
official, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott School, provide no evidence as to the grounds
for the waiver. It's actually so vague that it doesn't even state why Mueller would
need the release.
"'Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.502(d), I hereby authorize Robert Mueller's participation in the
investigation into Russia's role in the presidential campaign of 2016 and all matters arising
from the investigation,' Schools wrote in the 'authorization' signed on May 18, one day after
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein formally appointed Mueller to the position ."
The Justice Management Division of the agency found a two-page "recommendation memorandum"
per POLITICO's request, but declined releasing it because it would interfere with the
"deliberative
process inside the department."
The secrecy revolving the situation could result in some Republican lawmakers and Trump
allies to raise doubts about the impartiality of the Mueller investigation. Experts are
troubled that the Justice Department hasn't been more open about the information of Mueller's
waiver.
"'I think it's sloppy,' said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under
President George W. Bush. 'The conspiratorial side of me thinks somebody at Justice is not
giving you the explanation for the waiver because they want to create the impression that
Robert Mueller has a problem when Robert Mueller doesn't have a problem. This is going to
lead to Fox News conspiracy talk.'"
Who is this "left" that "can't let go of the voters who remain committed to Trump_vs_deep_state"? Sounds
like something one might read in the New York Times (if one still read the New York
Times ).
Electoral "victories" don't mean a thing if they are not backed up with direct action --
the readiness and willingness to exercise extra-parliamentary power. The only decisive power
that "the left" could have is the withholding of labour power. As long as the
political discourse is confined to palaver about popularity polls, there can be no challenge
to a status quo that only progressively gets worse.
What people who want positive change need to realize is that a GENERAL STRIKE doesn't need
to be "won" like a voting contest to have leverage. All that is needed is a demonstration of
a credible threat to the uninterrupted accumulation of surplus value.
Why have "social democratic" governments been such shit for the last 40 years or so?
Because finance has threatened them with the withdrawal of credit. Withholding capital is the
substantive power of the political right; withholding labour power is the substantive power
of the political left. Voting is only meaningful to the extent it represents something
substantive. Otherwise it is a hollow symbol.
"My understanding is that there wasn't much change in voter turnout by group "
Voter turnout was dramatically different when you compare with the last year there was no
President on the ballot, e.g. 2014. Turnout in the cities was up 31%, turnout in white
suburbs was up 18%, and turnout in college towns up 24%. Turnout in white rural counties was
down 5%, while turnout in black rural counties was up 10%.
"On election day, the left needs to convince the right – not through voter suppression
or intimidation but through rhetoric and speech – that their movement is going nowhere,
so they shouldn't either."
Thing is, crabby old conservative white people are the most reliable voting bloc.
"That's exactly what happened in Alabama"
What happened in Alabama was a sustained, weeks-long campaign of negative publicity,
virtually 100% directed at Moore (who by the way was an extremely controversial character
long before these sex allegations), which was unprecedented in scope for a Senate race. Even
so he just barely lost. If you think you can replicate this hundreds of times over across the
country, hey, go for it.
More realistically, what the left needs to do is give the tens of millions of non-voters
something to vote FOR, rather than praying that all your opponents will be extremist theocrat
sex fiends.
Interesting. Moore's primary win was itself a rejection of GOP cronyism. The president and
the national party supported the candidate of the establishment. Moore's victory then was
touted as a 'defeat' for Trump, and now his 'defeat' is also a 'defeat' for Trump. The GOP
establishment rejected Trump and Moore, so if it was a victory for anybody I'd say they have
grounds for celebration. Moore added nothing for Trump other than headaches, so I'm certain
he's utterly indifferent to the success, or failure, of anyone but himself.
Yes, GOP voters stayed home, as you point out in the article, but offer scant evidence
that they did because they are 'dis-spirited' or see their ideas 'going nowhere.' GOP voters
are winning across the board with the tax cut of their dreams arriving in time to celebrate
Christmas. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, climate change is no longer a national threat,
and the better informed understand that the GOP is remaking the judiciary.
Congress has never been popular among GOP voters and it's probably a mistake to read too
much into one atypical election. I do think that there's a good chance that GOP success and
loathing of the president and the congress, combined, could depress turnout in 2018.
ph@6: GOP voters are winning across the board with the tax cut of their dreams arriving in
time to celebrate Christmas. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, climate change is no longer
a national threat, and the better informed understand that the GOP is remaking the
judiciary.
Omits the savaging of healthcare of the neediest*. It's amazing that the no. 1 issue for
Va voters (exit? poll) was healthcare, but reporters/analysts rather write about anything
else.
Rightwing fell a vote short of cutting Medicaid by $800B/10yrs, but they get an estimate of,
say, $300B/10yrs for tax cut numbers game by killing ACA's mandate, eh?
*Oh, yes, ask the White Christians' Party how they square it. . . Once again, it's a White
Christmas.
There was a big shift among non-evangelical white voters. Self-described evangelicals had
slightly lower turnout but voted 80 per cent for Moore when they turned out. The response to
the outcome certainly seems to have included a shift towards a much more negative treatment
of evangelicals as a group. Most notably, it's now being routinely observed that, for white
people, evangelicalism isn't Christian at all, but a cultural label attached to a mixture of
white nationalism and the prosperity gospel. This piece
in the NY Times hits most of the main points.
However, to go out of the question of political power for a moment, I don't see the
question about Trump voters as one of "how can we convert them." Rather, the question is
about the existential conditions in the U.S. that have not only produced this reactionary
class, but endowed it with such enormous power. Personally, I would say that their power
stems from the enormous failure of American liberalism to pursue, after the 60s, its promises
– a failure that can be measured by the enormous disparity between white and black
household wealth, the destruction of unions, the advent of law and order policies that were
thinly disguised apartheid gestures, and the takeover of the two parties by a managerial
class completely connected to the patterns in capitalism traced by Piketty and Saenz –
a class that has succeeded in creating the acceptance of corporations as vessels for looting
by upper management, with all its consequences. To my mind, these are all consequences of the
way mid-century American liberalism fell victim to its own contradictions, and its collapse
has left a vast vacuum.
@11
"If we could replicate that, across the country, the Republican Party would be wiped off the
electoral map."
Let's do it. I look forward to every election henceforth being decided on the basis of
whether one of the candidates groped teenagers or not. Might want to mix in some different
sex acts, though, just to keep people from getting bored.
I read your Guardian piece, again and backwards or from the bottom up -- a method consonant
with its themes -- and liked it better.
That "addled white upper-middle class", self-satisfied that racism is something impolite
and unattractive that other people do, obsessed with CNN's daily attempts to rhyme russiagate
with Watergate and Mueller with Starr, stumbles on in its media-driven fog. The mercenary
consultants who have the apparatus of the Democratic Party firmly in their neoliberal
deathgrip will read the exit polls and send silent lovenotes to the suburban white Republican
women voters, not desperately poor blacks (who mostly do not vote and have nothing to gain
from voting). I cannot say I feel "the left" won; it looks like the Right won, in an
intramural tussle in which "the left" participated only in cheering from the bleachers, not
playing on the field. The "mild centrist" will go to Washington and do as he is bid, when the
bid is high enough.
The Marshall Project dutifully tends to my cognitive dissonance, assuring me Doug Jones's
election is a victory for sentencing reform. The waiter is assuring me that the dish being
served was a great choice from a menu written by people completely disinterested in my views,
tastes or welfare.
Who is rightly convinced here that his cause is a loser?
The targets are many and multifarious. The poor blacks? I suspect the hopelessness of
democracy in Alabama from their viewpoint remains undisturbed. (At least they got thank you's
on Facebook!)
The ones I would like to convince of the hopelessness of politics are not the rebellious
populists in the Republican electorate who rejected Luther Strange, but the ones who proposed
Luther Strange. Or, who put forward Doug Jones, "mild centrist". Neither group is likely to
read reasons to give up into these results. And both constitute "the Right" in a practical,
pro-plutocracy sense.
Pessimism on the left has many flavors, but seems to me to be appropriate to the political
climate. Doug Jones's election is evidence that "the system works" -- at least it can be
interpreted that way by people who really need to be disabused of their complacency that the
system is working and their conviction that the only people who think otherwise are either
irredeemable racists and fools or silly impractical idealistic socialists.
The American political drama takes place on a stage, where the abundant evidence that the
political system as a whole is failing to properly govern or enable fundamental reform is
ignored. The outcries of those alarmed are ignored and muffled, channeled away from anything
to do with electoral politics. The echo chamber of the Media silences with its noise.
I get the reasons why the impulse among the authoritarian followers of the Right to see
demolition done is alarming. Also, why handing the nitro to Trump, Bannon or Moore might
compound the reasons for alarm. But, the Right figuring out how to handle this rebellion does
not help "our" rebellion on the left.
Doug Jones, while being a decent, boring guy, is not in any way representative of the kinds
of races that are going to be run in 2018. Most GOPers know how to dog whistle and keep their
dicks in their pants. Meanwhile, Jones is already listing slowly to the right, with his
bullshit overtures to bipartisanship, voting in line with the senate Republicans and putting
all that sexual harassment stuff behind us (also see Northam in VA). The corporate Dems' new
holy incantation is "Ich bin ein centrist!" and it's not likely to get them a lot of wins
against racists and kleptocapitalist looters, particularly in states with a lower proportion
of PoC voters.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
My own personal take, from 16,000 kilometers away, is not that it was a matter of black
and white voters or rich and poor voters but something that is a bit more simpler and it is
this. If you stand a reasonable, moderate candidate against a raging nut job, then the
majority of the times the moderate will win. If you stand a vile, corrupt candidate up
against a raging nut job, then there is an even chance that the raging nut job will win.
Alabama is an example of the former and the US itself in 2016 an example of the later.
You are too kind. Truthfully, if Roy Moore hadn't (allegedly) molested underage girls, he
would have won. He would still be a raging nut job (or as Lambert describes him, a
swivel-eyed loon).
I think that the future of Alabama politics is controlled by white millennials, though. I
certainly would like to see how Moore fared among that segment. From conversations with my
sons and their friends, it appears the Republican party is widely recognized as a confederacy
of contemptible dunces.
A sad irony is that in 2016, many establishment Ds, including IIRC the Clintons
themselves, were hoping for a DJT primary win on the theory that they would get the kind of
result that Jones
Yes that sums it up. There is not much consolation in Moore's narrow loss for those hoping
the deep south in particular but the country in general might having shaken off its
hallucinatory vision of what American governance should look like.
How would a regional Bernie Sanders type candidate have done in Alabama in a general
election against Moore? The NPR barber interview linked a few days ago raises the question by
suggesting Jones was largely silent on the issues that mattered (to that man) and therefore
how a more vocal advocate for the poor, public education, universal health care would have
fared against Moore.
I'm not sure if that's entirely fair, he was very vocal on access to healthcare
(especially for lower income citizens) and made it really the core policy piece of his
campaign. One of his other major policy pieces (job retraining) also for into that mold
pretty nicely. He didn't frame things as starkly as rich v poor, but had a pretty traditional
(I.e., not neoliberal) democratic message.
That's interesting and hopeful that a candidate might even try to push issues like single
payer, pro union, anti right-to-work, $15 minimum wage and do even better against Moore.
I am likely unfairly judging Alabama and the deep south from another country and without
the context of cable news and the MSM reporting, just assuming the standard Democratic Party
line of saying little concrete on issues while inflating a giant, empty promise balloon of
hope and change.
Rev Kev: is your information about the "nut job" solely based on the reports from the
media? Or have you met the man, lived in Alabama, experienced the culture or measured the
degree of commitment to their cultural beliefs?
Having run for state level office, I understand the vitriol of the opposition. And having
lived in Alabama, I understand the culture.
Consider that a politician is a slippery character trying to appease many sides and
influences. Whereas a fundamentalist Christian stands for something specific and that belief
system is attacked.
Perhaps the white voters didn't want Alabama to be judged by the media and they chose the
easiest path.
Hi. Even in the Antipodes we get news reports from places like Alabama as that election
was so newsworthy. My take is what I have personally seen of clips of this bloke in action
and most people here were singularly unimpressed. That man should really swap that pony he
rides on for a thoroughbred or something that size by the way. And yes, I have horses
here.
And if an Aussie politician pulled out a gun in the middle of a rally here like More did
there, the cops would probably arrest him after crash-tackling him. Granted politicians can
take on the style of the people that they want to serve but I am willing to bet that the bulk
majority of Alabamans are decent people that have never been accused of dealings with
underage girls to the point that they have found themselves banned from a shopping mall.
Alabama deserves better. Your Republicans there should have gone with a better candidate who
would have almost certainly won that election in your state IMHO.
And then there is Moore's "charitable foundation", through which he has been paying
himself and family a decent salary for a few years, courtesy of politically like-minded
donors. Most of whom are from Alabama, and who don't themselves have anywhere near such nice
salaries.
Even by the standards of Deep South politics, the man is a skank, and many down there know
it. The chickenhawk allegations were the cherry on top.
@Nick – Rumors of Roy Moore's peccadilloes have been floating around for years, but
none of the women were ready or willing to speak out. The #MeToo movement, I think, has
allowed many women, all over the country, to finally feel that they might get a fair shake
from speaking out, rather than being put through the wringer of disbelief and further
harassment. It was only with the victim's disclosures that this story could be exposed.
I have a couple of takeaways, first Moore was running well behind a typical Republican
before the sexual misconduct allegations 6-10% ahead of Jones rather than the 15-20% one
would expect. Second that this really does show a path for Dems to be competitive and even
win in the deep south by carrying 1/4-1/3 of the white vote and holding on to 90% plus of the
AA vote. A pro-life (with a sane position on birth control), pro-gun (though not necessarily
pro-NRA) economic leftest could rack up a lot of votes in places like MS, AL, LA and SC. I
doubt the DNC are smart enough to see this or even want to if they did, but maybe some
qualified people with such a belief set will see it and run in Dem primaries for local, State
and Federal offices.
This, like the Clinton loss, is perhaps too close an election to lay to any single factor.
So while I find this analysis salutary, I don't necessarily buy it as THE answer. Two others
that I would suggest are crucial: the degree of the white vote that was dampened by the ugly
news about a candidate it might otherwise have turned out for; and Shelby's call for
write-in. As I went to bed on the night, the number of write-in votes outweighed Jones's
margin.
1. Had the GOP elected someone slightly less awful, they would have defeated Doug Jones
– the vote the GOP was reliant on usually simply stayed home
2. The Democrats are taking the wrong lessons from this
3. They may very well end up dangerously complacent in 2018 for the midterms and perhaps in
2020 as well
4. The GOP never truly backed Moore at all – they were hesitant to do so
5. Unless they deliver tangible economic benefits for white and black Alabama residents
alike, the Democrats have little to offer
6. There seems to be frustration and well justified anger, in my opinion, at both parties
7. The mainstream media will spin this the way the plutocrats want
8. It's likely the Democrats will double down on identity politics as it is what what their
donors want them to do
It"s a sad situation. I think NC posted a few days ago the appalling situation African
Americans faced.
It's hard not to compare the politics of America to the corruption that exists in much of
the developing world, the massive inequality, the failing infrastructure, and the brutal
police forces. Sadly both parties are in bed with the plutocracy and will make it all
worse.
Most people are taking the wrong lessons from this. Moore was barely defeated despite
everything. It's sad and infuriating because all of this corrupt politics has a dramatic
impact on the living standards of society.
Yes, it can be used for that , but often the goal is to channel, and contain the thinking
from or to whatever, not degrade. Using modern neoliberal economics as an example. The older
19th and early 20th century mainstream political economy were deeper, more comprehensive, and
often better at explaining economics. It was also called political economy, and not just
economics for that reason.
There was a real financed campaign to narrow the focus on what we call economics today.
Part of that effort was to label people very narrowly as just economic beings, which is what
libertarianism is, and to label economic thought outside of it as socialism/communism, which
is Stalinism, which is the gulag, which is bad thought. The economists studying this were
just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the idea, the worm of
people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment of anything else,
the inability to even see anything else.
I sometimes think some are against the masses getting any higher education because one is
exposed to other ways of thinking, and believing. A student might never change their beliefs,
but the mind is expanded for considering the possibilities and at looking at where others are
coming from. Those mindworms are also more obvious, and less useful.
So you could be ninety year blockhead, but if you are willing to listen, to think on what
you are exposed to in college, your mind is expanded and strengthen. Which is perhaps the
main goal of a liberal arts education. Even a very hard college education will still have
some of the same effect.
"The economists studying this were just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the
idea, the worm of people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment
of anything else, the inability to even see anything else."
So would you say identity politics is the same thing in reverse? Intelligent people
looking at issues from every perspective but that of money and economics?
Yes, as it is used now. It can be very important, but what I have against identity
politics as it is done today is that it is the first and last answer to everything. Many
people can see, they just think one's identity is paramount. MLK said it best when he talked
about being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their
skin.
Please keep in mind that the identity being used could anything. Your sex, gender,
orientation, age, class, religion, anything.
The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond
corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.
Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of
interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from
expanding his s not on a witch hunt.
"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I
have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on
"Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting
attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."
Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already
has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly
colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever
surfaced.
Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of
President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled
a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the
vote.
What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever
he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs
to recuse himself.
After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself
caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI
Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction
of justice.
Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or
didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller
interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.
Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16
lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If
the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican
donors?
It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's
mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many
Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the
president of the United States?
That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would
be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.
Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm
in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and
get a copy...."
"No, not until the lawyer says so!"
Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who
gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate
universe!
At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche
bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ...
get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...
Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary
Clinton's Crimes.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 -
TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of
London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.
Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest
rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law &
Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.
We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.
We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face
Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is
extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I
can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.
Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would
have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.
Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else)
with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials?
And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?
This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political
eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.
Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it
is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.
It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are
the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become
serious. Which is likely no time soon.
All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed
Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.
Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire
operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans
motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him.
The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's
proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.
The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the
Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President
of the United States.
This is treason.
This is sedition.
People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.
Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....
No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.
This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has
no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.
I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers
who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them
without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.
No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the
Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be
chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days.
Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.
The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand,
their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of
classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc.,
would eventually be exposed.
Those complicit did not care!
They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten
wealth.
We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.
US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil
empire.
When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team
should walk free.
This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused
to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we
have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please
as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We
have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from
proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have
bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed
at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is
trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist
takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country
from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all
see the ugly truth behind it...
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton ..."
"... Most democrats are very much like their republican counterparts, they take sides, and truth be damned. They don't understand that ousting a president in a soft coup, based on lies, is undemocratic, and would have long term consequences for this country. They don't understand that a press corps who foregoes truth because they are in complicity with pushing the same agenda, ousting Trump, is also unacceptable no matter what one thinks of him. ..."
"... No president has had control of his foreign policy since Kennedy was assassinated when I was 7 years old. There is no hope of ending the forever war and gaining control of the MIC until the intelligence agencies are "broken into 1000 pieces", as JFK wanted. If it takes a buffoon like Trump to be our "Toto" and reveal "the man behind the curtain" so be it. Let us pray for peace. ..."
"... This is an excellent thread but I'm most pleased Anna by your regular mention of the Seth Rich Affair. It is kind of "the bottom line" in all of this DNC discussion and it should not disappear from mention. So again Anna, thank you ..."
"... A populist website refers to "Arkanicides" involving mysterious deaths of people inconvenient to the Clinton power structure. ..."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies. Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died
ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens). One does not need to be Trump apologist to
sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Annie , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 am
Good response Anna. Most democrats are very much like their republican counterparts, they take sides, and truth be damned.
They don't understand that ousting a president in a soft coup, based on lies, is undemocratic, and would have long term consequences
for this country. They don't understand that a press corps who foregoes truth because they are in complicity with pushing the
same agenda, ousting Trump, is also unacceptable no matter what one thinks of him.
irina , December 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Exactly. Trump is not so much a 'threat to our democracy' as a test of it.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:25 am
Thank you Anna and Annie. People like tina drive me nuts. They see everything as either/or. Since we won't defend RussiaGate,
we must be Trump apologists. My hope is that this whole thing blows wide open enough that there can be a real house-cleaning and
reining in of the Intelligence Agencies.
No president has had control of his foreign policy since Kennedy was assassinated when I was 7 years old. There is no hope
of ending the forever war and gaining control of the MIC until the intelligence agencies are "broken into 1000 pieces", as JFK
wanted. If it takes a buffoon like Trump to be our "Toto" and reveal "the man behind the curtain" so be it. Let us pray for peace.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:30 am
This is an excellent thread but I'm most pleased Anna by your regular mention of the Seth Rich Affair. It is kind of "the
bottom line" in all of this DNC discussion and it should not disappear from mention. So again Anna, thank you
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Agreed. That is the central issue about the affair. A populist website refers to "Arkanicides" involving mysterious deaths
of people inconvenient to the Clinton power structure.
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent; among Hillary Clinton voters, 34 percent. ..."
"... "Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed. ..."
"... 63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 54 percent overall say "independent counsel Robert Mueller has conflicts of interest as the former head of the FBI and a friend of James Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
"... 36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President Trump 's aides "harsher treatment" during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree. ..."
Despite the intricacies of the Russian collusion investigation, voters have some clear
opinions about the situation, according to a wide-ranging Harvard Center for American Political
Studies-Harris survey -- which weighs in at 204 pages. It is a long poll, and a telling one: A
majority of American voters say special counsel Robert Mueller has a "conflict of
interest" in the investigation.
The poll found that 54 percent of the voters agreed that "as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey ," Mr. Mueller has a conflict of
interest in the proceedings. Of course there is a partisan divide here: 70 percent of
Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats agreed. Among those who
voted for President Trump in 2016, it was 73 percent;
among Hillary
Clinton voters, 34 percent.
Has the investigation itself revealed any evidence of collusion? Thirty eight percent of the
voters overall said that no evidence of such activities had been found, 35 percent said there
was evidence, while 27 percent did not know the answer. Three fourths of the respondents also
believe that "the special counsel is trying to make a case for obstruction of justice against
the president," the poll found. More numbers in the Poll du Jour at column's end.
PAGING MR. SESSIONS
Just a comment from Rep. Matt Gaetz -- Florida Republican and a member of the House
Judiciary Committee -- made during a discussion with Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade . The
pair were discussing the aforementioned investigation into potential "Russia collusion" and the
Trump campaign.
"Where in the hell is our attorney general? We need Attorney General Sessions to step up, do
his job, seize control of the nightmare that is this investigation and let's get some unbiased
people involved in looking at the facts and it's time for Bob Mueller to put up or shut up. If
he's got evidence of collusion let's see it and if he doesn't let's move on and get to the
issues can improve quality of life for the American people," Mr. Gaetz observed.
... ... ...
POLL DU JOUR
76 percent of U.S. voters think the "special counsel" in the Russia investigation is trying
to find collusion between President Trump and Russian officials; 69
percent of Republicans, 76 percent of independents and 83 percent of Democrats agree.
63 percent of voters overall believe that Justice personnel involved in the both the Clinton
email and Russian investigations are "resisting providing Congress with information"; 74
percent of Republicans, 66 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats agree.
54 percent overall say "independent counsel
Robert Mueller has conflicts of
interest as the former head of the
FBI and a friend
of James
Comey " in the investigation; 70 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 40
percent of Democrats agree.
36 percent overall say the special counsel has given President
Trump 's aides "harsher treatment"
during the investigations than Hillary Clinton 's aides; 56
percent of Republicans, 36 percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats agree.
25 percent say the special counsel does not think a charge of obstruction of justice in the
investigation is possible; 31 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents and 19 percent
of Democrats agree.
Source: A Harvard CAPS-Harris survey of 1,995 registered U.S. voters conducted between Dec.
8-11.
"... James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. ..."
"... We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. ..."
"... Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities. ..."
"... Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly was investigating Hilary's infamous server--he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency,
when Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help.
The two men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was
incapacitated in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with
hubris and almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang,
having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as
the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick
as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including
covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for
the Clintons, no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Lisa Barsoomian works for R. Craig Lawrence, an attorney who has represented Robert Mueller three times, James Comey five times,
Barack Obama forty-five times, Kathleen Sebellius fifty-six times, Bill Clinton forty times, and Hillary Clinton seventeen times
between 1991 and 2017.
Barsoomian participated in some of this work personally and has herself represented the FBI at least five separate times. It would
be great to research the specifics of the cases she worked in, many of the documents from the Court Docket relating to these cases
have been removed from the D.C. District and Appeals Court, including her representation for Clinton in 1998's case Hamburg. V. Clinton.
Her loyalties are clearly with the entities that make up the Deep State, as are her husbands.
They are a DC Globalist Power Couple, and they mean to destroy Donald Trump under the bidding of their Globalist Masters. Rod
Rosenstein should not have any position in President Trump's administration, let alone one with so much power to harm the Office
of the Presidency.
Mueller is also a Deep State lackey, even acting as delivery boy for Hillary's State Department, hand transporting ten grams of
highly enriched uranium under the auspices of counter-terror. It must only be coincidence that this happened at the same time as
Hillary and her henchman John Podesta were nurturing the Uranium One deal that would see Russia take control over 20% of America's
proven uranium reserves. Shortly after the Russia uranium deal closed, the Clinton Foundation was showered with many millions of
dollars from Russian donors.
Comey, Rosenstein, and their patron Mueller are truly the Three Amigos of the Deep State. Joined long ago in mutual regard, owing
allegiance only to each other and the enshrined bureaucracy that created them. As their actions show, they desire to thwart the will
of the people and depose the duly elected President of the United States of America by using all the powers at their disposal.
"... "Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock." ..."
"... In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be retained.
..."
"... Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. ..."
"... In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking to
the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died anyway
that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of presidential
elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less restraint than
even Hoover could. ..."
This Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election | The NationThis Is Not the First Time the FBI Has Interfered With a Presidential Election Throughout his career,
J. Edgar Hoover used the bureau to meddle in presidential politics and secure his own power. By
Jeff Kisseloff October 31, 2016
Even the FBI's history of insinuating itself into presidential campaigns, this latest October surprise shouldn't have been any
surprise at all.
As early as 1919, Woodrow Wilson's attorney general, the progressive A. Mitchell Palmer, deployed bureau agents in an eponymous
operation to round up and deport alleged radical immigrants. The
Palmer Raids were ostensibly a response to a series of bombings,
but it became apparent that Palmer had had something more in mind when he threw his hat into the ring for the 1920 Democratic presidential
nomination and ran on a proto-Trumpian agenda of "undiluted Americanism." Palmer didn't get past the first ballot, however, and ultimately
the raids' most lasting impact was Palmer's decision to have his young assistant administer the arrests. The official, whose own
youthful ambition earned him the nickname "Speed," was 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover.
Following the Teapot Dome scandal, the seemingly incorruptible Hoover was appointed to head the bureau. If money didn't tempt
Hoover, power did. While he managed to survive the Coolidge and Hoover administrations, Roosevelt nearly brought Hoover's career
to a premature halt. After his election, FDR announced that Montana Senator Thomas J. Walsh, a fierce opponent of the Palmer raids,
would be his attorney general. Walsh told friends that Hoover would be replaced. But that month, Walsh married a Cuban woman in Havana.
After flying back to Florida, the couple boarded a train to Washington. While passing through North Carolina, Walsh's wife found
him on the floor, dead, the apparent victim of too much honeymooning.
Homer Cummings, who replaced Walsh, retained Hoover. The director quickly realized the way to keep his job was to make himself
indispensable to FDR. Wiretapping was a relatively new investigative tool, and as it turned out Roosevelt was eager to use it against
his political opponents on the left and right. Up for reelection in 1936, he had Hoover eavesdrop on the leftist members of the Newspaper
Guild and other suspected members of the Communist Party, despite the party's attempt to establish a "popular front."
Then, as FDR began to gear up for a third term, Hoover went after Father Charles E. Coughlin, the ultraconservative radio priest
who was a major thorn in Roosevelt's side. In January 1940, 17 members of Coughlin's pro-Hitler Christian Front were arrested by
the FBI, charged with plotting to kill several congressmen. Whether the charges were accurate or not, the arrests finished Coughlin
as an influential political figure.
That same year, the bureau sought to quash the opposition of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade veterans with raids on its offices. But
it was in 1948 that Hoover unleashed the FBI for the first time to further his own career. Like everyone who was not a member of
the Truman family, Hoover assumed that Thomas Dewey would be the next president. Hoover's former assistant William Sullivan recalled
that Hoover believed if he used the bureau's resources on behalf of the Dewey campaign, he would be named attorney General as a stepping
stone to the Supreme Court and eventually to becoming Chief Justice.
"Many agents -- I was one," recalled Sullivan, "worked for days culling FBI files for any fact that could be of use to Dewey."
After Dewey secured the nomination, Hoover fed him backgrounders on crime issues and information about Truman's connections to Kansas
City boss Tom Pendergast. The FBI also pressured HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas to jump-start its hearings after a grand jury brought
no indictments from testimony by Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. As Drew Pearson wrote, "Those watching [Assistant Director]
Lou Nichols note that he goes in and out of the office of [Thomas] like an animated shuttlecock."
At the same time, the bureau was intensely involved in disrupting Henry Wallace's third-party campaign. Wallace had been a target
of the FBI when he was still vice president, but in 1948, the bureau stepped up its activities by surveilling and intimidating Wallace
staffers and supporters and feeding negative information about Wallace to the press and the Truman campaign, which cooperated with
the bureau's efforts. Truman's victory marked an end to Hoover's ambitions. The 1952 election and the subsequent races found the
director again in survival mode by making himself useful to his favored candidates.
While most people remember the 1952 campaign for Richard Nixon's "Checkers" speech, the FBI's efforts to slander Adlai Stevenson
(perhaps for personal, as well as political reasons) as a closeted homosexual gets less attention. According to Hoover's biographer,
Curt Gentry, the director was the source of rumors that Stevenson had once been arrested on morals charges. The same rumors were
spread in 1956, but only Walter Winchell took the bait, notoriously declaring that a vote for Stevenson was a vote for Christine
Jorgensen.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy's turn. Concerned about JFK's possible plans, Hoover let Kennedy's aides know that the bureau
had recordings of JFK's wartime trysts with Inga Arvad, a Danish woman suspected of having Nazi ties. Hoover was told he would be
retained.
Lyndon Johnson enjoyed Hoover's gossip (he once famously said that it was "better to have him inside the tent pissing out,
than outside the tent pissing in"), but the two were on opposing sides in the 1968 race. As a last-ditch effort to help the
troubled Hubert Humphrey campaign, Johnson announced the resumption of peace talks with North Vietnam. He soon learned, however,
that South Vietnam's president Nguyen Van Thieu was sabotaging the effort, convinced he could get a better deal if Nixon won.
Madame Anna Chennault, a GOP leader and a close friend of South Vietnam's ambassador Bui Diem, was the person whispering in Thieu's
ear. Gentry writes that when information turned up that she was communicating to Nixon through Spiro Agnew, Johnson thought he had
clinched the election for Humphrey, but Agnew's phone records just happened to turn up missing. The investigation was closed and
Nixon went on to a narrow victory.
In 1972, George McGovern became the last candidate to challenge Hoover's supremacy when he announced that if elected he would
replace the clearly aging director. Sullivan recalled that agents were again ordered again to collect malicious gossip for leaking
to the press. Ironically, many of Nixon's Watergate-era excesses, such as the Huston Plan, were too much even for Hoover. He died
anyway that May, six weeks before the break-in. Since his death and until this year, the FBI has mostly stayed on the outside of
presidential elections, as the work of disruption and dirty tricks has been usurped by party operatives who can operate with less
restraint than even Hoover could.
In 1948, Henry Wallace grasped the larger issues stemming from the FBI's actions, declaring, "We Americans have far more to fear
from those actions which are intended to suppress political freedom than from the teaching of ideas with which we are in disagreement."
If Hoover were alive today he'd be 121 years old and undoubtedly still running the FBI. Considering Comey's actions, perhaps a
séance would be in order to see if he still is.
"... A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. ..."
A previous version of
Monday's story by Maggie Haberman, titled "Trump's Deflections and Denials on Russia
Frustrate Even His Allies," made reference to the "17 intelligence agencies" that have
supposedly all concurred in the assessment of Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential
race.
Despite the mainstream media and the political left making
constant reference for months to the "17 intelligence agencies" agreeing on Russia's
actions during the campaign, this has repeatedly been debunked. The single released report on the matter
from the American intelligence community was produced by only three intelligence agencies
– the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and
the National Security Agency (NSA).
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
confirmed in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "17 agencies"
line was fake news. While there are 17 American intelligence agencies and none, to his
knowledge, objected to the CIA/FBI/NSA report, none of the other 14 agencies have published any
independent confirmation of its claims.
The phrase "17 intelligence agencies" seems to have entered the public discourse after
Hillary Clinton used it in her second debate with Trump. Despite its demonstrable inaccuracy,
it continues to feature in articles from across the mainstream media. For example, an
Associated
Press wire story that Breitbart News carried last week uncritically uses the 17-agency
figure.
For its part, the New York Times felt compelled to issue a correction after using
the same phrase. The following was added below Haberman's article:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said
Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment
was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the
American intelligence community.
Note: The figure of four agencies is reached by including Clapper's office in addition to
the three agencies that compiled the published report.
"... Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote up a correction, that is. ..."
Trump criticizes media over alleged mind-meld of '17 intelligence agencies' over Russia
meddling - The Washington Post As a matter of timing, it was odd: Last week, the New York Times
attached a lumpy correction to a story about the political dynamics of President Trump's
various proclamations on
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . The story highlighted the president's
various "asterisks, wisecracks, caveats or obfuscation" about Russian cyberattacks, and made a
reference to the consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" about Russian interference.
Here's the text:
Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about
Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was
made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National
Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American
intelligence community.
News organizations had been repeating that "17 intelligence agencies" line for months and
months, with no corrections in sight. Why was the New York Times issuing a correction all of a
sudden? And why did the Associated Press
add a clarification one day later? Who asked for it? The New York Times declined to comment
beyond the correction. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to
comment on the record.
Whatever your take on the fact-checks, the media laundered and recycled a Clinton talking point without too much
exploration of the intricacies through which the intelligence community reaches its conclusions. Until the New York Times wrote
up a correction, that is.
"... For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." ..."
"... The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though substantial evidence pointed to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks. ..."
"... The Associated Press followed ..."
"... "In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment." ..."
For nearly a year, the news media in the United States has been completely and utterly
dominated by one story above all the rest – Russia's alleged interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, also known as "Russiagate." The firestorm first began when Hillary
Clinton – darling of the U.S. intelligence community, the mainstream press, and Wall
Street – failed to win the electoral contests that the media had been convinced was her
for the taking.
The story has mushroomed in the weeks since, melding with anti-Russian propaganda and
accusations against President Donald Trump regarding his campaign's alleged collusion with the
Russian government. However, the first accusations began to emerge when Clinton's campaign
became derailed by the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee and subsequently her
campaign chair John Podesta. The Russian government was blamed for the leaks, even though
substantial evidence pointed
to a DNC insider as the real source of the leaks.
Once the Russian hacker narrative became established, the media began working overtime to
connect Trump and his campaign to Russia – creating the illusion of a "bromance" between
Trump and Putin despite the fact that the two had never met. Much of the evidence
for the so-called "bromance" centered around Trump stating during the campaign that
he wanted to improve U.S.-Russia ties, which drastically deteriorated under the Obama
administration, and wanted to work with the Russians to defeat Daesh (ISIS).
The bromance and the campaign collusion narrative have been continuously and intensely
pushed by several high-ranking politicians of the Democratic Party. In fact, the push has been
so intense that it
has now backfired for Democrats.
As a result, it has since
become a "crime" in the eyes of the mainstream media for any U.S. politician to interact or
to have previously interacted with any Russian official. It has also meant that defending
Russia's government or its actions could quickly turn you into
the laughingstock of the mainstream press
But some of the most prestigious news organizations in the country have been forced to
retract a major claim that has stood at the center of the Russia hacking media frenzy:
namely that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump." Last week, both the New
York Times and The Associated
Press were forced to retract the claim from several of their articles, as the
oft-repeated statement has been proven to be false.
The New York Times was first,
adding a correction to a June 25th article which stated:
"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials
about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia
orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made
by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security
Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
"In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press
reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence
the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected
by three agencies -- the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency -- and published by the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.
Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment."
One of the most enduring data points of the whole Trump-colluded-with-Russia
fantasy was the idea that there was a unanimity among US intelligence agencies that a) the
Russians had intervened in some way, and b) that intervention was calculated to help Trump. The
collusion conspiracy theorists have thrown on a third layer which is that members of Trump's
campaign were working hand-in-glove with the Russians to do something nefarious. What? Well, we
don't know.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed
the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US
political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the
Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of
Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US
election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar
tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion
there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's
senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
The statement is tailored narrowly and only speaks to encouraging states to seek federal
help in securing their voting systems (though, given the federal government's track record in
keeping stuff secure, I'm not sure that's a great idea.)
A week later, in the final Clinton-Trump debate, Clinton made this claim
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... How about Hillary telling her banker friends in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform" had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that? ..."
"... Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and confessed to being "really good" at killing people. ..."
"... We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State". ..."
"... Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues, Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation" ..."
Wow, you really have drunk the kool-aid! Didn't you read any of the leaked emails?
How about Hillary telling her banker friends
in her highly paid speeches that she needed to have "public views" different from her "private views"? You really think her "platform"
had any credibility at all after a disclosure like that?
And Obama allowed Citigroup to pick his cabinet for him in 2008, and
confessed to being "really good" at killing people.
The only thing you are right about is our Democracy is broken (in fact, it
never existed in the USA). Willful blindness will not make us "Stronger Together", only dismantling the "Deep State" will do that.
We must learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. We can survive Trump just like we survived W, but we will not survive continued
control of our foreign policy by the PNAC inspired "Deep State".
turk 151 , December 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm
Guided by who? Saudis Arabia, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, The CIA, Israel, General Petraues,
Citigroup, The Clinton "Foundation"
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Looks like pressure from the "intelligence community" was the decisive factor in appointment of the special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated. ..."
"... Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon. The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.? ..."
"... The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional. ..."
"... In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy. ..."
"... The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein -- could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation. ..."
"... turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external, more corrosive ways ..."
In an impossible position, the deputy attorney general played the only card he had. But the game between the White House and the
Justice Department and intelligence community will only get more complicated.
You remember Rod Rosenstein. Way back on May 9, Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, was thrust from bureaucratic obscurity
when the White House cited his three-page memo as the basis for the firing of F.B.I. director James Comey.
Rosenstein, after a day or so, then receded from the headlines, thanks to the cyclonic chaos machine that is the Trump administration:
Oval Office leaks to the Russians! Israeli spies! Angry tweets! But the bespectacled, seemingly mild-mannered lawyer just got very
interesting again.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Rosenstein suddenly announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, former F.B.I. director Robert
S. Mueller III, to take charge of the investigation into Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
It was a stunning reversal for Rosenstein, who for weeks had been fending off congressional calls for just such a move. It was
also -- if the details are true -- a stunning vote of no-confidence in President Donald Trump : Department of Justice sources say
the White House was given only 30-minutes notice before the public announcement, and that Rosenstein had already signed the order
at that point. It may also be a sign of Rosenstein's anger at being bullied by Trump last week -- when the White House, amid the
uproar over Comey's firing, tried to pin the blame on Rosenstein.
There were also pragmatic procedural reasons. "President Trump basically forced a special counsel to be appointed the minute he
made Rosenstein a witness to Comey's firing -- by saying that he'd accepted the recommendation of Rosenstein to fire Comey," says
Duncan Levin, a former federal prosecutor. "Trump disqualified Rosenstein as an impartial prosecutor and made this appointment all
but inevitable."
It's probably not coincidental that the latest twist came less than 24 hours before Rosenstein is scheduled to brief a meeting
of all 100 U.S senators in a secure room of the subterranean Capitol Visitors Center. He will still be quizzed Thursday afternoon.
The Democrats, led by New York's Chuck Schumer, will ask about the roles of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in
the abrupt dismissal of Comey. Did Rosenstein tailor his case, which focused entirely on the F.B.I. director's handling of the 2016
probe into Hillary Clinton's e-mail habits, at the behest of the president and the A.G.?
Rosenstein will also be grilled about the underlying mess: Was the president trying to slow down or scuttle the Russia inquiry
by firing the F.B.I. director? "We are very curious about that," a Senate source says.
The appointment of a special counsel makes it easier for Rosenstein to deflect those questions. The 52-year-old has spent 27 years
as a government lawyer. Hired straight out of Harvard, in 1990, to work in President George H.W. Bush's Justice Department, Rosenstein
stayed on into President Bill Clinton's term. In 2005, President
George W. Bush nominated him to
be U.S. attorney for Maryland, a job Rosenstein held for 12 years, making him the only U.S. attorney appointed under the previous
regime to last through both of President Barack Obama's terms -- which means he's either highly competent or blandly unexceptional.
In January, Sessions, himself a former U.S. attorney, chose Rosenstein as his top deputy.
"A lot of people, like me, who were really troubled by the Sessions appointment as attorney general thought Rod would be the person
who would stand up for D.O.J.'s independence in a pinch," says Matthew Miller, who was Attorney General Eric Holder's spokesman.
"And that did not prove to be the case last week. Rod wrote that memo, and it was a farce. It was a cover story so Trump could fire
Comey over the Russia investigation. That was the moment for Rod to stand up and say no, and not only did he not do that, he helped
load the gun for Trump."
The truth could be more complex, of course: Rosenstein may have genuinely believed Comey should be fired, and he also may have
been an unwitting tool for Trump and Sessions. Appointing a special counsel "is an admission by Rosenstein that he messed up badly
last week," Miller says. "He still needs to explain himself to Congress."
Attorneys on both sides of the political aisle who know Rosenstein don't question his impartiality when it comes to evaluating
facts and legal issues. They wonder, however, whether Rosenstein has been out of his political depth as deputy attorney general --
and whether he wrote the Comey memo without sufficient concern as to how it might be used. "The skills needed to be an effective
U.S. attorney are significantly different from the ones needed as deputy attorney general," one D.O.J. veteran says. "Being a straight
shooter is great, but you have a lot of other considerations in those top leadership positions."
Even with Mueller now overseeing the Russia investigation, Rosenstein's impact should be felt on two other crucial fronts.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested that Justice turn over any memos written by Comey about his conversations with
Trump, including the now-famous notes, first reported in The New York Times, where Comey says the president asked him to
drop the F.B.I. inquiry into Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. Sessions -- in consultation with Rosenstein --
could refuse the Senate's request, forcing a subpoena and a possible constitutional confrontation.
Then there's the larger, murkier subject of leaks. After Trump apparently blabbed confidential, Israeli-developed intelligence
about the fight against ISIS to the Russians, conservative media outlets have been loudly calling for whoever tipped reporters to
the story be hunted down. As Maryland U.S. attorney, Rosenstein's highest-profile case was the prosecution of James "Hoss" Cartwright,
a retired four-star Marine general and a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was accused of disclosing
information about covert anti-Iranian operations to reporters; he was charged with lying about his conversations to F.B.I. investigators.
Rosenstein extracted a guilty plea from Cartwright and pushed for a two-year jail term.
Trump apparently told Comey he wanted reporters who'd received leaks locked up. And now the White House and Sessions are prioritizing
the pursuit of leakers. "It's almost as if people think they have a right to violate the law, and this has got to end, and probably
it will take some convictions to put an end to it," Sessions told Bill O'Reilly on Fox in March. Rosenstein, who is in charge of
the Justice Department's day-to-day operations, may be the one tasked with implementing a crackdown.
But the Trump-inflicted turmoil inside U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies is also having ramifications in external,
more corrosive ways. "What happened with the president and the Russians the other day makes counterterrorism work even more difficult,"
says Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who pursued the 9/11 attackers and now runs an international security firm.
"Early on, the
Israeli intelligence and military establishment warned the government about sharing intelligence with the White House for fear that
Trump would share it with the Russians, and that the Russians will share it with the Iranians. And then we've proved them right.
What I hear from people around the world, and from people who work for the U.S. overseas, is that the situation is chaotic. It's
becoming increasingly difficult for people in nati
If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "special prosecutor" over the past week, I would have enough money to qualify
for a
cabinet position in the Trump Administration. Various Democratic
senators have been calling
for a special prosecutor whenever they can get close enough to a microphone. Last week, a number of state attorneys general
wrote
a joint letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein urging him to appoint an independent special prosecutor. The New York
Times Editorial Board
joined
the chorus a few days ago.
The idea of appointing a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation is not new. In March, a public opinion
poll suggested
that two-thirds of Americans supported the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was before Comey was fired, and before the
competing excuses for firing him that came from the White House and President Trump himself.
A few months ago, I
predicted that Trump might fire Comey. (I'm not happy I was right, and the writing on the wall was clear enough for anyone who
cared to look.) I thought back then that the only way to move forward with a credible investigation into Russia's involvement with
the last election would be to appoint a special counsel. What was a good idea then is a necessity now. It's not just because Trump
pulled the trigger on firing Comey. Although it's unusual, it's not illegal for a President
to fire an FBI Director. A President
can hire and fire executive branch officials as he sees fit. Read More
close dialog
close dialog And that's the problem. Trump can remove anyone and everyone holding a top position at
the Justice Department who may be involved in this investigation. Clearly, he's not been shy about sacking Justice Department officials.
Just ask Sally Yates
and Preet Bahrara , or the other 46 US Attorneys who were told to vacate their offices before sundown earlier this year. Views
on Comey's firing
Let's imagine for a minute that the people in charge decided that appointing a special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
This is how it would work . The attorney general (or the deputy attorney general in a case like this one, where the attorney
general recuses himself) has the discretion to appoint a "special counsel" when: (1) a criminal investigation is warranted; (2) there
is a potential conflict of interest if the Justice Department conducted the investigation, or there are "extraordinary circumstances"
present; and (3) it would be in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. The decision by the deputy attorney general to
appoint (or not appoint) a special counsel is not be reviewable.
Although political and public pressure can certainly influence the decision, it's entirely up to Rosenstein to do it or not. I
know that, according to sources cited by CNN,
Rosenstein doesn't
see the need for a special counsel at this point. He's wrong. It doesn't really matter if there is nothing to the allegations
of Russia's meddling in the election or collusion with the Trump team. At this point, there is so much distrust and skepticism about
the process itself that there needs to be an independent prosecutor looking into these allegations just to assure the country that
the President and his associates did not commit a crime. Rosenstein shouldn't get any friction from his boss.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly
recused himself from any investigation dealing with Russian meddling, and Sessions
had no problem with the
idea of a special prosecutor when the potential target was Hillary Clinton. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments against
the appointment of a special counsel. The process can be expensive, lack clear direction, last for a year or more, and is not guaranteed
to reach any meaningful conclusions. But the benefits of appointing a special counsel in this case greatly outweigh the potential
downsides. Although no one has asked me (and no one probably will), I know just the person for the job: Larry Thompson, a former
deputy attorney general and former US attorney in Republican administrations.
He has extensive private sector experience, and is currently trusted by a federal court to oversee Volkswagen's compliance with
criminal sanctions related to its emissions scandal. He is a loyal Republican and
a supporter of Sessions , so the GOP couldn't credibly claim he's politically biased. More importantly, he's well-respected,
extremely competent, and experienced in complex criminal investigations.
Whether it's Larry Thompson or someone else, a special prosecutor should be appointed to take over this investigation. If Rosenstein
is the man everyone
says he is ,
I believe he will appoint a qualified, independent prosecutor to take over this mess of an investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, the ball
is in your court. Don't let America down.
"... At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel, saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance. ..."
"... Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney, he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater. ..."
"... Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas. ..."
Atty. Gen.
Jeff Sessions
recused himself from the Russia investigation in March after news reports revealed he had failed to tell his
Senate
confirmation hearing about his meetings last year with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor who had been serving as the U.S. attorney for Maryland, was confirmed as the No. 2 by the Senate
the following month.
That put him in charge of the investigation into whether current or former aides to
President Trump
coordinated with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
What is Rosenstein's role in the Russia probe?
It will fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to file criminal charges against any of Trump's aides, to drop the case entirely
or to hand it off to an independent prosecutor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing March 7, Rosenstein refused to say whether he would be willing to bring in a special counsel,
saying he wouldn't make judgments in advance.
But he said he had "no reason to doubt" the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian authorities sought to influence
the presidential race. He also said he believed the
Justice
Department could handle the most politically complicated cases without fear of compromise.
Rosenstein laid out the case for Comey to be removed in a three-page memo that the White House released Tuesday.
In firing Comey, Trump had said he acted on Rosenstein's recommendation.
In a memorandum to Sessions, Rosenstein harshly criticized Comey for actions going back to last July, when he held a news conference
to announce that the FBI would not seek charges against presidential candidate and former Secretary of State
Hillary
Clinton in the email investigation but denounced her conduct.
That was a serious misjudgment, Rosenstein wrote, adding, "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our
thoughts at a press conference."
He went on to say that Comey had made the problems worse with his decision to disclose in late October -- 11 days before the election
-- that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Clinton after finding State Department emails on a computer belonging to former
Rep.
Anthony
Weiner , the estranged husband of Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
.
Reports have since come out that Rosenstein threatened to resign over the way the Comey dismissal was attributed in part to the
memo.
As Sessions' top deputy, Rosenstein is responsible for using Justice Department resources to step up enforcement of immigration
laws, a Trump administration priority.
Sessions already has instructed all U.S. attorney's offices to be more aggressive about filing criminal charges against people
who cross the border illegally, and he has threatened to cut off department grants to so-called sanctuary cities unless they cooperate
with immigration agents.
[Sessions] picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how cases are decided, and should be decided.
-- Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general from 1994-1997
How did he become deputy attorney general?
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to confirm Rod J. Rosenstein as the No. 2 official at the Justice Department.
Rosenstein, 52, won unusual bipartisan support on the strength of his crime-fighting efforts as the U.S. attorney for Maryland
for the last 12 years. He was confirmed as deputy attorney general by a vote of 94 to 6.
Where did he get his start?
Rosenstein has spent 27 years at Justice, getting an early job as a senior aide to a deputy attorney general. As a U.S. attorney,
he supervised a broad range of criminal prosecution.
He first was nominated to the post by President George W. Bush. President Obama kept him on after the Senate did not move on Bush's
previous nomination of Rosenstein for a seat on a federal appeals court.
In the 1990s, Rosenstein worked on the independent counsel investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their
investments in a failed real estate company known as Whitewater.
Rosenstein was involved in separate questioning of both Clintons, who never were charged with a crime. More than a dozen others
were charged and convicted, including the governor of Arkansas.
Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997 under the Clinton administration, praised Rosenstein at
a recent ethics conference.
She said the department would remain in experienced hands. Sessions "picked someone who grew up in the department and knows how
cases are decided, and should be decided," she said.
Special prosecutor was appointed. But not the one that Ben Domenech expected. Still a very
interesting detail is this article is that Comey seems to be very well informed about this
mechanism and used it himself. So "special prosecutor gambit" was played by an experienced chess
player with full support from intelligence agencies and within certain circle of high level
officials within FBI and Justice department.
Notable quotes:
"... This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey, the current director of the FBI. ..."
We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. The current system that is so
obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot. With the race for the Democratic
nomination effectively concluded, Hillary Clinton now awaits the endorsement of President Obama , which they expect to come
within the next few weeks. Obama is poised to play
a big role in Clinton's campaign against Donald Trump, acting as an emissary to groups and
audiences that have been more reluctant to support Clinton in the past. But this creates its
own set of problems: namely, that the FBI under the auspices of Obama's administration is also
actively investigating Clinton's email server and her mishandling of classified
information.
It's hard to see any way that a conclusion reached under people like Loretta Lynch, serving
at the pleasure of a president advocating vociferously for Clinton's election, would be seen as
treating the candidate fairly. Even if Clinton is cleared, a dark cloud will hang over the
process. And Clinton herself should not be comfortable with the prospect of a process Trump
will certainly denounce as crooked, especially considering that many Americans would likely
agree with him.
Rather than deal with the typical rhetorical battles over this issue that have played out on
cable television over the past year, Republicans in Washington should cite historical precedent
in this context. Back in 2003, when a top presidential appointee was suspected of mishandling
classified information, that president's attorney general recused himself from the matter. A
special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the allegations and determine if prosecution
was warranted. That prosecutor investigated the case, brought charges, and obtained a
conviction.
This was, of course, the Valerie Plame/CIA affair which ensnared top White House
official Scooter Libby, who was later charged by the special prosecutor and convicted by a
jury. And who was the individual at the DOJ who appointed the special prosecutor? James Comey,
the current director of the FBI.
John Aschroft, the attorney general under George W. Bush, had the good sense to recuse
himself from the matter and appoint Comey to make the decision about how the case ought to
proceed. Ashcroft knew his own involvement would only taint whatever decision was finally made.
So he removed entirely the possibility of political interference by recusing himself. As a
Senator, Barack Obama hailed the verdict in that
case and the process that led to it.
Republicans ought to demand that Loretta Lynch do the same thing Obama's current FBI
director did when he worked at the Department of Justice in 2003: appoint a special
prosecutor.
If Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong, if no laws were broken, no classified information was
mishandled, and no American men and women were put at risk as a result of her actions, then she
has nothing to fear from an independent investigation of her activities. Where she stands right
now is the worst of all worlds: she could still be prosecuted by FBI/DOJ, but if she's not,
everyone will assume that political interference saved her. She can never get out from under
that cloud, no matter what happens.
An independent prosecutor, however, can put all of that to rest. If he or she finds evidence
of any crimes, then the case will be prosecuted. And if the prosecutor decides not to charge,
we'll know that it wasn't a political decision.
This is actually the best of all worlds for Hillary, because it actually gives her the
opportunity to clear her name, if she's innocent. It also happens to be the best solution for
the American public. We deserve a justice system that actually delivers justice. We deserve a
law enforcement system that actually enforces the law. A special prosecutor can deliver it. The
current system that is so obviously rigged in favor of certain politicians cannot.
Ben Domenech is the publisher
of The Federalist. Sign up for a free trial of his daily newsletter, The Transom.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
Being totally controlled by intelligence agencies is probably the wildest nightmare now...
And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond such a nightmare.
Any JFK files still classified have been totally scrubbed by this point. Anything damaging
was likely destroyed long ago. Anything left is there for a purpose.
As such they they likely contain more disinformation than information at this point and
it'll be hard to tell the difference between the two.
They all had their little so-called "Democratic Club" under Obama where they all thought
that'd prepare the way for more of their corrupt agenda by putting Hillary into Office. They
know now that all the activities like RussiaPhobia, rigging of the Democratic National
Committee, etc. were all part of the plot. Just remember that Obama was highly skilled in the
totally corrupted politics of Chicago and The State of Illinois that he helped to bancrupt.
He did a good job at the same thing in Washington D.C., brought in with the help of the CIA
(who he used to work for in Chicago) and run the deficit to levels every politician agreed to
where deficits don't matter, we can print as much as we want mentality. This is why you see
China, Russia and many other countries now looking at the warmongering corruption in
Washington D.C. and saying that federal politicians if you give them enough time will implode
the U.S. from within if you give them enough rope. Now you see the current CIA Director
meeting with James Rickards because he understands that economic implosion will hit their
agenda.
Boy are you right. A Republican run Congress and Senate in 2015 when the book, _Clinton
Cash_ made the best seller list. Apparently none of them read it and just now are getting
around to looking what has to be one of the largest criminal rackets ever run within that
City.
"as the Trump investigators -- in Congress, in the Justice Department, and the legions in
the media -- begin to grow strangely silent about the entire collusion charge" "America is in
a radical state of flux, or rather in a great accounting and recalibration, ranging from
government to popular culture. Hollywood lived a lie and now is not what it was just three
weeks ago. The NFL was based on known but ignored hypocrisies and is no longer the league it
was in September. The media has put rank partisanship before truth and lost ideologically and
morally. And the lie about Russian collusion has sired truths beyond our wildest nightmares.
"
Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics
professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who has lied, leaked and who wrote the Hillary report weeks
before any key players, including Hillary, were interviewed, wants us to know the FBI is
"honest", "strong", and "independent". The man who leaked and connived to get a special
prosecutor wants to convince us of that.
Jim Comey is the one who had no problem with Andrew McCabe's conflicts of interest. He is
the one who disgraced his own agency. He is the one who obstructed justice by declaring Hillary
Clinton innocent which he is not permitted to do in his role. The former director is the one
who lamented not being a "stronger" man.
Comey is sanctimonious, arrogant, supercilious, and narcissistic and he's not an agent, he's
a lawyer.
... ... ...
Does anyone doubt that Mueller, who has hired Hillary donors and activist
Democrats to investigate Trump, knew about Strzok's leanings? A top spy and he didn't know?
They are simply trying to silence us with their usual diversions. Don't fall for it. We
don't have to be blindly obedient to these people.
Pete Strzok is the agent who caught Flynn lying. Set up?
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
"... On the contrary, nationalist conservative intellectuals display far, far, far, far more intellectual excellence than the liberals, the neoconservatives, or the milquetoast moderates. ..."
"... In the past, when one or two parties became rotten, new parties emerged to challenge them. But in the early 20th century, the Dems and the GOP agreed to revise election laws to create prohibitively steep requirements for any party that had not gotten a certain percentage of the vote the previous election, thereby creating the myth of the "major parties" and the "two party system." ..."
The entire political culture is at the bottom of the swamp. Neither the Democrat nor the
Republican side has a pristine character. We are always voting for the least objectionable
side.
The Democrats brought us abortion, pushed same sex marriage and imposed an enormous public
debt on us, why would any sane person even consider voting for any of them unless that person
is a direct beneficiary of the afore mentioned policies of abomination.
The culture in general encourages bad behavior. I do not see much prospect for improvement
in the new future. As far as I know Trump stays out of the Xerox room and is willing to
tackle real problems facing this country. The Republican party is casting off its governing
elite. They failed us. The populous wants a change. It not rotting its fertilizing that
smells. Get a grip man!
David Brooks is part of the intellectual elite that led us into Iraq and the Great Recession.
Buckley, Baker and Kirkpatrick were part of the Republican elite but of a different branch
than Brooks.
Every word of this alternates between arrant nonsense and outright intellectual cowardice.
The problem is not that Politicians are scummy people, they have always been scummy
people. (Perhaps even the slightest familiarity with Greece and Rome would help illustrate
the point?). The problem is that that Participatory Democracy rapidly falls to the lowest
common denominator of human vileness, compounded by inevitable Race and Religious
factionalism. You want to blame the Politicians? Blame the Voter at the 50% percentile, where
the blame belongs.
The fact is, when we threw away our limited vote Republic during the "Progressive" Era, we
set ourselves on the course to this destination. This Government has not another twenty years
of life on its current course. Most of us should live to see what arises from its ashes.
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of
some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who
is more or less a neocon.
Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change
which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have
been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm
politically homeless."
Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues,
but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent
government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.
Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The
Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.
GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not
because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because
its the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.
The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little
difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean
between them. That's how small their world has become.
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and
reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless.
I'm politically homeless."
Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center
polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the
right but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt
like a home for these people.
Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that
at least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.
Brooks should replace "populism" with "elitism". Republican elitism along with Republican
RINOS are what led to the rise of Republican populism. The rot began with the elites and the
Rinos.
[NFR: By this point, "RINO" is an empty term. -- RD]
If you see populism as tending toward the triumph of the demagogic, then I suppose you
would tend to see Trump as a populist. Although I haven't read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't
Happen Here" since I was 17, the Berzelius Windrip character, a demagogue who manages to
bulls**t his way into the Presidency, reminds me of Trump. He isn't really a populist
ideologue anymore than Trump is. He is, like Trump, just a bad man and a slob.
I don't know the history of American populism as well as I wish I did, but if you expel
the rancid racism which tended to infect the Southern strain, but which the master 1930s
Southern populist ( and crook and tyrant ) of them all, Huey Long, had contempt for and
didn't exploit, then populism is strictly an economic force.
It sought always to batter away at the laws and the conditions which enabled "economic
royalists" to exploit most of their countrymen. Damned right it sought to be a leveling
force, and good for that.
Were the early populists, Bryan, LaFollette, Theodore Roosevelt to an extent, unlettered
men, men fond of the idea of keeping the electorate educationally downtrodden, and therefore
marks to be worked with clever slogans? Were FDR and the New Dealers like that? Harry Truman?
Lyndon Johnson? Hubert Humphrey? Bobby Kennedy? George McGovern?
Weren't these men and so many others about the elevation of people without means, the
protection and enhancement of their dignity? The middle class' very existence was in large
part a triumph of populistic governance over a 75 year period, at least as I've always
understood American history.
Guys like Brooks don't understand what this country was not so long ago.
I was already feeling queasy about my Republicanism by the time W showed up, but indeed, the
Republican was finally beaten out of me by the Iraq War, the (ongoing) denial by Republicans
that it was a catastrophe, their policy and celebration of torture, their incapability of
offering anything but warmed over Reaganism, and Sarah Palin.
Palin was our canary in the coal mine for the Trump age. She was as shallow and base as
any demagogue could be, whose political "ideas" were untethered to any meaningful philosophy
whatsoever, entirely the expression of cultural resentment over those darned liberal
eggheads pushing around "real Americans." That McCain chose her as a potential president was
reckless. And the Establishment and rank and file Republicans just lapped it up because she
bumped up McCain's numbers in the final stretch of the election.
My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most
ardent supporters let him get away with it.
Because who else is available?
If in fact you're a Republican who believes the GOP elite have failed the party and failed
the country – what was your choice? Ted Cruz? Rick Perry?
Edsall's column is prescient but liberals won't change. If there's a reflexive hostility
to workaday conservatism, there's an intolerable smugness to liberalism – even those
Edsall quote assume that "cosmopolitanism," for example, is superior to parochialism, not
just in practical ways – but morally.
He's right in saying a whooooole lot of Americans believe this view was imposed upon them,
and they're right – it was.
The people Brooks cites as his preferred brand are precisely the sorts we deplorables cannot
stand. He's an elitist. I mean, you can't blame him, he's conservative in that he likes the
status quo that gives him his influence, his income, his way of life. But he mistakes his own
bubble for the greater good for all of us – who are just important as ourselves is
Brooks to himself – and there are orders of magnitude more of us, than him. We're
conservative too – we haven't enjoyed having our way of life taken away from us, while
his remains intact.
On the contrary, nationalist conservative intellectuals display far, far, far, far more
intellectual excellence than the liberals, the neoconservatives, or the milquetoast
moderates.
Honesty and moral courage are prerequisites for intellectual excellence.
The right wing writers featured at unz.com, for instance, have both qualities in abundance
– unlike the liberal, neocon and moderate apologists for the establishment.
Well, I know you always say that you don't think there was a golden age, but when you say
it's "putrefying" you indicate that you do. That it was not always putrid. Or that it was
less so. But this from Brooks is absurd:
"The Republican Party I grew up with admired excellence. It admired intellectual
excellence (Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley), moral excellence (John Paul II, Natan
Sharansky) and excellent leaders (James Baker, Jeane Kirkpatrick)"
Well, yes. I suppose. But Bob Packwood first elected to the Senate in 1969. Not 2009.
Oliver North is an actual historical figure. Congressman Joseph McDade was as much a part of
the GOP during Brooks' youth as Reagan was.
To say there is rot is to assume that there was once a solid tree. But was there?
The GOP of Brook's youth was Kissinger and Nixon. G. Gordon Liddy. Etc.
That's no defense of the goons now in charge. But to assume they are there because of rot
is to assume that the swamp you are in was once a lovely mid-century modern home in the
Village.
It wasn't. It was always a swamp. It always smelled bad. But Brooks was too young to
notice. Or too blinded by youthful admiration to see that all people are human. Especially
politicians.
[NFR: I don't think there was ever a time in history when Congressmen were choirboys.
Does anybody? These guys are dirtbags, and they get very little good done, far as I can tell.
Brooks's point is not (or not entirely) that they are immoral, but that they are unprincipled
and guided by very little that is smart or good. I am sure that Brooks and I disagree on what
constitutes "good," but we both agree that what we have now is bad. -- RD]
Populism isn't intellectually inept and populists are not just the people who Brooks
despises.
They just hold to a different intellectual framework.
Nationalist vs. Globalist-most of the GOPe is globalist. They do not prioritize the people
of America first, but put their idelogical worldwide goals ahead of the interests of the
American people as a whole.
In foreign policy, Tlthe Republican Party has long been a bastion of America 1st foreign
policy until the Wilson, FDR, and Truman pushed America into the position of globalist
hegemon.
America 1st policy has a deep intellectual tradition and recalls Washington's farewell
address.
In trade policy, America 1st economic nationalism harks back to Alexander Hamilton and
continues to the American System of Henry Clay and on the core of the Republican Party
economics from Lincoln onward.
I could go on.
Either one prioritizes the interests of the people as a whole or the interests of the few.
Conservative Inc. cares about the rich and powerful and their fellow approved thinkers. If
the general welfare is the focus, then conservatism would resemble the work of Pat Buchanan
and not what is currently pushed by National Review and the so-called conservatives in the
NYT opinion pages.
True American conservatism is populist and nationalist. It aims to help all the people by
restoring power to the people. It does not believe that the "elites" are the answer, but that
people having freedom is the answer.
I have more degrees and credentials than most of the GOPe elites. I know a number of them
personally and do not see them as being "better".
Bush 41 kicked out the Reagan folks as soon as they took over, restoring the GOPe to its
position of dominance after Reagan brought in a much more populist and nationalist
conservatism to Washington.
Trump has governed (by action) more conservatively than I ever anticipated. The economy is
booming. Regulations are disappearing. And he isn't declining American foreign policy, but is
ditching the failed NWO and the Neocons behind it.
And he has thrown away the failed ideology and structures of the bipartisan Washington
establishment.
The people fearful of Trump are Democrats and NeverTrumpers who will lose power and wealth
by reducing the size and scope of the establishment.
And Trump's tweets are part his repertoire to disrupt the media driven narratives and
allow him to shake up the world.
Sometimes entrenched interests need to be knocked off their pedestals. Populism arises
when the elites lose connection with the people.
Reagan was a populist revolutionary as well. He attacked sacred cows. He was a better
speaker, but his opposition wasn't nearly as vile. Bureaucrats still mostly cared about doing
a good job and serving the country, instead of secretly resisting democracy. And 40% of the
country still hated Reagan as president ..
In the past, when one or two parties became rotten, new parties emerged to challenge
them. But in the early 20th century, the Dems and the GOP agreed to revise election laws to
create prohibitively steep requirements for any party that had not gotten a certain
percentage of the vote the previous election, thereby creating the myth of the "major
parties" and the "two party system."
There should be about three new parties emerging now, of which one would probably start to
fade, along with the two former majors, although one of the majors might reform itself under
competitive pressure, or merge with one of the up and coming parties.
So which is it? " he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most ardent
supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any
substantive claim that Trump is a populist." Or, A lot of us will end up voting for them by
default, because we decide for whatever reason voting for a Democrat could be worse, but that
doesn't change the fact that the Republicans are incapable of responsible government."?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Americans who have volunteered to serve as combatants in the (oligarch-designed) culture
war have essentially assumed George Carlin's view of American elections (see: 1996 rant on
YouTube). while You the People were ringing hands and gnashing teeth over who can marry whom
(and who bakes the wedding cake?), or who gets to use which (public) restroom or locker
room?, or does the government or an individual have the authority to make choices regarding
healthcare and/or a person's body (male and female); the patsy-in-chief has been stepped on
the accelerator in terms of the environment, the economy, and the Middle East (not to mention
Korea). by endorsing the GOP political strategy of "weaponizing" individual behavior/choice
(aka morality), and enthusiastically volunteering to participate in the culture war, have
sold short – "chosing" to be political cannon fodder, as opposed an engaged and
critically thinking electorate. kudo's to the individual who chose the image of a pack of
jackals feasting on carrion. oligarchs are shameless scavengers, and yet Americans continue
to debate morality and ethics, while the carcass is picked clean.
"My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it.."
Fair enough. Problem is, the Founders sort of started with the assumption that there are
no "elites" – that the "best and brightest" of us need checks and balances even worse
than the rest of us.
The gloriously competent elites of the past are a mirage, another "good ole times"
fallacy. Given the performance of Congress this century (and a good chunk of last), we might
as well appoint Senators and Representatives by lottery, similar to jury duty, and mandate
that all lobbyists participating in legislatives drafts have to comply with FOIA
requirements.
There is certainly rot, but it has nothing to do with incompetence, "expertise", or
hierarchy. We have a system of government that has tailored its institutions to those that
excel at expertly gaming the system to extract personal profit, primarily from that most
rotten of ventures, war. Brooks is just another camp follower of that endless train of
criminality and greed.
David Brooks just doesn't get it. What kind of bubble is he like bing in?
With Bush 43, we were promised a Dream Team of advisors: Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Howard
Baker, Donald Rumsfeld – smart, experienced, sober men who were going to provide
"excellence" in leadership. What we got wasn't "excellence" – we got a disastrous war
and a ruined economy. They failed this country. Unlike some conspiracy mongers, I don't claim
"Bush lied" – he just made a wrong decision based on the bad advice of his "Dream
Team." But, to this day, none of them will admit that it was wrong decision. What does that
say about their judgment or character? I'm not angry that they made the wrong decision
– I supported the war myself. But, I was wrong and I am angry that they still claim it
was the right decision when no rational person could honestly think that. And I have no idea
how their failure would translate into any reasonable definition of "excellence."
Succeeding Bush was Obama, who by all news accounts was one of the smartest men ever to
occupy the White House. He ooozed "excellence." The result? He promised to unite the country
and ended up dividing it. He criticized Bush for invading Iraq, but decided to "double down"
and destabilize Syria and Lybia, unleashing ISIS on the region. His economic stimulus plan
failed and the economy did not recover. His health care plan wrecked the private insurance
industry and cost tens of thousands of workers their health care plan. And, oh yeah, he lied
when he claimed that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
I did not vote for Trump and do not particularly like him. But, for Brooks to say that
"excellence requires and talent" and "populism doesn't demand the effort required to
understand the best has been thought out and said" is to be completely oblivious to the
reality of the past 16 years. What does he think has been happening in this country the past
16 years? For 16 years, we have had the "excellence" that Brooks advocates and we got a
wrecked economy, jobs sent overseas, and our sons and daughters dying in Middle Eastern hell
holes. If this is "excellence," Mr. Brooks can have it.
FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and
Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000
campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior
operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S.
Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative.
This is really just Cosimanian Orthodoxy in action: If a very large sum of money is to be
disbursed suddenly and quickly with loose accounting and no accountability then it is a very
good idea to have your hard-core political loyalists in charge to make sure it gets where it
is supposed to go.
Remember Whitefish Energy, the two-man firm that received a $300 million contract to
rebuild Puerto Rico's power system? Somebody was too greedy but thought he could get away
with it -- and almost did. How much of that money was ever going to reach Puerto Rico?
An immense sum of money was appropriated by Congress to rebuild New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina. There was more than one low-key report to the effect that the rebuilding
was a shadow of what might be expected for the sum appropriated. So, where did the money
go?
A number of years ago there was a very severe earthquake in Haiti, the poorest country in
the Western Hemisphere. One of the largest and best know American charities raised several
billion dollars for relief. A few years later a reporter went down to see how well they did.
He could only find about $20 million is aid disbursed. So, where did the money go?
George W. Bush, who oversaw rebuilding after Katrina, and Bill Clinton, who's probity is
well known, oversaw relief operations in Haiti to make sure they were clean and well run; so,
nothing to see here, move along.
There are whole volumes of things in Washington that the press doesn't think we need to
know. As Iowahawk wrote, "The job of the media is to cover important issues. With a pillow.
Until they stop moving.
[NFR: Four years after 9/11, it is incredible and indefensible that President Bush had
cronies running the Federal Emergency Management Agency. -- RD]
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his
father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus
on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed
HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000
for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);
he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important
and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.
The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential
in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty
common for people in his field and position.
I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot
on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him.
As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings.
Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish
?)
Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working
"in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved
in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent
to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years
after retiring? It's just force of habit.
I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would
have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI
office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server
file in light of this.
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous
- how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?
"... The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect. ..."
"... Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order to get this amazingly low debt service. ..."
"... Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing? If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at artificially low levels in perpetuity. ..."
"... I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans". ..."
"... For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us, especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show. Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least, totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them. ..."
"... poll end of October 2017 shows widespread fed up with government policies and war https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/news/cki-real-clear-politics-foreign-policy-poll/ ..."
"... It is impressive how the Democrats do nothing, but nothing at all against the catastrophic tax 'reform', instead - me too! ..."
"... I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately $3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town. ..."
"... We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes? ..."
"... You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments. ..."
"... People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets available at depressed prices ..."
"... There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these technologies existed. ..."
"... Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to create much flow on to the rest of the population. ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday said the tax cuts included in the tax reform
package Republican lawmakers crafted in conjunction with the Trump Administration have to be
deficit neutral so as to conform with budget reconciliation rules.
The U.S. Republican tax cut plan that President Donald Trump wants passed by the end of the
year is unlikely to trigger a big deficit expansion because it will spur more investment and
job growth, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told Reuters in an interview on
Wednesday.
"Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you
have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take-home pay, that means higher tax
revenues ," Ryan told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."
The tax overhaul legislation that Ryan shepherded through the House -- the Senate takes up
its version this week -- would add at least $1 trillion to budget deficits over the next
decade, even when accounting for economic growth, according to independent tax analysts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending
on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit .
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle
the debt and the deficit ," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio
show.
And no. The Democrats aren't any better. Look at the trillions Obama handed to Wall Street.
That wasn't even a tax cut, it was a give-away. Obamacare is a sham, willfully constructed in
way that makes sure it can't survive. The Democrats only pretend to care for the people. As
soon as they again have a majority and fake intent for pro-social reforms the Repubs will again
whine about the deficit and the Democrats will be happy to fold.
The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class
while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin
Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect.
Indeed. Two faces, same coin. The msm desperately wants to keep the relevant the age-old
rope-a-dope of the Demotards vs. Rethuglicans 2K17! Jesus, ever-loving-Christ, though, you
fuck with social security and Medicare and you bring on the wrath of AARP's membership.
Release the BLUE-HAIRS!
Can't wait, but that is another struggle for another day. In the mean time, I notice that
even the mention of Paul Ryan elicits a shudder. Such a slime.
It [was] a remarkably low $240B as of 2016. Does this mean that the Fed can just keep short term
rates low or even reduce them, vis-a-vis the Japanese model, and allow U.S. govt debt to grow
to arbitrarily high levels?
Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order
to get this amazingly low debt service. Now let's suppose over the next 50yrs our national
debt grows to a ridiculous $100T, if the fed puts short term rates at 0.1% then our annual
debt service will still be at the same levels or less.
Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing?
If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at
artificially low levels in perpetuity.
Here's to the evolving True Political
Awakening .
Move beyond the two-faced monkeys; the 2-faced division-makers; the 2 lying parties. Move
beyond them into yourself, your own mind and thoughts, owned by no-one; a critical and
independent thinker who seeks the truth.
I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement
reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans".
There was a large mound formed recently over the grave of former Republican senator from WI
Bob Lafollette Sr., this protrusion was caused by his rapidly spinning corpse.
For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us,
especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show.
Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least,
totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them.
The Democrats, all while the GOP Tax SCAM was being shoved down our gobs, wasted all of
their time and "emotions" on a witch hunt to toss Al Franken outta the Senate. Franken is not
my favorite Senator by a long shot, but this is yet another chapter of the Democraps ACORNing
their own purportedly in the name of "taking the moral high ground." My Aunt Fanny.
Complicit, greedy, conniving, venal, deplorable bastards the whole d*mn lot with the
possible exception of Bernie Sanders (no great shakes but the pick of the litter).
Ugh. Don't get me started on all of those dual Israeli/USA citizens in riddling our
Congress. They are ALL in favor of this Jerusalem travesty with Schmuck Schumer leading the
charge. That's not about Trump... or not much about Trump. I place blame on worthless scum
like Schumer.
This is why people voted for Trump: they could see the worthlessness of both parties. Of
course, voting for Trump was a complete Mug's game, as for sure, the way things have turned
out was a foregone conclusion.
I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security
funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately
$3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town.
We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in
place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes?
top rate on regular income: 91%
top rate on capital gains: 25%
top rate on corporate tax: 52%
The top income tax tier back then was $400,000 - adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars,
that's about $10 million. So anyone with an income of $10 million would still get a take-home
pay of $1 million a year. Seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it?
Good one b, the demodogs will stoop their feet point figures so they can raise lots of
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay their friends the consultants and lose more seats. It's what they do
best.
I've almost given up. It's not just amerika; lookit Australia this week where the citizens
are being distracted by a same sex marriage beatup which should have been settled in 5
minutes years ago - meanwhile the last vestiges of Australia's ability to survive as a
sovereign state are being flogged off to anyone with a fat wedge in their kick.
Aotearoa isn't much better the 'new' government which was elected primarily because the
citizens were appalled to discover that for about the first time in 150 years, compatriots -
compatriots with jobs in 'the gig economy' were homeless in huge numbers, has just announced
that the previous government's housing policy was a total mess, and that fixing the problem
will be difficult -really Jacinda we never woulda guessed, I guess what yer really trying to
say is nothing is gonna change.
The englanders are in even worse trouble with their brexit mess, the political elite is
choosing to ignore a recent Northern Ireland poll which revealed that most people in the
north would rather hook up with Ireland than stay with an non EU UK, so the pols there are
arguing over semantics about the difference between "regulatory alignment" and "regulatory
equivalence" as it applies to Ulster while the pound is sinking so fast it is about to
establish equivalence with the euro by xmas.
No one is paying attention to what is really happening as in between giving us the lowdown on
which 2nd rate mummer was rude to a 3rd rate thespian and advertorials about the best
chronometer (who even wears a watch in 2017?) for that man in your life, the media simply
doesn't have the time much less the will to tell the citizens how quickly their lives are
about to go down the gurgler.
The only salient issue is - will the shit hit the fan before the laws are in place to
silence, lock up and butcher dissenters, or will there be a brief period where we hit the
barricades and have a moment of glory before humanity gets to enjoy serfdom Mk2?
b, have you really taken a look at federal government spending? What is the ratio of spending
by the German government between social programs and discretionary spending for defense,
agriculture subsidies, infrastructure, etc?
The majority of federal government spending is non-discretionary social entitlement
spending with the biggest being health care spending. Just Medicare & Medicaid is a third
of all federal government spending. Then you have to add health care spending for federal
government employees and members of Congress, Tricare and VA. With health care costs growing
at 9% each and every year as it has for the past 30 years, medical related expenditures as a
share of total federal government spending will continue to rise.
Deficits will continue to grow as these entitlement programs grow automatically as
eligibility grows. Even if all defense expenditures were zeroed out, the federal government
would still run a deficit.
You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative
yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments.
European junk bonds with 10 year duration yielding less than 10 yr US Treasury bond. Loss
making, junk rated European companies raising even more intermediate term debt at 0.001%.
Corporations borrowing to buy back stock. The Swiss National Bank creating money out of thin
air and owning $85 billion of US equity in major US companies like Apple & Google. The
Bank of Japan owning a third of all Japanese government bonds outstanding and the Top 10
holder of the companies in the Nikkei 100 index. Financial speculation off the charts across
the globe.
People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is
like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which
they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to
pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no
printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows
up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the
supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the
economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets
available at depressed prices
As for the debt owed by the US the privately owned Fed will ensure the government can
borrow whatever is needed for interest payments since they can create an infinite supply of
money by acquiring junk and calling them assets. Out pal OPEC (Saudis) keeps Petro dollar
(USD ) in demand and exchange rates are set within agreed upon limits by the worlds central
banks under the BIS, with input from various shadowy groups like Bilderbergers, trilaterals
and CFR. And if all else fails, an attack on the USD will result in the military option being
used
To remain in power corrupt governments rely on a citizen base that is uneducated or
misinformed, busy surviving to pay taxes and daily expenses, is dependent on government and
in debt and is well entertained. They must also be divided by religion, race, social, gender,
age and party (secular religion) and given a common external enemy to fear.
The system is working to perfection. Neoliberal economics is the icing on the cake and is
the gift that keeps on giving to the chosen ones.
Check out the pdf on money creation by the Bank of England
There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to
campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video
conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign
rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care
of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of
Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these
technologies existed.
I think people are just too lazy to make the effort. Most elections people are just too
lazy to even vote.
While I agree that money can just be created there is a limit to that particularly when
low constraints on consumable supplies run parallel to established shortfalls on finite goods
such as houses, land, food etc. Inflation runs rampant and we weak humans distract ourselves
with cheap baubles instead of creating useful shit and putting a roof over the heads of our
children - "waddaya want for xmas kid, a freehold shithole or a new VR headset?" "I'll take
the vive Dad".
Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by
encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright
production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like
railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into
health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to
create much flow on to the rest of the population.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
The Problem that The Economist wants to talk about? Public Outrage a.k.a. Populism.
The other less important problem that a magazine called The Economist might want to address, but which it doesn't want to talk
about: the economy is bust, and why.
Typical scenario for the last 18 years:
January - Private Equity Investor (PEI) has 20 million. He uses it a security to borrow 200 mio from Bank1 to buy
a company Widgets. Widgets is a solid manufacturing business with assets of land, factories, patents, a brand, good will and
no debts.
March - Widgets borrows 300 million from Bank2 – no problems, its a solid business – but here comes the bit
where it all goes criminal, but not illegal... Widgets pays out 300 million to PEI its owner as a dividend, who repays
200 to Bank1. PEI now has 100 million cash, and has done nothing for it. Widgets however has to pay 20 million in interest
per year. PEI now has 100 million.
July - Widgets also sells its assets: land, patents and so on and leases them back for 30 million a year. The sales
bring 200 million which Widgets also pays out to PEI its owner. PEI now has 300 million.
August - Widgets Pension Fund is 'restructured' bringing a liquid 150 million onto the balance sheet. Widgets has
liabilities to its pensioners with little to back them. 150 million is paid out to PEI as a special dividend., PEI now has
450 million.
December - PEI sells the business to a pension fund, for 100 million, less than he paid as it has a lot of debt,
but it is a good business. PEI now has 550
Recap: Widgets now has 300 million debt causing 20 million a year in interest, plus 30 million in leasing payments.
It has pension liabilities and the pension fund is almost worthless. PEI had 20 million at the start of the year and now has
550 million. But the business is still viable, as Widgets can meet its payments.
5 years later - Sadly hard times come. Turnover drops, prices drop, costs are cut, people lose their jobs, including
engineers, managers, the shop floor and the sales team who did real work for years, created real value, invented the patents,
built the brand. It doesn't help. The company has no stores of fat - it goes bust. The banks loans are sour. People lose their
jobs, the pensioners cannot be paid.
This happens 100 times so the banks are bust too, but get bailed out by the taxpayer (that's those guys who lost their jobs
and pensions at Widgets)
PEI lives happily in The Bahamas with the 550 million which he 'earned' in a fabulous year of 'value creation' made possible
by the power of free and light touch regulated markets.
Sadly, due to the complexity of all this the bright chaps at The Economist can not quite see why this is a slightly problematic
way to run an economy... Honi suit qui mal y pense.
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
"... This is not simply a tax bill: It is the last stage of a corporate coup that has been slow-walking its intentions for decades. ..."
"... non quid pro quo, non problemo. ..."
"... Observing from abroad and therefore at a loss. Did this tax bill sink in with those Trump voters who supported him 12 months ago because of his anti-establishment rants? Or is the situation already past flipping the table? ..."
"... They're thoroughly brainwashed by right wing media, and tend to be low information voters who rail against fake news. They want to "give Trump a chance". They make decisions based on what they see in their personal lives. It will take them a couple years to notice things have gotten a lot worse, and by then who knows what they'll blame (besides blacks and women and poor people of course, those are a given). ..."
I blame the Clintonites for this. Nearly half of eligible voters didn't cast ballots in
the 2016 presidential election -- mid-term turnouts are even lower. If you count ineligible
people -- recent immigrants, people convicted of felonies or whose voting rights are
suspended, and children, the DNC Dems and the GOP have decided that they only need to appeal
to fewer than 20 percent of the population to stay in office. They are HAPPY to screw the
other 80 percent of the population.
This my friends, is despotism masquerading as democracy.
I agree with you about blame for the Clintonites. They hollowed out any meaningful core of
the Democratic party and went out of their way to out-plutocrat the plutocrats.
I also blame Senate Dems. I notice that for all their bluster the Senate Dems did not
actually leave the senate to criticize this. Only Sanders did.
But I have to disagree with your last point. There was no masquerade. This was knifework
in broad daylight. The Republicans were so desperate to get this over the line (and to quite
literally pay themselves off) that they no longer care to pretend. But for people like
McConnell and Ryan that does not matter. Their investors get paid.
This seems appropriate: 'what's passed is prolegomena of any future malevolence'
If reconciled and signed by Trump, this legislation will leave tens of millions of people
beaten, baffled and bereft. With this bill, they establish a permanent inheritor class whose
wealth will be so vast and untouchable that they can buy every election -- local, state and
federal -- from here on out. This is not simply a tax bill: It is the last stage of a
corporate coup that has been slow-walking its intentions for decades.
Whether you trace a grand narrative change in that mass psyche back to the worldwide
countercultural uprising of the `60s and `70s which as Derrida was to phrase it deconstructed
a mythology of a grounding reason transparently expressed in language, or to a relentless
undermining of governmental authority launched by Conservative think tanks, attitudes changed
drastically. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/97906/
not "for decades" "follow the $$$$" to Wall Street bank trillions allowed placed under
FDIC, by totally disempowered government, following 2007 $600 trillion largest theft-crime in
human history:
"JPM is the world's largest purveyor of derivatives. Its total contracts have a notional
value of $72 trillion -- and 99 percent of them are booked at its FDIC-insured bank.
Citigroup has nearly all of its $53 trillion in derivatives in its FDIC-insured bank; Goldman
Sachs has $44 trillion parked at an FDIC-backed institution. After Bank of America purchased
Merrill Lynch, BofA began transferring the securities firm's derivatives to the FDIC-insured
bank, which now holds $47 trillion in contracts. When Senators Sherrod Brown and Carl Levin,
among others, complained that regulators' acquiescence in these transfers contradicted
Congressional instructions in the 2010 Dodd-Frank reform law, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC
and the Treasury Department's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency refused to answer
their objections. This matter involves "confidential supervisory" and "proprietary business
information," the three agencies responded in unison."
(Yves, others, having already shown how crime was perpetrated)
In terms of "blaming the Clintonites," it's useful to look at the Senate seats that the
Dems lost in 2016 because of the loser at the top of the ticket, the failure to campaign in
places like Wisconsin, the failure to do voter registration & GOTV, and the failure to
deal with voter "purges" and other suppression tactics.
The very good Russ Feingold ran in Wisconsin again the dreadful Ron Johnson -- and lost.
There's a vote the Dems could have used to fight this disaster.
Go on back through the 2016 list and see how Clinton and her enablers did this to what
used to be the Democratic party. I'm too depressed to do so right now.
I'm reading Brazile's book. It's humorous and interesting (much more interesting than I
expected from the excerpt in politico), but reinforces your point for sure.
The GOP and the Democrats are playing bad cop-good cop. Both serve the rich. They've used
culture war issues to split the nation, while the rich loot and pillage society.
The GOP is horrible, but the Establishment Democrats enabled their policies. Bill Clinton
did that to Reagan and Obama to Bush 2.
It's a disgrace. Both parties serve the same rich donors. It's a party, and you are not
invited. You will be forced to pay the bill though.
as he isn't on your 'bloggers' list, yves, you and your commentariat may or may not find
jack rasmus credible. but he weighed in at length on the house version of the gang rape of
the rabble classes on nov. 13. the senate seems to have mooted a few of the items, but what
will come out of reconciliation will be a set-up for destroying what's left of the social
safety net. how many ill die, how many will bleed, go hungry, lose their houses, their
minds
'The Trump-US House $4.6 TrillionTax Cut–Who Pays?', by Jack Rasmus, Nov. 13
That's in a way, good news for the progressives, in the November 2018 election, because
I think what we can try to ensure, is that this is the last time the Republican Party is
ever able to do this to the American people.
Really? And which "progressives" would those be? The ones who can't seem to keep their
John Thomases from jumping out of their knickers to say "Hello!" to every passing nubile
young fleshpot? Does he mean the Democrat party which today largely consists of Republicans
who can just mange not to drool on themselves while speaking? These are the people voters are
going to flock to the polls to elect? Funny, I thought 2006, or maybe 2008 was the "last
time" the Republican party would be able to do this to the American people.
And when those "progressives" fail to deliver just like the last time they had the
majority, we can start the whole charade all over again. Yippee.
I am sure that the DNC is partying over this. They can run all their blue dogs in 2018,
and when this all takes effect the people will vote for anyone with a D next to their
name.
this is from wsws.org this a.m., although before the final vote: 'The US Senate tax bill:
The financial oligarchy on the rampage'. holy hell.
""For Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted against Obamacare repeal, the price of
her vote was incorporating into the tax bill an unrelated provision opening the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration. For Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve
Daines of Montana, the price was another $60 billion in tax breaks for "S-corporations," the
mid-sized, multi-million-dollar enterprises that were treated less advantageously in the
original bill than giant corporations. (the 'pass-throughs') The families of both senators
own such companies. Senator Susan Collins of Maine extracted a promise from Trump to support
increased financial subsidies for big insurance companies participating in Obamacare.
"The money-grabbing is so reckless that the tax bill does not provide even a fig leaf of
"fairness." In 2027, for example, according to figures provided by the Joint Committee on
Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office (both Republican-controlled), the bill raises
the taxes of people making $40,000 to $50,000 a year by $5.3 billion and cuts the taxes of
those making $1 million a year or more by $5.8 billion."
"Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer was not in the group [15 or so Ds' press
conference], but he has repeatedly indicated his support for the main goals of the tax bill,
which are to slash the corporate income tax rate, now 35 percent, and to allow giant
companies holding trillions in cash overseas to "repatriate" the funds and pay only a nominal
tax. He closed out the Senate debate with unctuous praise for Republicans, "many of whom I
admire," and an appeal for them to reconsider and reach a bipartisan deal with the
Democrats.
A late decision by Republicans could severely limit companies' ability to use tax
credits for research and low-income housing.
"For many companies, they will find that they will be unable to use the research credit
because of that minimum tax constraint," said Drew Lyon of PwC LLP.
In the previous version of the Senate bill, repealing the corporate AMT reduced revenue
by $40 billion over a decade. That suggests that retaining it would raise that much money.
Mr. Lyon said he was surprised that the estimate was that low and that the change would
affect many companies.
Who needs research. That's just fancy fake news for credentialed 20%ers. And who needs low
income housing when incomes of real Americans will be soaring. Just as form follows function,
policy follows process. Writing a multi-trillion dollar tax bill in real time has
consequences.
Now that it's passed, how long before Democrats and Republicans "come together in a spirit
of bipartisanship" to make the "hard decisions" to privatize Social Security and Medicare in
order to ensure "fiscal responsibility?" This country's cruelty and hatred of poor people is
shocking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJeFrqBJF6E
I wonder if more Medicaid is used to house the elderly, than pay for health care for the
poor. Most of these for profit long term care places will close. All the better, never put
mom & dad there. Very costly with little care.
" You really don't read this kind of legislation ," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.,
told home-state reporters, asked why the Senate was approving a bill some senators hadn't
read.
Democrats took to the Senate floor and social media to mock one page that included
changes scrawled in barely legible handwriting.
Nothing wrong with scribbling dramatic changes to the tax code on cocktail napkins, as ol'
Wilbur Mills (chair, Wayz 'n Means) used to do when he was cruising the boîtes
of Foggy Bottom with the Argentine Firecracker Fanne Fox. It's considered poor form, though,
if the lipstick smudges remain visible.
It may be poor form, but I was under the impression that a contract signed in soy sauce
using a swizzle stick still had the force of law behind it.
The other big problem with this is that "what happens inside the Beltway" don't stay inside
the Beltway. That other casino resort, Las Vegas at least pays lip service to decorum.
Regarding the sequence in this interview where Maté briefly challenges Henry on
"full employment" and then lets him dismiss it blithely and concludes "So, I don't think
anyone denies that the economy's operating at a pretty tight rate. We don't see inflation
rising yet but no one's making the case we need tax cuts in order to stimulate economic
growth except these Republican donors."
This is exactly what is wrong with mainstream economics and Democratic Party rhetoric.
While everyone knows tax cuts –especially these tax cuts–are a poor way to
stimulate growth, both this very site and the more intellectually coherent parts of the
populist alt-right are arguing quite the opposite: that we're not "tight" and
deindustrialization and US trade policy are to blame.
Rhetoric like this is one reason for the white-hot fury in the Rustbelt that got us Trump
and also why Sanders was far more appealing than Clinton to so many voters.
David Stockman is telling it like it is & that is why Fox/CNBC cut him off. Plain and
straight any Fox viewer can understand, When I listen to C-span many immigrant callers
(basing this on accents) they understand it is a scam. Greatest caller comment (sounded like
midwest), " this bill is like the story my grandpa told us about the cow & the sparrow,
Feed the cows enough oats & it passes through the alimentary canal, then some gets
sprayed out on the grass for the sparrows. They cut him off. HA!
Peak Plutocracy as "K Street" lobbyists rewrite the tax code for the benefit of large
corporations, Wall Street and a few wealthy families, and their legislators obfuscate the
contents of the legislation and remain deaf to the desires of the majority of the American
people. Seems to me there was a political event about 240 years ago against just this type of
behavior.
K street has been writing our laws for some time, not sure why these people even need
staff. We need to figure out a way to create a new economic system and not become a part of
this, like the so called unbaked that these companies are chasing.
It seems to me that this tax bill is just the kind of effort that millionaires and
billionaires would want from themselves. They need never think of anyone else because they
run the WHOLE show. No one should be surprised.
Ryan Grim over at The Intercept has done some of the math. The scary awful results are
nicely summed up in the title:
The GOP Plan Is the Biggest Tax Increase in American History, By Far The net upshot of
the accounting is that it is a 6 trillion dollar benefit for the very very rich at the
expense of everyone else.
The Dem messaging on this was terrible, whether due to incompetence or collusion. Two
charts which should have been plastered over the airwaves and online are about two thirds of
the way down this
Vox article based on Tax Policy Center data, labeled "How much the Republican tax bill
cuts taxes for Americans in each income group by 2019"
and " by 2025".
Better that the Dems had spent $30 million putting these charts in front of GOP
constituents' eyeballs, rather than flushing it down the drain in GA-06.
A staple of legislation involves regulatory discretion accorded "the Secretary" of the
lead department -- in this case Treasury and Mnuchin. Phrases such as this appear 71 times in
the pdf copy of the passed
bill I just opened:
"The Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out the purposes of this section " "the
Secretary may waive part or all of the tax imposed by subsection (a) "
This kind of language turned out to be an achilles heel in Obama's ACA, once "the
Secretary" became (the now-departed) Tom Price. As this GOP POS language is finalized,
discretionary authorities granted "the Secretary" will be very important. Mnuchin. Isn't that
comforting?
Heard Chris Mathews say the dems did not really fight this because it is a win-win for
them. Their donors receive huge sums in tax breaks to in turn funnel some crumbs back to the
Democratic Party owners and of course they get to run against it in '18. WBF we be f .
I read a book as a kid where all the adults died of some mysterious disease. I seriously
hope someone is using CRISPR to make a virus that kills every single millionaire. I hope it
is a miserable painful death too.
Blackstone, Carlyle, KKR, Apollo just got their own little loophole in the tax bill.
Cornyn amendment 1715 (to be included in manager's amendment). PTP [publicly traded
partnership] income, but not other financial services income, gets 23% passthrough
deduction.
As Steve Schwartzman would say, it's like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.
And as SCOTUS would say, non quid pro quo, non problemo.
Observing from abroad and therefore at a loss. Did this tax bill sink in with those
Trump voters who supported him 12 months ago because of his anti-establishment rants? Or is
the situation already past flipping the table?
They're thoroughly brainwashed by right wing media, and tend to be low information
voters who rail against fake news. They want to "give Trump a chance". They make decisions
based on what they see in their personal lives. It will take them a couple years to notice
things have gotten a lot worse, and by then who knows what they'll blame (besides blacks and
women and poor people of course, those are a given).
The Hill today reported that 6,000 lobbyists worked on this tax legislation. Funny, don't
recall voting for any of them. Also didn't realize there were anywhere near that many in the
Swamp. Wonder who even decides how to organize them on a project like this?
So in summary, the GOP tax bill was written in secret by donors' lobbyists, with last
minute handwritten amendments and "pork" revisions in exchange for individual senators'
votes, then passed in the middle of the night without time for a full reading or analysis by
senators.
Begs the question: "Taxation without representation"?
BTW, my friends, on page 97 of the Senate bill is a provision enacting "Personhood at
Conception," according certain tax "designated beneficiary" rights to the "unborn."
Not liking where we are and pulling up stakes whether from Ireland during the Hunger, or
from the German states after the 1848 revolution, or from Sweden when 'land reform' left you
with a sliver of land that wouldn't support a family of squirrels, or from the violence and
social chaos of southern Italy . and leaving for a 'better' country, has gotten us to this
point. We are, effectively, out of room on this Planet; there is no 'new world,' no 'empty'
continent.
We have run and retreated, beaten down by kings, barons, petty aristocrats, mean
landlords, occupying armies and, sometimes, simply lusting for a new landscape to scrape and
burn.
We have run and run, sometimes mounting a desultory rear guard action, but now, we have
no option but to turn and fight.
Well, we always have the option to surrender, be captured
and interned in the death camps of austerity, shredded safety nets, crapified jobs and debt
peonage. Our choice.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
"... Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
"... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
"... The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women). ..."
"... McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights. ..."
"... Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. ..."
"... Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up. ..."
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
As readers know, I'm a big fan of paper ballots[1], and the recent Election in Virginia
gives me a chance to explain why. (The "recount" phase -- erroneously named, as what's been
happening is
resolving absentee and provisional ballots -- seems to have culminated with the
Republicans keeping control of the Virginia House by a whisker, 49-51 .) First, I'll do
that, and set up two requirements that any system for counting votes in a democracy should
meet. Then, I'll look at Virginia's "Back to the Future" transition from digital voting to
paper ballots.
From Brad Friedman's essay on " Democracy's Gold Standard" (with numbering added), a set of
requirements for voting systems suitable for a democracy:
Last March, the country's highest court found that secret, computerized vote counting was
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the country was Germany, and the Constitution violated by
e-voting systems was the one that the U.S. wrote and insisted Germans ratify as part of their
terms of surrender following WWII.
Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights expert, summarized the German
court's unambiguous, landmark finding :
"No 'specialized
technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts." There is
a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count." "[T]he government substitution
of its own check or what we'd probably call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public
observation." "A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards. "As a
result of these principles, 'all independent observers' conclude that 'electronic voting
machines are totally banned in Germany' because no conceivable computerized voting system can
cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of being both 'observable' and also not
requiring specialized technical knowledge.
If you go through this set of requirements, you'll see that hand-marked paper ballots,
hand-counted in public, meet every one of them. You will also see that digital voting systems,
no matter how designed or implemented, cannot. They cannot, especially, meet requirements #1
("no specialized technical knowledge to monitor") and #2 ("a publicly observed count"). The
first requirement ensures that the voting process is not riggable by insiders with technical
expertise (native, or hired); the second ensures that the actual voting is not rigged on
election day. These are important requirements for a functioning democracy.
On September 24, hundreds of thousands of volunteers will be handing out ballots, checking
voters' names against lists, and counting votes once the polling station closes. The entire
process is open to the public Every citizen is allowed to watch and monitor the entire
counting process; and in effect, the volunteers monitor each other.
No specialized technical knowledge
[T]he volunteers open the ballot box, take out the envelopes and remove the ballot slips.
They sort the ballots according to a pre-arranged system, decide on whether the votes are
valid or invalid, and count the votes – reading out each vote aloud, which is noted in
writing in a log.
At the end, the number of ballots is compared with the number of people who voted in that
particular polling station.
Now, let's turn to Virginia. It's worth noting that Virginia's move back to paper is being
applauded
across the political spectrum . From the centrist Daily Banter ,
a summary of the history:
It wasn't until 2014, when the state experienced a myriad of problems on Election Day,
that Governor Terry McAuliffe proposed
an overhaul of the state voting system. By 2015, the Virginia Board of Elections decertified
the use of WINVote, but they were still
stuck with other DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) systems. This past summer, at a
DefCon conference in Las Vegas, computer scientists staged a "Voting Machine Hacking
Village" to prove the instabilities of DRE, which included a single password for all
machines, physical ports to insert malware, and reliance on outdated software that had not
been updated since the mid-2000s.
In emergency meeting, Virginia elections board votes to scrap all touch-screen voting
machines
The Virginia State Board of Elections voted Friday to discontinue use of all touch-screen
voting machines throughout the state because of potential security vulnerabilities, forcing
22 cities and counties to scramble to find new equipment just weeks before voting begins for
the November gubernatorial election.
Behind closed doors at an emergency meeting in Richmond on Friday afternoon, the board
heard about specific vulnerabilities identified after a cybersecurity conference this summer
in Las Vegas, where hackers showed they could break into voting machines with relative
ease.
In an interview, Elections Commissioner Edgardo Cortés acknowledged that the short
time frame could put localities under the gun. However, 10 of the 22 localities that still
use touch screens, either as their primary voting method or for more limited uses, have
already begun buying new equipment, Cortés said. That leaves 12 that will have to
start from scratch, but Cortés said the rapid swap is "doable" and worth the "hiccups"
that may come with new equipment.
(The Banter points to "Russian targeting of last year's presidential election" (whatever
that means)
as do
others , but if the threat of Russia hacking was a necessary cause for the Board's
decisionl, it was certainly the DefCon that was the proximate one).[2] In any case, the Board's
decision was taken September 8, and by Election Day, November 7, the transition was complete
with no reported problems, which shows you the advantages of adopting simple, rugged, and
proven systems. Here is how the system works, as described in a press release from
Albemarle County :
The Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections wants to alert voters
that a new, digital scan voting system will be used in all County voting precincts in the
upcoming November 3, 2015 general election. The previously used "touchscreen" voting machines
have been replaced by the new voting systems as a result of the Commonwealth of Virginia's
mandate which requires jurisdictions move toward the use of digital scan technology.
With the new system, voters will mark paper ballots at marking booths, and then deposit
the marked paper ballots into a digital ballot scanning machine, which will read the ballots,
and drop them into a secure ballot storage bin. When the polls close on Election Day, at 7
PM, the election officers at the voting precincts will obtain the tabulated totals of votes
from a results report that will be printed by the digital scanning machine. After the
election, the paper ballots will be kept in secure storage for a period of one year, to
ensure a voter-verified paper trail in the event of a recount.
Recall our two requirements. Can the Virginia System be said to meet them?
1) Public observation. Yes and no. Yes, because the ballot is handmarked, and dropped in the
box in public. No, because the ballots are counted in the innards of the optical scanner. (This
can be mitigated by storing the ballots for recounts later, if needed.) And no, because the
actual running of the count from the scanners does not take place in public, nor (AFAIK) the
integration into the totals of provisional and absentee ballots.
2) No specialized technical knowledge. Yes and no. Yes, because clearly paper ballots are an
improvement in every way from the horrid touch screens. No, in the same that once again, the
innards of the optical scanner must be relied upon. (This could be mitigated, depending on the
choice of vendor, by dealing with an actual scanner industry, as opposed to a bunch of tiny,
sketchy outfits purveying custom, proprietary software.)
In summary, and IMNSHO, there should be no digital determination or intermediation of
voter intent whatever ; why should we trust the scanner software engineers, or those who
run them? There's no reason to, any more than there's reason to trust the engineers or
operators of mechanical voting machines.) Virginia's ballots are indeed hand-marked, but they
are not hand-counted in public.[5]
With these strong caveats, Virginia's hand-marked paper ballots were well-received by the
public, and that's progress. WAVY :
At a voting precinct at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, voters said they had no issues
going back to pen and paper.
"It goes back to the old days, you know, we've been voting a long time, so we remember
when they didn't have anything but paper ballots," said voter Winston Whitehurst.
Voter Kevin Rafferty said he enjoyed the switch.
"It works. I understand. At least if we're having to spend some time on it, we're the only
ones in control, perhaps is the idea. Nobody else hacking on in I guess is their theory so
hopefully it's safe," he said.
"You can't hack paper," a man training a group of Hopewell poll workers on the new
[optical scanning] machines said.
(But you can hack the scanners -- using "specialized technical knowledge" --
and you can social engineer any process where the ballots are not hand-counted in public.)
Conclusion
Of the two requirements, the ability to monitor election results without technical expertise
is needed to prevent chicanery by those who structure the voting process. And the public count
is needed to prevent chicanery on election day by those who inspect and count the ballots.
Paper ballots can and do meet these requirements. That's why most Western countries use them,
and why many other countries have returned to them, after experimenting with digital systems.
Virginia's re-adoption of hand-marked paper ballots is a step forward, not backward.
NOTES
[1] For those who are concerned that paper ballots prevent ranked choice voting, Maine advocates disagree : "Ranked choice
voting is designed to work with paper ballots."
[2] The idea that "foreign invaders" (as the
Christian Science Monitor puts it) are the main threat for election theft seems very odd to
me. Surely domestic operatives are, or at least should be, the main concern?
[3] I vividly recall a Quebec referendum where the Quebec "scrutineers" rejected a seemingly
overlarge number of "No" ballots. But because the process was public, and not part of an
algorithmic black box, the scrutineers could be called out. Although Canada does use electronic
voting at the municipal level, the stakes are lower.
[4] Hilariously, a Google search on "How many countries use paper ballots" directs me to a
WikiPedia page on "Electronic voting by
country." 26 are listed. There are 195 countries.
[5] The convenience of election officials seems to bulk large in these disucussions; they
don't want to be
"up all night counting paper." Well, if the Germans (and the Canadians (and the Brits)) can
make that investment in democracy, why can't we?
Just an added note here to say that in Ireland, which uses Single Transferable Vote, the
law states that the election candidates can appoint Counting Agents , known as Tallymen during
the vote. They observe the opening of voting boxes and keep a tally during the count. As this
allows them to get a good feel for voting patterns, it eliminates another potential source of
fraud, box stuffing during or after the vote.
The Tallymen are so skilled they can often provide a very accurate result hours before the
final result (vote counting is much more complex for STV). There is no interest at all from
political parties for electronic voting because tally information is more fine grained than
final totals (as it is box by box rather than district by district) and so provides each
party with very valuable statistical information.
Same in Canada but we call them "scrutineers" or monitors (at least in Ontario). I worked
as an election official a while back (I think it was at the last provincial election) and one
of the scrutineers raised a big stink because the number of votes were not the same as the
number of people who voted. I left around 10 pm and I heard they were there until midnight
trying to resolve this. It was pure schadenfreude for me because I wasn't selected as one of
the vote-counting electoral officials but was just a lower-paid electoral assistant who
barred people from entering the building from the wrong door and gave directions to the
correct entrance. "Serves those idiots right for not picking me" was what I was thinking when
I left.
In France, the process is basically the same as in Germany. An interesting note, that I
don't see mentionned, is that once the public count is done and the number of votes matches
the number of voters, ballots are destroyed (except blank votes). A very sensible step as the
whole process is fraud-proof and ballots could be tampered with afterwards.
In this sense, there are no recounts (except the basic maths check). You can only report
to the courts irregularities in the process and there will be a new election if enough
polling station were affected to swing the election.
And the process is generally not too long. The average seems to be between one and three
hours so it's almost always done way before midnight (British seems to take a very long time,
if anyone cares to explain to me why ?). Of course, it helps a lot that we don't elect a
whole bunch of people on the same night (no lieutnant-governor, judges, sheriffs ), it's
always one election at a time with a dozen choices at most (and half the time it's only two
because of the two-round system).
Having used a number of different systems as I moved around the state of Maryland*, my
favorite system was hand marked ballots that were scanned by machine at the voting place. My
observations follow.
Old fashioned lever machines: They haven't made them for years, so there was always a
shortage of machines which led to long lines. Despite the fact that people are familiar with
them, they are an un-auditable black box like electronic voting machines.
Punched card machines. They always seemed physically a little difficult to operate and a
slight misalignment could result in a miscast vote. But there is a recountable paper trail
and only one or two scanners is required for each polling place.
Electronic voting machines. They're a completey un-auditable black box. They DO have the
advantage of being easier to adjust for people with limited vision and other handicaps. Each
voting station requires a separate machine, which means either greater expense or longer
lines compared to other systems. My guess is that programming the ballots into them probably
costs almost as much printing ballots and is more difficult to spot errors or fraud.
Hand counted ballots: The difficulty with hand counting ballots is that it is error-prone
and slow.
Paper ballots and digital scanners would seem to be the best system that I have used with
several caveats. You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check
for systemic fraud in the setup of the scanning machines. You have to have a good system to
deal with errors and complications. How do you void ballots that have been mis-marked by
accident? You have to make SURE that they aren't added to the tallys. You have to have a
system for contested/contingent voting, a way to segregate and maintain those ballots until
the eligibility of the voters is determined.
*It used to be that every county chose the vote system separately
You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check for systemic
fraud in the setup of the scanning machines.
That is an excellent suggestion however getting officials on board is not so easy. Our
state got new optical scan machines in all larger precincts a few years ago and since they
had never been used I made the same suggestion you did to our city council and asked for a
random audit. They refused and told me that by state law the city was not allowed to do an
audit just because they felt like it and the only way a recount could be done was if an
election was close enough to be within the mandated threshold needed to trigger one. If they
were correct about our state law, the state has actually made it illegal for cities to check
the accuracy of the machines they use. That would need to be changed in order for your
proposal to work.
I do still prefer handcounted paper ballots – I did get to participate in a hand
recount eventually and it was a LOT quicker than you might expect.
The other issue is cost – it would be a LOT cheaper to pay people to count by hand
than to replace millions of large pieces of aging machinery every decade or so.
Maybe, but machines can't determine voter intent on paper ballots nearly as well as humans
can. Our city uses these optical scanners and as noted last election season, we had a close
race that triggered a recount that I participated in. The human beings actually counted
more ballots than the machines did, as the machines didn't count those that were
filled out improperly (circles not completely filled out, or checked rather than filled in,
etc). Rough estimate, we were able to count approximately 2% more votes then the scanner
did.
If we're going to keep pretending we still have a democracy here in the US, everybody's
vote deserves to be counted in every election. The only way to do that is count paper ballots
by hand.
The FIRST TIME I heard that they were going to use IT technology for voting I thought they
must be kidding. It is so obviously wrong ON THE FACE OF IT that I have always suspected the
motives of those making that decision (although I suppose I should´t be too surprised
at human laziness being a motivating force!). Anyway, it is to me just another sign of the
dumbing down of America that this whole topic needs any discussion at all!!
Voltaire would have loved political position that the machines were perfect and unable be
hacked until Chavez-Venezuela bought voting machine manufacturer
Clinton conflates Virginia's switch to paper ballots with her claims that Russia hacked
into voter rolls and possibly went even further. This is Clinton speaking about it on Monday at the Atlanta
stop on her book tour.
So maybe we're finally getting some benefit from the claims that the Russians were able to
manipulate the election results in the United States! In reality, it's Republicans and
Democrats who manipulate election results in the U.S., but I'll accept a victory, even if
it's for the wrong reasons.
Exactly! Clinton applauds the reduced risk of paper ballots, but of course has to muddle
it all up with the dreaded Russian threat. I swear, Clinton can't help but link almost
everything to Russia now -- listening to her is like plaing a constant game of 6 degrees of
Kevin Bacon, except it's 3 degrees and its Russia.
One would think that governments would require that any software to be used in a public
election must be open source – not proprietary – and that it and its application
be open to public audit.
Vendors unwilling to comply can take their sales people elsewhere. If vendors are hard to
find, governments could join together in providing seed money for any number of parties to
develop and maintain the necessary code.
This is the sort of change that should be part of any elections improvement commissions,
not that the likes of Kris Kobach and his commission have in mind anything but voter
suppression. The use of proprietary software in a public election is as appropriate as a
cordon of watch dogs, lighted torches, or police cars outside a voting center.
"Making the source code available" for a critical system makes a good sound bite, but in
reality has a number of substantial problems:
o There is no guarantee that the compiled code in the box is the same as the purported
source code made public. Even technical experts would have a very hard time confirming this,
since the code in the box has been compiled down to machine instructions whereas the source
code is normally in a high level language.
o The process of building (compiling and linking) the code introduces myriad opportunities
for bad actors. E.g., code can include conditional sections or definitions that can be built
in various ways. The build process itself invokes other programs that themselves can be
hacked. Building also normally brings in third-party libraries of uncertain provenance, and
for which the source is typically unavailable.
o Inspecting realistic industrial software for *inadvertent* problems, called a code
review, is a big effort (many man weeks) and requires people with the requisite skills (often
arcane) and expertise in the problem domain. Inspecting code for *deliberate hacks* would be
much harder, and could well miss hacks anyway depending on the skill of the hacker.
Relying on public source code for security is a very weak reed and should be avoided
altogether if at all possible.
Fair enough. But why would proprietary code be better? I mean what stops a private vendor
from doing this, but without public oversight? I mean to say "public code" in what ever form
could be a start.
XXYY was not supporting proprietary code. I believe he was pointing out that "open source"
does not have sufficient integrity for e;ections, thus closed source (proprietary code) is
worse.
After the 2000 election, congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Among the
provisions of the bill, money was given to states and counties to upgrade their voting
systems. Most of these new systems came online in the mid 00's.
Now that it has been around a decade, the generation of machines purchased with the help
of federal money are getting long in the tooth. The average person changes their cell phone
every 2-3 years, so a touch screen machine machine over a decade old feels especially ancient
to a technophile.
There will be a trend toward paper ballots with this next generation. More states have
added tougher paper trail requirements on DRE (touch screen) voting machines. and there is a
lack of federal HAVA money available to states and counties to buy top-of-the-line DRE
machines with paper trails. Vendors for this generation are pushing hybrid systems that allow
a voter to input their choices onto a touch screen, then the machine prints out a paper
ballot which (theoretically) removes ambiguous choices and allows disabled people to vote
without assistance. But ultimately, if a jurisdiction is going to a paper system anyway, why
spend more money on expensive hybrid machines that will break down in another ten years? I
anticipate a push to paper ballots with optical scanning tabulation machines in the medium
future.
and states can – do take away driver licenses – I.D. "legally" determining who
gets to vote, by the hundreds of thousands, even over issues having nothing to do with
driving, and primarily affecting the poor:
In my town, we have big election night parties at the downtown bars while volunteers go to
the polling stations and phone back the preliminary results which are posted in the front
windows or on the front doors.
A lot of politically connected people would have trouble sleeping the night of the
election if they didn't have the results.
In my town's municipal election last week, it seems almost a tenth of voters were confused
by the design of the ballot and circled their choice rather than filling in the bubble.
Since we're in Massachusetts and all elections use Scantron ballots and tabulating
machines, any circled ballot was marked "blank" the same as ballots where no notation was
made.
A lot of people, including quite a few first-time and infrequent voters, and voters with
eyesight issues, were disillusioned by the fact that their votes would not be counted. Some
were shocked the ballots are not in fact counted by hand.
As readers know, I'm a big fan of paper ballots[1], and the recent Election in Virginia
gives me a chance to explain why. (The "recount" phase -- erroneously named, as what's been
happening is
resolving absentee and provisional ballots -- seems to have culminated with the
Republicans keeping control of the Virginia House by a whisker, 49-51 .) First, I'll do
that, and set up two requirements that any system for counting votes in a democracy should
meet. Then, I'll look at Virginia's "Back to the Future" transition from digital voting to
paper ballots.
From Brad Friedman's essay on " Democracy's Gold Standard" (with numbering added), a set of
requirements for voting systems suitable for a democracy:
Last March, the country's highest court found that secret, computerized vote counting was
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the country was Germany, and the Constitution violated by
e-voting systems was the one that the U.S. wrote and insisted Germans ratify as part of their
terms of surrender following WWII.
Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights expert, summarized the German
court's unambiguous, landmark finding :
"No 'specialized
technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts." There is
a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count." "[T]he government substitution
of its own check or what we'd probably call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public
observation." "A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards. "As a
result of these principles, 'all independent observers' conclude that 'electronic voting
machines are totally banned in Germany' because no conceivable computerized voting system can
cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of being both 'observable' and also not
requiring specialized technical knowledge.
If you go through this set of requirements, you'll see that hand-marked paper ballots,
hand-counted in public, meet every one of them. You will also see that digital voting systems,
no matter how designed or implemented, cannot. They cannot, especially, meet requirements #1
("no specialized technical knowledge to monitor") and #2 ("a publicly observed count"). The
first requirement ensures that the voting process is not riggable by insiders with technical
expertise (native, or hired); the second ensures that the actual voting is not rigged on
election day. These are important requirements for a functioning democracy.
On September 24, hundreds of thousands of volunteers will be handing out ballots, checking
voters' names against lists, and counting votes once the polling station closes. The entire
process is open to the public Every citizen is allowed to watch and monitor the entire
counting process; and in effect, the volunteers monitor each other.
No specialized technical knowledge
[T]he volunteers open the ballot box, take out the envelopes and remove the ballot slips.
They sort the ballots according to a pre-arranged system, decide on whether the votes are
valid or invalid, and count the votes – reading out each vote aloud, which is noted in
writing in a log.
At the end, the number of ballots is compared with the number of people who voted in that
particular polling station.
Now, let's turn to Virginia. It's worth noting that Virginia's move back to paper is being
applauded
across the political spectrum . From the centrist Daily Banter ,
a summary of the history:
It wasn't until 2014, when the state experienced a myriad of problems on Election Day,
that Governor Terry McAuliffe proposed
an overhaul of the state voting system. By 2015, the Virginia Board of Elections decertified
the use of WINVote, but they were still
stuck with other DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) systems. This past summer, at a
DefCon conference in Las Vegas, computer scientists staged a "Voting Machine Hacking
Village" to prove the instabilities of DRE, which included a single password for all
machines, physical ports to insert malware, and reliance on outdated software that had not
been updated since the mid-2000s.
In emergency meeting, Virginia elections board votes to scrap all touch-screen voting
machines
The Virginia State Board of Elections voted Friday to discontinue use of all touch-screen
voting machines throughout the state because of potential security vulnerabilities, forcing
22 cities and counties to scramble to find new equipment just weeks before voting begins for
the November gubernatorial election.
Behind closed doors at an emergency meeting in Richmond on Friday afternoon, the board
heard about specific vulnerabilities identified after a cybersecurity conference this summer
in Las Vegas, where hackers showed they could break into voting machines with relative
ease.
In an interview, Elections Commissioner Edgardo Cortés acknowledged that the short
time frame could put localities under the gun. However, 10 of the 22 localities that still
use touch screens, either as their primary voting method or for more limited uses, have
already begun buying new equipment, Cortés said. That leaves 12 that will have to
start from scratch, but Cortés said the rapid swap is "doable" and worth the "hiccups"
that may come with new equipment.
(The Banter points to "Russian targeting of last year's presidential election" (whatever
that means)
as do
others , but if the threat of Russia hacking was a necessary cause for the Board's
decisionl, it was certainly the DefCon that was the proximate one).[2] In any case, the Board's
decision was taken September 8, and by Election Day, November 7, the transition was complete
with no reported problems, which shows you the advantages of adopting simple, rugged, and
proven systems. Here is how the system works, as described in a press release from
Albemarle County :
The Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections wants to alert voters
that a new, digital scan voting system will be used in all County voting precincts in the
upcoming November 3, 2015 general election. The previously used "touchscreen" voting machines
have been replaced by the new voting systems as a result of the Commonwealth of Virginia's
mandate which requires jurisdictions move toward the use of digital scan technology.
With the new system, voters will mark paper ballots at marking booths, and then deposit
the marked paper ballots into a digital ballot scanning machine, which will read the ballots,
and drop them into a secure ballot storage bin. When the polls close on Election Day, at 7
PM, the election officers at the voting precincts will obtain the tabulated totals of votes
from a results report that will be printed by the digital scanning machine. After the
election, the paper ballots will be kept in secure storage for a period of one year, to
ensure a voter-verified paper trail in the event of a recount.
Recall our two requirements. Can the Virginia System be said to meet them?
1) Public observation. Yes and no. Yes, because the ballot is handmarked, and dropped in the
box in public. No, because the ballots are counted in the innards of the optical scanner. (This
can be mitigated by storing the ballots for recounts later, if needed.) And no, because the
actual running of the count from the scanners does not take place in public, nor (AFAIK) the
integration into the totals of provisional and absentee ballots.
2) No specialized technical knowledge. Yes and no. Yes, because clearly paper ballots are an
improvement in every way from the horrid touch screens. No, in the same that once again, the
innards of the optical scanner must be relied upon. (This could be mitigated, depending on the
choice of vendor, by dealing with an actual scanner industry, as opposed to a bunch of tiny,
sketchy outfits purveying custom, proprietary software.)
In summary, and IMNSHO, there should be no digital determination or intermediation of
voter intent whatever ; why should we trust the scanner software engineers, or those who
run them? There's no reason to, any more than there's reason to trust the engineers or
operators of mechanical voting machines.) Virginia's ballots are indeed hand-marked, but they
are not hand-counted in public.[5]
With these strong caveats, Virginia's hand-marked paper ballots were well-received by the
public, and that's progress. WAVY :
At a voting precinct at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, voters said they had no issues
going back to pen and paper.
"It goes back to the old days, you know, we've been voting a long time, so we remember
when they didn't have anything but paper ballots," said voter Winston Whitehurst.
Voter Kevin Rafferty said he enjoyed the switch.
"It works. I understand. At least if we're having to spend some time on it, we're the only
ones in control, perhaps is the idea. Nobody else hacking on in I guess is their theory so
hopefully it's safe," he said.
"You can't hack paper," a man training a group of Hopewell poll workers on the new
[optical scanning] machines said.
(But you can hack the scanners -- using "specialized technical knowledge" --
and you can social engineer any process where the ballots are not hand-counted in public.)
Conclusion
Of the two requirements, the ability to monitor election results without technical expertise
is needed to prevent chicanery by those who structure the voting process. And the public count
is needed to prevent chicanery on election day by those who inspect and count the ballots.
Paper ballots can and do meet these requirements. That's why most Western countries use them,
and why many other countries have returned to them, after experimenting with digital systems.
Virginia's re-adoption of hand-marked paper ballots is a step forward, not backward.
NOTES
[1] For those who are concerned that paper ballots prevent ranked choice voting, Maine advocates disagree : "Ranked choice
voting is designed to work with paper ballots."
[2] The idea that "foreign invaders" (as the
Christian Science Monitor puts it) are the main threat for election theft seems very odd to
me. Surely domestic operatives are, or at least should be, the main concern?
[3] I vividly recall a Quebec referendum where the Quebec "scrutineers" rejected a seemingly
overlarge number of "No" ballots. But because the process was public, and not part of an
algorithmic black box, the scrutineers could be called out. Although Canada does use electronic
voting at the municipal level, the stakes are lower.
[4] Hilariously, a Google search on "How many countries use paper ballots" directs me to a
WikiPedia page on "Electronic voting by
country." 26 are listed. There are 195 countries.
[5] The convenience of election officials seems to bulk large in these disucussions; they
don't want to be
"up all night counting paper." Well, if the Germans (and the Canadians (and the Brits)) can
make that investment in democracy, why can't we?
Just an added note here to say that in Ireland, which uses Single Transferable Vote, the
law states that the election candidates can appoint Counting Agents , known as Tallymen during
the vote. They observe the opening of voting boxes and keep a tally during the count. As this
allows them to get a good feel for voting patterns, it eliminates another potential source of
fraud, box stuffing during or after the vote.
The Tallymen are so skilled they can often provide a very accurate result hours before the
final result (vote counting is much more complex for STV). There is no interest at all from
political parties for electronic voting because tally information is more fine grained than
final totals (as it is box by box rather than district by district) and so provides each
party with very valuable statistical information.
Same in Canada but we call them "scrutineers" or monitors (at least in Ontario). I worked
as an election official a while back (I think it was at the last provincial election) and one
of the scrutineers raised a big stink because the number of votes were not the same as the
number of people who voted. I left around 10 pm and I heard they were there until midnight
trying to resolve this. It was pure schadenfreude for me because I wasn't selected as one of
the vote-counting electoral officials but was just a lower-paid electoral assistant who
barred people from entering the building from the wrong door and gave directions to the
correct entrance. "Serves those idiots right for not picking me" was what I was thinking when
I left.
In France, the process is basically the same as in Germany. An interesting note, that I
don't see mentionned, is that once the public count is done and the number of votes matches
the number of voters, ballots are destroyed (except blank votes). A very sensible step as the
whole process is fraud-proof and ballots could be tampered with afterwards.
In this sense, there are no recounts (except the basic maths check). You can only report
to the courts irregularities in the process and there will be a new election if enough
polling station were affected to swing the election.
And the process is generally not too long. The average seems to be between one and three
hours so it's almost always done way before midnight (British seems to take a very long time,
if anyone cares to explain to me why ?). Of course, it helps a lot that we don't elect a
whole bunch of people on the same night (no lieutnant-governor, judges, sheriffs ), it's
always one election at a time with a dozen choices at most (and half the time it's only two
because of the two-round system).
Having used a number of different systems as I moved around the state of Maryland*, my
favorite system was hand marked ballots that were scanned by machine at the voting place. My
observations follow.
Old fashioned lever machines: They haven't made them for years, so there was always a
shortage of machines which led to long lines. Despite the fact that people are familiar with
them, they are an un-auditable black box like electronic voting machines.
Punched card machines. They always seemed physically a little difficult to operate and a
slight misalignment could result in a miscast vote. But there is a recountable paper trail
and only one or two scanners is required for each polling place.
Electronic voting machines. They're a completey un-auditable black box. They DO have the
advantage of being easier to adjust for people with limited vision and other handicaps. Each
voting station requires a separate machine, which means either greater expense or longer
lines compared to other systems. My guess is that programming the ballots into them probably
costs almost as much printing ballots and is more difficult to spot errors or fraud.
Hand counted ballots: The difficulty with hand counting ballots is that it is error-prone
and slow.
Paper ballots and digital scanners would seem to be the best system that I have used with
several caveats. You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check
for systemic fraud in the setup of the scanning machines. You have to have a good system to
deal with errors and complications. How do you void ballots that have been mis-marked by
accident? You have to make SURE that they aren't added to the tallys. You have to have a
system for contested/contingent voting, a way to segregate and maintain those ballots until
the eligibility of the voters is determined.
*It used to be that every county chose the vote system separately
You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check for systemic
fraud in the setup of the scanning machines.
That is an excellent suggestion however getting officials on board is not so easy. Our
state got new optical scan machines in all larger precincts a few years ago and since they
had never been used I made the same suggestion you did to our city council and asked for a
random audit. They refused and told me that by state law the city was not allowed to do an
audit just because they felt like it and the only way a recount could be done was if an
election was close enough to be within the mandated threshold needed to trigger one. If they
were correct about our state law, the state has actually made it illegal for cities to check
the accuracy of the machines they use. That would need to be changed in order for your
proposal to work.
I do still prefer handcounted paper ballots – I did get to participate in a hand
recount eventually and it was a LOT quicker than you might expect.
The other issue is cost – it would be a LOT cheaper to pay people to count by hand
than to replace millions of large pieces of aging machinery every decade or so.
Maybe, but machines can't determine voter intent on paper ballots nearly as well as humans
can. Our city uses these optical scanners and as noted last election season, we had a close
race that triggered a recount that I participated in. The human beings actually counted
more ballots than the machines did, as the machines didn't count those that were
filled out improperly (circles not completely filled out, or checked rather than filled in,
etc). Rough estimate, we were able to count approximately 2% more votes then the scanner
did.
If we're going to keep pretending we still have a democracy here in the US, everybody's
vote deserves to be counted in every election. The only way to do that is count paper ballots
by hand.
The FIRST TIME I heard that they were going to use IT technology for voting I thought they
must be kidding. It is so obviously wrong ON THE FACE OF IT that I have always suspected the
motives of those making that decision (although I suppose I should´t be too surprised
at human laziness being a motivating force!). Anyway, it is to me just another sign of the
dumbing down of America that this whole topic needs any discussion at all!!
Voltaire would have loved political position that the machines were perfect and unable be
hacked until Chavez-Venezuela bought voting machine manufacturer
Clinton conflates Virginia's switch to paper ballots with her claims that Russia hacked
into voter rolls and possibly went even further. This is Clinton speaking about it on Monday at the Atlanta
stop on her book tour.
So maybe we're finally getting some benefit from the claims that the Russians were able to
manipulate the election results in the United States! In reality, it's Republicans and
Democrats who manipulate election results in the U.S., but I'll accept a victory, even if
it's for the wrong reasons.
Exactly! Clinton applauds the reduced risk of paper ballots, but of course has to muddle
it all up with the dreaded Russian threat. I swear, Clinton can't help but link almost
everything to Russia now -- listening to her is like plaing a constant game of 6 degrees of
Kevin Bacon, except it's 3 degrees and its Russia.
One would think that governments would require that any software to be used in a public
election must be open source – not proprietary – and that it and its application
be open to public audit.
Vendors unwilling to comply can take their sales people elsewhere. If vendors are hard to
find, governments could join together in providing seed money for any number of parties to
develop and maintain the necessary code.
This is the sort of change that should be part of any elections improvement commissions,
not that the likes of Kris Kobach and his commission have in mind anything but voter
suppression. The use of proprietary software in a public election is as appropriate as a
cordon of watch dogs, lighted torches, or police cars outside a voting center.
"Making the source code available" for a critical system makes a good sound bite, but in
reality has a number of substantial problems:
o There is no guarantee that the compiled code in the box is the same as the purported
source code made public. Even technical experts would have a very hard time confirming this,
since the code in the box has been compiled down to machine instructions whereas the source
code is normally in a high level language.
o The process of building (compiling and linking) the code introduces myriad opportunities
for bad actors. E.g., code can include conditional sections or definitions that can be built
in various ways. The build process itself invokes other programs that themselves can be
hacked. Building also normally brings in third-party libraries of uncertain provenance, and
for which the source is typically unavailable.
o Inspecting realistic industrial software for *inadvertent* problems, called a code
review, is a big effort (many man weeks) and requires people with the requisite skills (often
arcane) and expertise in the problem domain. Inspecting code for *deliberate hacks* would be
much harder, and could well miss hacks anyway depending on the skill of the hacker.
Relying on public source code for security is a very weak reed and should be avoided
altogether if at all possible.
Fair enough. But why would proprietary code be better? I mean what stops a private vendor
from doing this, but without public oversight? I mean to say "public code" in what ever form
could be a start.
XXYY was not supporting proprietary code. I believe he was pointing out that "open source"
does not have sufficient integrity for e;ections, thus closed source (proprietary code) is
worse.
After the 2000 election, congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Among the
provisions of the bill, money was given to states and counties to upgrade their voting
systems. Most of these new systems came online in the mid 00's.
Now that it has been around a decade, the generation of machines purchased with the help
of federal money are getting long in the tooth. The average person changes their cell phone
every 2-3 years, so a touch screen machine machine over a decade old feels especially ancient
to a technophile.
There will be a trend toward paper ballots with this next generation. More states have
added tougher paper trail requirements on DRE (touch screen) voting machines. and there is a
lack of federal HAVA money available to states and counties to buy top-of-the-line DRE
machines with paper trails. Vendors for this generation are pushing hybrid systems that allow
a voter to input their choices onto a touch screen, then the machine prints out a paper
ballot which (theoretically) removes ambiguous choices and allows disabled people to vote
without assistance. But ultimately, if a jurisdiction is going to a paper system anyway, why
spend more money on expensive hybrid machines that will break down in another ten years? I
anticipate a push to paper ballots with optical scanning tabulation machines in the medium
future.
and states can – do take away driver licenses – I.D. "legally" determining who
gets to vote, by the hundreds of thousands, even over issues having nothing to do with
driving, and primarily affecting the poor:
In my town, we have big election night parties at the downtown bars while volunteers go to
the polling stations and phone back the preliminary results which are posted in the front
windows or on the front doors.
A lot of politically connected people would have trouble sleeping the night of the
election if they didn't have the results.
In my town's municipal election last week, it seems almost a tenth of voters were confused
by the design of the ballot and circled their choice rather than filling in the bubble.
Since we're in Massachusetts and all elections use Scantron ballots and tabulating
machines, any circled ballot was marked "blank" the same as ballots where no notation was
made.
A lot of people, including quite a few first-time and infrequent voters, and voters with
eyesight issues, were disillusioned by the fact that their votes would not be counted. Some
were shocked the ballots are not in fact counted by hand.
US President Donald Trump said he had "good discussions" with Russian leader Vladimir Putin
when they met briefly at an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam.
On Twitter, he blasted "haters and fools", who, he said, do not encourage good relations between
the countries.
Earlier he said Mr Putin told him he was insulted by allegations of Russian interference in the
2016 US election.
The US intelligence community has previously concluded that Russia tried to sway the poll in Mr
Trump's favour.
"He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election," the US president said.
However, after intense criticism, Mr Trump clarified hat he supported US intelligence agencies in
their conclusion. "As to whether or not I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies. I believe in
our... intelligence agencies," he said.
"What he believes, he believes," he added, of Mr Putin's belief that Russia did not meddle.
The two leaders had no formal bilateral talks during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec)
event, but meet in passing on three occasions. They spoke about the Syria crisis and the election
allegations, according to Mr Trump.
When people are blinded by ideology, a great deal of intelligence is lost. People are the same all over, but in the US, the ideology
of exceptionalism - and capitalism, has been pumped into them for many generations.
Notable quotes:
"... Despite being so flawed she was allowed to win the nomination over Bernie because Obama-Clinton control of the party was absolute. ..."
"... The US election system is designed to prevent populists from winning. Populists who allowed to be elected (like Obama) are faux populists that actually serve the establishment. ..."
"... Trump had supported Clinton against Obama and took up her "birther" nonsense to weaken him. During the election he actually said that it originated with Clinton and that he (now) accepted that Obama was qualified to be President. ..."
"... Hillary had made it clear that she preferred that Trump be the Republican nominee (her supposed reasoning: as a billionaire and political neophyte, he would be easy to beat) ..."
"... After assuming office, Trump has acted in ways that betrayed promises to his 'base' and/or created tension that allowed his political enemies to constrain his choices ..."
"... When people are blinded by ideology, a great deal of intelligence is lost. People are the same all over, but in the US, the ideology of exceptionalism - and capitalism, has been pumped into them for many generations. ..."
"... Have a run around the social media and check how many people believe Russia meddled in US "democracy" because of whats been pumped into them over the last year. One side believes Russia interfered on Trumps behalf and the other side believes Russia interfered on Clintons behalf, but they also know Russia interfered with their precious virgin democracy. Mencken is right. ..."
Americans seem to do what they always do to defend themselves - vote the opposition party in to limit power.
Wrong.
1) Clinton actually won a majority of the votes.
2) Clinton lost because she was such a flawed candidate who ran a flawed campaign.
3) Despite being so flawed she was allowed to win the nomination over Bernie because Obama-Clinton control of the party
was absolute.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
All of the above are valid "facts" about the 2016 race. But there are several disturbing realities that cause the entire 2016
race to be suspect.
1) The US election system is designed to prevent populists from winning. Populists who allowed to be elected (like Obama) are
faux populists that actually serve the establishment.
2) Bernie was a sheepdog who had (apparently) pledged to a) not attack Hillary on character issues, and b) support the party
nominee.
3) Trump had supported Clinton against Obama and took up her "birther" nonsense to weaken him. During the election he actually
said that it originated with Clinton and that he (now) accepted that Obama was qualified to be President.
4) Hillary had made it clear that she preferred that Trump be the Republican nominee (her supposed reasoning: as a billionaire
and political neophyte, he would be easy to beat) .
5) Chelsea Clinton (the Clinton's ONLY child) and Ivanka Trump (Trump's only daughter whom he dotes over)
are close friends.
6) Despite the apparently bitter contest, within days of winning the Presidency, Trump announced that he wouldn't pursue
prosecution of Hillary saying that the Clinton's were "good people".
7) After assuming office, Trump has acted in ways that betrayed promises to his 'base' and/or created tension that allowed
his political enemies to constrain his choices. Examples:
- keeping Comey on and then hinting that he had taped a conversation with Comey;
- a pre-mature missile attack on Syria;
- not explaining why he didn't denounce the alt-Right march in Charlottesville (they had a legal permit to march) which
led to charges that he supported white supremacists.
Mencken was wrong and so are you. There is nothing wrong with the intelligence of the American people. Half of them
are above average, as a matter of fact. Which half are you in?
When people are blinded by ideology, a great deal of intelligence is lost. People are the same all over, but in the US,
the ideology of exceptionalism - and capitalism, has been pumped into them for many generations.
Have a run around the social media and check how many people believe Russia meddled in US "democracy" because of whats been
pumped into them over the last year. One side believes Russia interfered on Trumps behalf and the other side believes Russia interfered
on Clintons behalf, but they also know Russia interfered with their precious virgin democracy. Mencken is right.
One useful criteria to distinguish propaganda from honest analyst is to check if the
Intelligence assessment is called the product of "intelligence community" or group of handpicked
by Brennan and Clipper analysts from just three agencies (NSA, CIA, and FBI). This is very
similar to the test if some Western news out let call Magnitsky "a lawyer" or "an
accountant".
T he question why intelligence agencies used Steele dossier remain unanswered. and the answer
to this question if the key.
The forces against rapprochement with Russia are way too strong and include "foright policy
establishment", large part of Pentagon, defense contractors, intelligence agencies and their
contractors. Like any bureaucracies they want to expand much like cancel cells -- uncontrollably.
In this sense the intelligence agencies were dangerous for the US democracy from the moment of
their creation and remain so. The question that arise is " Is democracy compatible with the
existence of hypertrophied, almost out of control by "civic" government intelligence agency,
protected by secrecy of their operations? .
The main reason for their creation and existence in hypertrophied state was the existence of
the USSR. But in less twenty years from its creation CIA became dangerous for the US democracy
(in 1963 to be exact). And it probably remains dangerous now -- agency protected by secrecy and
having huge among of money in their disposal.
It is clear that the bet of intelligence agencies (at least NSA, CIA and FBI) in the last
lection was Hillary. Although it looks like FBI waved a bit. What they did to "help" her now
needs to be investigated using something like Church commission.
Notable quotes:
"... On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the "artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it." ..."
"... Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no sensations." ..."
"... On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a "leaker." ..."
"... Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference had not altered the electoral outcome ..."
President Trump said that President Vladimir Putin had assured him again Saturday that
Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign, and indicated that he believed
Putin's sincerity, drawing immediate criticism from lawmakers and former intelligence officials
who assessed that the meddling took place.
"I asked him again," Trump said after what he described as several brief, informal chats
with Putin in Danang, Vietnam, where they were attending a regional conference. "You can only
ask so many times . . . He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He
did not do what they are saying he did.
"I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it . . . I think he's
very insulted, if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters traveling with him aboard
Air Force One from Danang to Hanoi, on the ninth day of a long Asia tour. Trump voiced similar
conclusions after his only previous meeting with Putin, last July in Germany.
Trump's response to questions about his conversations with Putin was a jarring return
to the more insular preoccupations of Washington after more than a week of what has been a trip
filled with pageantry and pledges of mutual admiration, but few substantive outcomes, between
Trump and Asian leaders.
Later, in a news conference Sunday in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, Trump
appeared to be trying to parse his earlier remarks, saying, "What I said is that I believe
[Putin] believes that.
"As to whether I believe it or not," he said, "I'm with our [intelligence] agencies,
especially as currently constituted.
"I want to be able . . . to get along with Russia," Trump said. "I'm not
looking to stand and argue with somebody when there are reporters standing all around."
Reporters were not permitted inside the hall where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
conference was held in Danang.
... ... ...
On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the
"artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign
and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including
North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it."
Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely
nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a
campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what
they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no
sensations."
On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in
January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence
James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called
former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an
investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a
"leaker."
Clapper said in a statement that "the president was given clear and indisputable evidence
that Russia interfered in the election. His own DNI and CIA director have confirmed the finding
in the intelligence community assessment. The fact that he would take Putin at his word over
the intelligence community is unconscionable."
Brennan declined to comment.
In a statement, the CIA said that Director Mike Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by
the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment . . . with regard to Russian
election meddling." That position, it said, "has not changed." The assessment also concluded
that Russia had acted to promote Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Although
Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference
had not altered the electoral outcome , the assessment did not address that question.
Does this means that Trump now believes that this was Brenna's false flag operation? And why intelligence
agencies exploited Steele dossier against him?
Notable quotes:
"... "I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker." ..."
The president disparaged officials who worked for Barack Obama, saying former CIA chief John Brennan,
ex-director of national intelligence James Clapper and James Comey,
the FBI director he fired in May , were "political hacks".
"I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker."
He suggested he put more faith in Putin's word.
"Every time he sees me he says 'I didn't do that' and I really believe that when he tells me that,"
Trump said. "He really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn't do it. He is very, very strong
in the fact that he didn't do it. You have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he has
nothing to do with that."
Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans
and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If
for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be
impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton
camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other
words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against
Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts
from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary
Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a
correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them
During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board
of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S.
election.
There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman
provided a screenshot
of some relevant parts:
Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017
Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that
Russia meddled last year
In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President
Putin in Hanoi:
Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?
A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells
me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.
Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?
A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and
you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the
DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the
server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And
you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean,
give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So
you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing
to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking
about Syria and the Ukraine.
Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta
and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack,
the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted
their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.
But
neither the Washington Post
nor the NY Times or
others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is
no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes
him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the
valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them.
We can't have that.
Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired
which headlines:
Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the
first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based
Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.
Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):
Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote
"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly
irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted
AFTER the election
"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative
AFTER the vote happened
Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by
lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with
Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political
hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran
and probably everyone else."
I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics
during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?
I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story,
fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about
Russian hacking...
This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason
to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks
who've been running things since 9/11
If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did
the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if
it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...
...they assumed the hackers were on their side
OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by
Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked
or not
Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak,
Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile,
who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be
sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC
lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for
the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.
Will
Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your
face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian.
..and it wouldn't be exaggeration
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered
how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the
deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic
intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered
'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big
chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say,
"he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...
whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into
parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes
or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate
him."
Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get
Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.
Enemy of my enemy anyone?
P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the
absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and
a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade.
I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite
his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away,
it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment
of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary,
DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves
for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding
frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.
When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You
chum the waters and wait
for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks
do that themselves.
I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible
hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not
understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate,
banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp'
sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night
of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably
much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.
Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched
herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.
Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources
who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit
scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen
as being built on nothing more than quicksand.
Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack',
is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early
as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing
his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered
no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants
at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the
public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm
And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern
providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT -
http://raymcgovern.com/
Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But
Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel
hacks put out.
These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin.
I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I
can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but
for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did
buy into the muh Russia crap.
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey
for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense
Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.
1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements
of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections
as a figure who could help them.
2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant
exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear
him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.
3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand
for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation
would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over
the Uranium sales with the Russians.
4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller
is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.
I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also
ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under
Trump.
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths
to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn
out well? "
Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on
the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking
like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations
about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters
and oligarchs like Mogilevich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse
to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their
plight...
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For
the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused
on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used
to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't
doing that?
I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But
I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough
by their herd leaders.
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason:
Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly
into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?
Hitler used
gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter
is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and
systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.
With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber.
The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's
life systems.
Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the
people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless
eaters on board.
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was
- the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to
keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in
heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it
mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.
"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF
A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.
"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad
and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels
House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not
that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the
dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting
and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive
amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion
imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation
that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.
The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming
people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter
of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the
last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it
by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the
machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and
now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing
a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease
agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
While no doubt Bandar's very well-known role in Saudi "oil for arms"
programs which have come to define Saudi relations with the West over the past decades is a
trumped up and
"selective" charge (insofar as the highest levels of the state have overseen such shady
dealing) the al-Yamamah deal in particular - which goes back to the mid-1980's - has been an
historical embarrassment to both the UK and Saudi governments (BAE Systems was the prime
British contractor involved) for the astounding
level of fraudulent accounting exposed in UK courts.
Bandar bought an entire
village in the Cotswolds, a picturesque area of central England, and a 2,000-acre sporting
estate with part of the proceeds from kickbacks he received in the al-Yamamah arms deal, which
netted British manufacturer BAE £43bn ($56.5bn) in contracts for fighter aircraft.
As much as $30m (£15m) is alleged to have been paid into Bandar's dollar account at
Riggs Bank in Washington and the affair led to corruption probes in the US and UK, although the
case was dropped in the UK in 2006 after an intervention by then-prime minister Tony Blair.
But more likely is that Bandar has been caught up in this week's MBS dragnet for his
closeness to Western heads of state and foreign intelligence services. With MBS' aggressive
consolidation of power which could result in ascension to the throne at any moment, and with
fate of multiple princes and officials still unknown -- not the least of which is now ex-PM of
Lebanon Saad Hariri - a shroud of secrecy has resulted in myriad theories concerning what is
really happening behind the scenes.
Meanwhile news of Bandar's possible arrest and detention
hasn't spread very widely in international media reports as of this writing, but it will be
interesting to see the response in the West should the news be confirmed. Will Bandar's friends
in Washington and London go to bat for him? Or will Prince Bandar quietly recede into the
background of a permanent forced retirement from public life?
Most likely the latter will be the case. Regardless, for friends of the former powerful
Saudi intelligence director on either side of the Atlantic and within Saudi Arabia itself,
Bandar no doubt knows where all the skeletons are buried, and this alone makes him a worrisome,
volatile and unpredictable figure in the midst of a transfer of power.
Bandar was the Bush's inside man in Saudi........if he goes down, he might be willing to
tell all....about the crooked deals with the Bush Boys....lol......so much to gain, and yet
look at the price.......his life!
If what they're doing in Saudi Arabia is any indication, it might be a prelude to what's
going to happen here. There is no 'draining' the swamp and DJT knows it. They're going to have
to use dynamite and lots of it. There's a whole bunch of sealed indictments sitting at the US
District Court in DC and we know the Podesta's are just part of it. Imagine the huge snowflake
outcry if HRC was among them? Remember, they were screaming at the sky last night! HRC would
claim a coup and try to energize that group of idiots to rise up and it may take the National
Guard to quell them and jail them. From what I hear, that's exactly the plan...
Bandar was the piece of shit who lobbied the Bush administration to fly out the entire Bin
Laden family from the US without questioning them after 9/11.
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal
to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual
American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are
"accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited
freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A
few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.
[7] "
"Journalist Carl
Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church
Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists
whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church
Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
"... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the
Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump
colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington
Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public
about her Campaign's role in producing the report.
Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week
during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing
with the crisis.
"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information
operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to
reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.
The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the
notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes
had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state
propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little
background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":
" the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and
apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
warrants against members of Trump's campaign.
More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the
CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved .
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations
against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)
So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against
Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes,
the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA
warrant. This is from The Hill:
"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates
to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter
Page, CNN reports.
FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in
recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant
to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)
The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a
discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned
as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could
easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert
the democratic process.
The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but
abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it
politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in
the Washington Post:
"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's
political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI
a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to
several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians
had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email
accounts ..
Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy
were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories,
congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the
arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial
Trump dossier", Washington Post)
The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and
unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not
to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking
claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at
détente.
It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5
years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also
details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.
(All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on
corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed
direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.
Why?
It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt
inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story
that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had
created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".
Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was
further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by
CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."
The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping
up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded
to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read
all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations.
The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted
by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump", Washington Post)
What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to
propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War,
where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that
included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no
longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now
simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't
require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs
to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources
who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that
sums it up perfectly:
"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016
election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by
the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
Think about that for a minute .
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith
by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for
or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward
Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up
by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political
and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)
Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information
(Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their
intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the
obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information
can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played
by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see
signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.
As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes
were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could
be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more
information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are
they?
According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:
November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the
presidential campaign.
Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about
the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew
Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the
dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.
Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a
meeting at the latter's office.
Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech
executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej
Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.
Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on
some of the allegations made in the dossier.
Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that
reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)
John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent
Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?
Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has
expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a
mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia,
discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the
Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?
Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he
wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull
over. This is from the Business Insider:
Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI
director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack
Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.
Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report
they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to
reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed
the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with
reality", Business Insider)
This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was
released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and
collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in
the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but
there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.
On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian
hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This
same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan
and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier
cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence
Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was
used as the foundation for the ICA.
Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016,
Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his
conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no
proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant
participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been
withheld from the public?
Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the
powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have
grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?
Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and
boldly stated:
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed
contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump
campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able
to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a
reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials
or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that
Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using
the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a
presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what
is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians
But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its
probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from
then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)
It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was
not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm
facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil,
Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull
Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in
America.
So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of
Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent
state.
"Empire lobby" -- people wellbeing of whom depends of enlargement and maintenance of the global
US empire )and that includ employees of large Us tech companies, which all have global reach)-- now votes democratic.
Democratic Party became the part of neoliberal globalization.
Virginia was once a red state, then a purple one. But it has been solidly blue for at least 10-15
years. This is because of the huge growth of the federal government in Washington, DC. A large
percentage of them live in Northern Virginia.
The Republicans may be facing trouble ahead, but I would say that the coming troubles have less
to do with the president and more to do with the fact that the Republican Congress cannot get
its act together. Establishment Republicans still don't get it, as most clearly evidenced with
the issue of healthcare. The failure to institute reform and repeal "Obamacare" -- after years
of grandstanding about how they were going to do just that -- paints the Republican Congress as
a bunch of incompetent boobies.
Reform failed in Congress because the Republican leaders fancied being able to cook up a bill
in their backrooms and then strong-arm their "underlings" in the party. Representative government
isn't supposed to work that way -- and it clearly isn't working that way now.
The Republicans in Congress better start working with one another, and it's up to Republican
leadership to change what it's doing. They are making a laughingstock of the party in a way that
will never be matched by silly tweets.
Those that are "blaming" the Dem victory on continual growth in federal employment are living
in a bubble.
News flash: the number of civilian federal employees is lower than it was all throughout the
1980's. The so-called Dulles Technology Corridor is full of tech businesses, entrepreneurs, etc.
Measured by percentage of college degrees, it's one of most highly educated areas in the Nation.
"Of course it is still possible that republicans will continue to vote to subsidize rich folks
"
If by rich, you mean those households that currently pay ALL net federal taxes, and by subsidize,
you mean letting said households keep more of their own income, then I hope so!
They don't even get a thank you from the Democratic Party, just slogans claiming they don't
pay their fair share, even though about 1/3 of those households lean Left.
Suburbia the base of the GOP since Eisenhower, just delivered a crushing shot across the bow to
the Trumpian GOP. If the D.C. Republicans, much less the GOP leadership in Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Indiana,
South Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa (all the states where the GOP legislative majorities are dependent
on middle-class college educated white voters of the sort who rejected the Republicans across
the country on Tuesday), do not heed this warning on taxes and health care, next year could see
an electoral beatdown of historic proportions.
I think this shows that Republicans should move to the center, embrace expanding ACA, advance
making the tax system more progressive as they try to make it less economically distorting. get
behind comprehensive immigration reform, etc.
I am a 60 year old former Republican. The party left me when George Bush #2 listened to Dick Cheney
and the rest of the neo-cons and started the 2nd war in Iraq. Probably the worst mistake in the
last 100 years. The middle east is a total mess from this horrendous decision. Let me say that
I think GB2 was a decent man, but he was overwhelmed by 9/11,Cheney, and the neocons.
I grew up in New Castle, PA in the 1970's. It was a thriving mill town north of Pittsburgh
and east of Youngstown OH. I worked at the Rockwell International Axle plant and paid for my Penn
State education with those earnings, working a good but physically demanding union job (7 days
a week). That was one plant among many in NC that no longer exist or is a shadow of it's former
self (Shenango China, Johnson Bronze, Conn Welding, Universal Rundle, Rockwell Spring Division,
etc).
I am now a semi-retired independent computer systems consultant. Lucky enough to have worked
hard enough and long enough, and lived frugally, to not worry financially. I should be a natural
constituent of the Republican party. But I am no longer a member. The Republican party is now
dead to me.
I believe that Trump has destroyed the Republican party. Dead men (and women) walking. And
many people I know feel that way. But I understand why people that live in places like New Castle
and Johnstown and Youngstown voted for the man. But I also believe that they know, in their hearts,
that those jobs are not coming back. Which is shameful. Both political parties allowed those jobs
to go overseas.
Voters have seen through the Republicans charade. They are not happy. Without the 2nd worst
political candidate in history (Hillary Clinton) to run against (although they continue to try),
the Republican party is in real trouble. Trickle down tax cuts that benefit the 1% donor class
will not fly with the voters. Destroying the ACA and not providing a better replacement will be
dealt with harshly. Figuring out ways to make abortions impossible to maintain will enrage a significant
percent of women.
The Republicans are bankrupt of ideas. And they have elected a President (Trump) that is hated
by 95% of the Democrats, 80% of the Independents, and 20% of the Republicans. And the Independents
are the key to who gets elected. In general, from what I can see, the independents are very dissatisfied
with Trump.
Damn right the votes on Tuesday are a reflection of the will of the voters. They are voting
against Trump in particular, and against the Republicans in general. Many of the people I are
friends with despise Trump, and have become Independents instead of Republicans.
The current Republican policies on Healthcare, Tax Reform, International Relations, the Environment,
Abortion, Gun Rights, etc will stain the Republicans for at least a generation.
Now if the Democrats can only find candidates that are moderate and acceptable to the general
public. Which VA, WA, and the local races in PA seem to indicate they are capable of.
"Surely, this is cause for deep worry among Republicans as they enter the 2018 midterm elections."
I agree with the overall advance here. It's not as telling as it was touted. But the more the
admin. and the President himself looks, smells and behave like Sec Clinton or other 'run of the
mill democrats,' the more likely those who voted for him simply will not turn out to vote.
It becomes increasingly difficult to support someone who is leaving the reasons you voted for
in first place. I other word it is beginning too look like there were absolutely no Republican
candidates who actually support its member's desires.
George W–so I guess that based on your comments we shouldn't have Federal Government employees
at all?
Good luck running the country, then.
(If you do an actual comparison of the salaries government employees get vs. what they could
get in the private sector, you'll note that they are in fact getting much less than what they
could demand. Many of them exchange the stingier salaries for the higher pensions and the higher
stability of the job. Are you saying that there is a problem with that?)
The real news is that Dems may have also taken the Virginia state house of delegates, which has
been solidly Republican in large part due to careful gerrymandering. As a result, It looks like
the Dems will be in charge of redistricting after the 2020 census. I expect that after the next
cycle or two, Dems will have supermajorities in both state legislative bodies, and will dominate
the Congressional delegation as well.
Too bad we always get either Democrats or Republicans.
Awe, sometimes we get Jesse Venturas or Donald Trumps. Usually even worse, but more entertaining.
Thaomas
I think this shows that Republicans should move to the center, embrace expanding ACA, advance
making the tax system more progressive as they try to make it less economically distorting. get
behind comprehensive immigration reform, etc.
But this goes against pretty much everything congressional Republicans want and a lot of what
their constituents want.
JeffK could be writing my posts. I'm still a Republican because I believe in Republican (historical)
ideas, not because I think present Republicans care about the country. I'm considering renouncing
my membership in the party because of Trump, or rather, because of GOP politicians' worship of
him. I would become an Independent.
" I guess that based on your comments we shouldn't have Federal Government employees at all?"
I found this n odd take away from the comments. I think it explains the predictable election
results. Less to do with Pres Trump and more to do with the employment demographics and poor selections
of campaign issues.
"If you do an actual comparison of the salaries government employees get vs. what they could get
in the private sector, you'll note that they are in fact getting much less than what they could
demand."
According to the CBO, that's only a true statement statement for the 9% of federal employees
with a professional degree or doctorate.
For the 91% of federal employees with a high school degree, some college, or a bachelor's/master's
degree, their average salaries are not "much less" than the average salaries for private sector
employees with the same education.
You and I share a demographic, except I'm a hundred some miles further south. And I also left
the Republicans because of Iraq and other stupid decisions made in the Middle East. I patiently
await a candidate who will pull us out of the Middle East and start focusing on America. Trump
obviously isn't that guy, certainly not with all those Israel-owned Republicans in the Congress.
Pundits usually read too much into the results of off-year state and local elections.
True. There is nothing so transitory as the Newest Trend.
Exit polling indicates that healthcare -- not jobs, guns, taxes, immigration, Confederate
monuments or abortion -- was the top voting issue in Virginia. Nearly two out of five voters picked
it as their first concern.
This may be of greater significance. Republicans seized the initiative in 2010 with horror
stories of how the Affordable Care Act was GOING to work, when it went into effect about four
years in the future. Now, between the fact that it actually did a fair amount of good, and that
neither the GOP establishment nor President Trump have turned out "something really terrific"
to replace it, people are drawing sensible conclusions, and it may be for the Dems in 2018 what
it was for the GOP in 2010. Ironic, but true.
Still, I agree with Fran Macadam that its a Hobson's choice. For the past ten years or so,
polls have consistently reported that about ten percent of Americans trust Republicans in congress,
and about fifteen percent trust Democrats in congress. The latter is 50 percent better than their
rivals, but its that is a very low bar.
For the 91% of federal employees with a high school degree, some college, or a bachelor's/master's
degree, their average salaries are not "much less" than the average salaries for private sector
employees with the same education.
So, pay the Ph.D's better, and cut the wages of the maintenance staff?
This is because of the huge growth of the federal government in Washington, DC. A large
percentage of them live in Northern Virginia.
Perhaps, but those people voting Democratic in northern Virginia are no longer voting Democratic
in Utah or Idaho.
"... The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. ..."
"... A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time). ..."
"... That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election is mentioned, so let's look at it: ..."
"... Second, the DNC itself does not ..."
"... But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. ..."
"... It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC 1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to disclose. ..."
"... The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20 million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right? ..."
"... My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the lack of money. ..."
"... "Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial about the true nature and scope of the problem "Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a functioning democracy." ..."
Long-time Democratic[1] operative Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was defenestrated[2], has, like two otherparticipants in
the 2016 Presidential election and at least one set of
observers , written a book, Hacked , and published a long excerpt from it four
days ago, in Politico
. Here is the key passage, in which Brazile paraphrases and quotes a conversation with Gary
Gensler, former of Goldman Sachs and the CFTC, and then the chief financial officer of the
Clinton campaign:
[Gensler] described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign
, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life
support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using
the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a
maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for
contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write
an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure
represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund
agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states
first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states
usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
Yes, you read that right. Although the Hillary Victory Fund was billed as aiding the states,
in fact the states were simply pass-throughs, and the money went to the Clinton campaign. (This
is not news;
Politico covered the Victory Fun in 2016 : "The Democratic front-runner says she's raising
big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60
million raised.")
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the
state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she
got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign
manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from
September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
After some research, Brazile finds a document ("the agreement") that spells out what "fully
under the control of Hillary's campaign" meant operationally:
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a
copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing
in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and
it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult
with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it
by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
(Importantly, Gensler has not disputed this account, of which, assuming he's not vacationing
Antarctica, he must have been aware of, given the media uproar. We can therefore assume its
accurate). Note two aspects of this passage, which I'm quoting at such length to ensure we know
what Brazile actually charged. I've helpfully underlined them: (1) Brazile leads with the
money; that is, the Clinton Victory Fund, and (2) Brazile describes the DNC as "fully under the
control" of the Clinton campaign.
Predictably, an enormous controversy erupted, much of it over the weekend just passed, but
I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of the talking points. (Glenn Greenwald provides an
excellent media critique in
"Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
"; all four have to do with this controversy[3].) I think the following three quotes are key,
the first two being oft-repeated talking points by Clinton loyalists:
"The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for
the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential
campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those
funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
Question: Were the agreements "the same" for each campaign? (Perez focuses only on the JFA,
but that omits a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DNC and the Clinton
campaign, as we shall see below.)
Second, from 2005-9 DNC chair Howard Dean:
Question: Did the agreement apply only to the general election, and not the primary? (Dean
says "this memo," but he also omits the distinction between the MOU and the JFA.)
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by
entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said,
continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including
strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months
before Clinton won the nomination .
Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And
Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Question: Can we say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged? (Tapper uses the word
"rigged," and Warren adopts it, but a careful reading of Brazile's article shows that although
she uses the word, she does not actually make the claim.[4])
In this post, I'm going to answer each of these three questions by looking at the documents,
plural, in question (Spoiler: My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes," respectively.) Here is a
timeline of the documents:
8/27/2015 (
reported ): The Clinton-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement (JFA).
Available for download at
WikiLeaks, hilariously enough.
8/26/2015 (signed): The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, or "memo").
Available for
download at MSNBC. The MOU
characterized by NBC as a "side deal," specifies how the JFA is to be implemented. Hence,
"the agreement" comprises both documents; the JFA cannot be understood without the MOU, and
vice versa.
11/5/2105 (
reported
): The Sanders-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement. I can't find a copy online, but it's
described by ABC here . If there is an MOU that accompanies the Sanders JFA, it has not
come to light, and presumably, by this point, it would have.
In summary, the Clinton JFA set up the Hillary Victory Fund scam , the MOU gave
Clinton control of (much of) the DNC apparatus, and (
according to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver ) the Sanders JFA bought their campaign
access to the DNC voter list, and was never used for fundraising because the DNC never asked
the campaign to do any. So to answer the our first question, we'll look at the JFA. To answer
the second, we'll look at the MOU. And to answer the third, we'll see how all the evidence
balances out.
Were the Agreements "the Same" for Each Campaign?
Perez is wrong. The agreements were not at all the same, either formally or
substantively.
Formally, the agreements were not the same because the Clinton JFA had an MOU (the "side
deal") and the Sanders JFA did not.
ABC :
[T]he Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC
and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their
funding agreement . [R]epresentatives from Sanders' former campaign say they only signed a
basic, formulaic fundraising agreement that did not include any additional language about
joint messaging or staffing decision-making [as does the MOU].
Substantively, the agreements weren't the same either. The substance of the JFA was a scheme
enable the Hillary Victory Fund to collect "big checks" (as Politico puts it), supposedly
behalf of the state parties, but in reality treating them as conduits to the coffers of the
Clinton campaign. Page 3:
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the
gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according
to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required.
"[T]he Committees" being the state party political committees, into whose accounts the
contributions were deposited, only to be immediately removed and transferred to the Clinton
campaign (at least for the states that signed entered into the agreement; a few did not).
However, the Sanders campaign wasn't in the business of collecting "big checks," being
small-donor driven. Hence the substance of the agreement could not have been the same.
ABC once more :
Former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News Friday night that the campaign
entered the agreement with the party in November 2015 to facilitate the campaign's access to
the party's voter rolls. Weaver claims the DNC offered to credit any fundraising the senator
did for the party against the costs of access to the party's data costs, priced at $250,000.
But, Weaver continued, the party did not follow up about fundraising appearances for the
independent senator.
Instead, the Sanders campaign raised the $250,000 from small donors.
WaPo :
Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program
and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. "Who are the wealthy
people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?" Weaver asked. "We had to buy the voter
file right before the primaries."
A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her
campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had
maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for
$353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by
contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could
give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time).
Suppose you were comparing two mortgages on different houses: One mortgage has a side deal
attached, the other does not. One is for a lavish facility and demands a complex financing
arrangement involving a third party. The other is for a fixer-upper and a lump sum is paid in
cash. Would you say those two mortgages are "the same," or not? Even if they both had the word
"Mortage" at the top of page one?
Did the Agreement Apply Only to the General Election, and not the Primary?
We now turn our attention to the MOU. Howard Dean,
sadly , is wrong. The MOU contains two key passages; the first describes the relationship
between Hillary for America (HFA; the Clinton campaign) and the DNC (Brazile: "fully under the
control of Hillary's campaign"), and the second is language on the general election. Let's take
each in turn. On control, pages 1 and 2:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director , the DNC agrees
that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously
identified as acceptable to HFA.
2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications,
technology, and research departments , in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain
the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA. 3.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election
related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA
advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate . This does not include any communications
related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC
will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature .
That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign
has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the
communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton
campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as
interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the
notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point
messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election
is mentioned, so let's look at it:
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general
election[-]related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.
At the most generous reading, the Clinton campaign has "joint authority" with the DNC over
"strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures." At the narrowest reading, given
that the "general-election[-]related qualifier applies only to "communications," the joint
authority applies to "strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and data,
technology, analytics, and research." And given that the Clinton campaign is writing the checks
that keep the DNC afloat, who do you think will have the whip hand in that "joint authority"
relationship?
Now to the clause that supposedly says the agreement (JFA + MOU) applies only to the general
election. Here it is, from page 3:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of
impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed
under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and
not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with
other candidates
(Pause for hollow laughter, given Wasserman Schultz's defenestration, Brazile passing debate
questions to the Clinton campaign, etc.). First, even though Hoho seems to think it's
exculpatory, the clause is an obvious fig leaf.
Glenn Greenwald explains :
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying
lawyer language claiming that it is "focused exclusively on preparations for the General,"
but
as Fischer noted that passage "is contradicted by the rest of the agreement." This would
be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official ("A will pay Politician B
to vote YES on Bill X"), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that
"nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe," and then have journalists cite
that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face
explicitly says the opposite.
Second, the DNC itself does not believe that it has any "obligation of impartiality
and neutrality" whatever. From Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, D/B/A Democratic
National Committee and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz (as cited
in Naked Capitalism here ), the DNC's lawyer, Mr. Spiva:
MR. SPIVA: [W}here you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our
standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look,
we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way . That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also
been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
politics to answer those questions.
Third, look at the institutional realities from point one on control. The Clinton campaign
had control over the Communications Director slot and major strategic decisions from
the moment the agreement was signed. Are we really to believe that they were behaving as
neutral parties? (One obvious way to have shown that would have been to release the MOU either
when it was signed.)
Can We Say that the 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged?
I found no evidence, none whatsoever. 'The only thing I found, which I said, I've found
the cancer but I'm not killing the patient,' was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from
running its own operation," Brazile added
I think Brazile is either overly charitable, or overly legalistic (perhaps confusing
"rigged" with "fixed," where only in the latter case is the outcome absolutely determined). I
also think she's wrong. The
dictionary definition of rigged is:
to manipulate fraudulently
There's ample evidence of rigging in both the JFA and the MOU. The JFA enabled the Hillary
Victory Fund, which was a fraudulent scheme to allow big donors to contribute to the Clinton
campaign by using the states as passthroughs. And the MOU enabled to Clinton campaign to
fraudulently manipulate the public and the press into the belief that the DNC was an
independent entity, when in fact it was a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Clinton
campaign.
Conclusion
I know
we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign ; we're supposed to look forward and
not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is closed; as Brazile
shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to render judgment. So,
when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself who and what silence
serves. And perhaps this post will provide a basis for further discussion. 119
comments
Likewise, confirms my decision to wash my hands of the party. If, by some miracle, a
candidate acceptable to my priorities is nominated, I will still vote for him/her, but the
party isn't getting any default support or any $.
People need to stop conflating the DNC with the Democratic Party. I realized I was doing
so and stopped.
The DNC is an organization for raising money to support Democratic Party candidates for US
President; its subsidiaries are, of course, the DCCC and the DSCC. The only reason they have
power to dictate to the actual party is because they hold the purse strings. That
Bernie and others have run successful campaigns, to one degree or another, without their
"help" is one of the reasons they're fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. If they're
shown to be redundant, the power of those who currently run it evaporates.
Saying "I'll never vote Democrat again" is, as my sainted mother used to say, cutting off
your nose to spite your face. Right now, if we're going to at least slow down the rocketing
juggernaut that is GOP/plutocratic ownership of our governments, we need to elect progressive
candidates. There's no time to create a third party that can compete, so we need to vote for
the candidates who are advancing a non-neoliberal/neocon agenda whatever party they run
under. It's mostly Democrats, at the moment, but a social media acquaintance spoke of a
clearly progressive candidate running for a local office as a Republican because that's how
she's registered.
One of the ways the GOP was so successful in conning the working people and small business
owners and others into buying their hogwash was by demonizing "the Democrats." Now, their
message that "Democrats" are nothing but crazy-headed hippies who want to take their money
and give it to other people is so deeply ingrained it's a hard row to how convincing them
just how big a lie it is. Indeed, I suspect I shocked a raging right-winger the other day
when I told him we agreed about Obama and Clinton, because his Fox-muddled mind firmly
believes a Democrat thinks Obama rules the heavens.
If we don't "vote Democrat" in the upcoming primaries, then the establishment local and
state parties are going to throw more New Democrats against the GOP and lose. That can't
happen.
Yes, thank you! People need to vote for the progressive candidates in the Democratic
primaries. If they don't, then the establishment candidates will easily win, and the national
government will continue to be dominated by both Republican and Democratic lap dogs of the
billionaires. And if there are a few progressive Republicans out there, sure, vote for them,
too.
I often wonder whether some of the people who admonish us to stop voting for Democrats are
really employed by one of the many Koch brothers organizations. Not all of them, of course,
and I'm not making an accusation against anyone who is commenting here. But if people don't
vote for progressive Democrats, the billionaires and the corporate advocates of
financialization will win.
Of course, appearances can be deceptive: Obama ran as a progressive candidate .
As a quick ready-reckoner -- the more a candidate bloviates on Identity issues, the less
likely they are (should they be elected) to be "progressive" on issues of substance: the
economy, tax, war/imperialism
Right! Where are these progressive democrats? I would love to support one other than
Bernie Sanders (yes I know he is not perfect and he is too old). But they don't seem to exist
at the national level. There seem to be mayoral and other municipal candidates on the right
track – just have no idea how to move those ideas onto the state or national level.
Maybe I am just cranky and pessimistic right now.
TYT did several interviews of "Justice Democrats", newbies running on a progressive
platform. Some of the interviews you could see Cenk Uynger almost cringing, and the usually
voluble Jimmy Dore very quiet as the candidates lacked public speaking skills, and
demonstrating a probable lack of political smarts necessary to maneuver any bureaucracy.
Without trial by fire at lower levels, learning how to run a government and get results,
then there is no way to judge the candidates.
Unless candidates like Roza Calderon a faster learn that is
apparent at this point, they the Justice Democrats can only win when "anyone but him/her"
applies ,
So it was our apathy that did it. It was our moral failure. "Really," says Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest, "if the lower orders don't
set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility."
There's an important difference between being and voting Democrat. Actually, we already
have a defacto 3rd party, Independents/Unaffiliated, a larger block of voters than either
Republicans or Democrats.
With even greater numbers of Independents/Unaffiliated, we could be a force to be reckoned
with. Actually, we should recognize and own our power right now because we could decimate the
ranks of the Duopoly and make room for an actual third party. We can still vote for Democrats
of course, but they'll realize that they can't continue to take our votes for granted.
There's actually no good reason to remain a registered Democrat. You can still vote for
Democrats as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. It's only for some presidential primaries and
caucuses that party registration is a limitation. If you live in one of those states, you can
temporarily register as a Democrat to vote, then revert to independent/unaffiliated
afterwards. Other than that, all other elections are open without regard to affiliation.
The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey, and we're the prey
only because we haven't yet learned to fly to escape their talons. If we start owning our
power as free agents/Independent voters, that can change. While deep pocketed donors may have
the power to make the wheels turn for the Duopoly, those wheels can't go anywhere without our
votes. Since we don't have the power of money, we can at least exercise our political power
to stay out of their talons.
Independence is the way to fly. It's not just leverage, it's also the only way to clear
more space and demand for official third parties. Since the Duopoly refuses to change their
ways and repair the rigged system they created to keep only themselves in power, we can and
should abandon them in droves.
In order to vote in the New York State Democrat party primary you must be a registered
Democrat. In NY the primary is where most seats are won and lost. Being registered as a
Democrat is a necessary evil in some cases.
It has never been clear to me why a hostile takeover of the Democrats, followed by a
management purge and seizure of its assets, should be framed as "saving" the Democrat Party.
I think that's what a lot of Sanders people would like to do. It's also not clear to me why
people think the Democrats can simply be by-passed , and don't need to be assaulted,
and if from the inside, all the better.
As readers know, my experience with the Greens was poor (as it has been with others I have
talked to). This is especially sad since the GP in Maine had seemed to be viable. So, my fear
of the Greens is not fear of the un known, but fear of the known ; I worked
at dysfunctional non-profits before, and I don't need to do it again. Others, especially CP
activists, may differ in their experience, but that's mine. (Note that I was reinforced in my
priors by Stein's lawyer adopting the "Russian hacking" meme in Stein's post-election
lawsuits.)
if Bernie's primary campaign and support had been transferred to the Green Party, he
would have been a very serious contender,
I agree. But Sanders couldn't join the Green ticket, because he made a promise to support
the Democratic candidate, and unlike some politicians, he tries to keep his promises. So what did the Greens do? Instead of actively trying to gain the support of Sanders
primary voters, they nominated ideological purist Ajamu Baraka as their Vice Presidential
candidate, and he would not back down from unrealistic insulting criticism of Sanders. In
effect, the Greens chose to fail.
I am not interested in keeping the two party system. Either the country breaks apart, or we will have regional parties that can compete with
the Democrats and the Republicans.
How many clowns can dance on the head of a pin? Debating whether it feels better to have a
donkey or an elephant standing on your neck is a fools errand. Neither the Democrat or
Republican party is democratic or representative of any more than a handful of families from
the Billionaires Club. While they may favor different individuals in the ruling class,
neither faux-party has the slightest interest in the rabble who don't line their pockets and
provide protection against electoral defeat.
Elections are a stage managed charade in our kleptocracy. Expecting them to change
anything that matters, or alter the course of the Warfare State is pure delusion. First we
must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe in.
"First we must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe
in."
You are right -- although hopefully mere "crisis" will be sufficient for radical change
rather than complete collapse & chaos . Collapse & chaos may void any chance of
organised positive change. Having said that the signs are not good: see https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/
for the less than cheery news on ecosystem breakdown.
Both parties must be revealed unambiguously to the whole public as the completely morally
bankrupt, treasonous & vicious entities that socialists & progressives have known
them to be for decades.
The big problem with the Democrats is that they just kicked all the Progressives out and
actively oppose them. Voting for blue dogs doesn't get us anywhere.
You are correct about Carter. Zbigniew Brzezinski was a creature of the Rockefellers, and
he was Carter's Special Assistant for National Security. Prior to becoming President, Carter
was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
The rigging was obvious from the start. When nearly all the super delegates declared for
Clinton before a single primary was held, I read numerous reports that said the reason was
quid pro quo. The super delegates were to be given campaign money in exchange for their
support. The agreement proves it.
That, and what the DNC did to Bernie supporters during the convention, made me swear I'd
never give them a penny. I have only donated to specific candidates directly. Meanwhile, the
Dem establishment stubbornly remains clueless as to why it cannot regain the House and
Senate.
I have seen portions of the agreement (not sure if JFA or MOU) characterized as a "slush
fund" for consultants. Naturally, of course, but one might also wonder if that slush fund was
used to purchase any superdelegate votes. Pure speculation I didn't have time to run down, so
I left it on the cutting room floor.
G, a lot happened to Sanders supporters at the convention, too much to recap but you can
probably find stories about it. Many walked out but their seats were filled by paid
seat-fillers so the hall didn't look empty, also from what I understand paid seat-fillers
sometimes didn't let them take their seats. Signs were blocked, white noise was used to
muffle boos, etc.
Before the convention, many of the primaries had a lot of funny business (not all, I know
of no problems here in Texas). But California, Arizona, New York, Puerto Rico, Nevada and
others all had SERIOUS problems with things such as efforts to prevent Sanders supporters
from voting, questionable vote counting (such as at Nevada caucuses), efforts to make voting
difficult by having few poll places, etc., etc.
I think there were irregularities in Illinois, too. I recall that 6 counties did not have
enough Democratic ballots, and the Democratic Attorney General, a Clinton supporter, sued to
prevent voters in those counties from voting after election day. In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton illegally electioneered near or in a polling place. But the
authorities let him get away with it.
Great article Lambert. TheGreenwald article was helpful but yours is the icing on the
cake. Hopefully many will read this so that they do not get confused with all of the
Clintonista response to Brazile. Howard Dean must be suffering from early Alzheimer's to
write such a lie. But he has done it before.
It's hard for me to believe anyone can, with a straight face, suggest the 2 agreements are
equal.How can you have more than one agreement giving "the authority to make the final decision
" ??!!
Final means last, no? #corruptlosers
I know we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign; we're supposed to look
forward and not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is
closed; as Brazile shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to
render judgment. So, when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself
who and what silence serves.
Well said. Regular contact with the centrist MSM recently is like being subjected to
hypnotism routines from 50s movies. "You are thinking forward, forward, forward. When I snap
my fingers you will feel fresh, eager to believe in the promises of the party of Franklin
Roosevelt and Barack Obama."
and yet FDR stood by while his own "Senator Sanders" – Henry Wallace was sidetracked
from his vice-presidency and legacy as FDR's successor (to the chagrin of Eleanor, among
many) by corporate dems James Byrnes, stooge for big oil and U.S. steel, who replaced Wallace
with Truman at 1944 dem convention
However, there certainly is no comparison, as you note, between obama's complete lack of
"transparency, oversight, accountability" regarding bush-cheney war crimes, Wall Street
frauds, destabilization of entire Middle-East, leading to republican trump administration,
and FDR
Most authors-historicans I have encountered believe FDR had no real idea how ill he
was
A while ago, I read a story about the DNC's misuse of unpaid interns. The story itself was
barfy enough, but what really shocked me was an aside asserting that even official elected
DNC members were barred from viewing the DNC's budget. ( http://paydayreport.com/unpaidinternsatdnc/
)
"Surely that can't be true," I said to myself. But it is! I looked up the DNC's charter
and bylaws and the standing budget committee is specifically exempted from article 9 section
12, which says that all official meetings of the DNC and its committees must be open to the
public and cannot involve voting by secret ballot. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"WTF kind of an organization is this?!" I thought. How on earth is that even legal?
Well, after the Brazile disclosure of the Clinton MOU, I went back to look at the DNC
charter/bylaws. You'll note on the first page the date the current version was
adopted–2 days after the MOU was signed!
Anyone wanna take a bet that the budget committee carveout was one of things that was
changed?
jsba, suggest you use the Wayback machine or another internet archive and look at prior
historical copies of DNC charter/bylaws, to identify the changes. Could be very illuminating
as to (possible) criminal intent?
I was wrong about the budget committee carveout–it's in this version as well (still
completely insane!).
The fact that it was amended 2 days after the MOU is, obviously, still extremely
suspicious. I don't have time to, but the 2009 version would be useful to identify possible
changes.
As much as I'd like to switch parties (hah) so as to add to the greater numbers of fleeing
formerly party faithful, I'm in one of those 'closed primary' states. My vote is already
nearly worthless (though I exercise my right every chance I get); to switch to a third party
would make sure I'm both excluded from the more interesting local party contests AND drowned
out in national contests. Lose/lose. Maybe if something like Maine's (currently under attack)
Ranked Choice Voting existed all over, I'd be less sour about the whole thing.
Yeah, you need people like Lambert willing to do the work. It is exhausting keeping up
with the truths, half truths and lies promulgated in the press and trying to figure out what
is true and what isn't.
I find it interesting that the agreement involved control of the IT/data infrastructure of
the DNC. Doesn't the DNC administer the democratic party registry? And with that observation,
wasn't there a lot of illegal party switching that caused a problem for some Democrats voting
in party restricted primaries that had their registration switched, so that they couldn't
take part in the primaries. Wouldn't it be interesting if the switched parties were on the
DNC record as donating to Bernie's campaign? Fixed, indeed.
Manipulations of the deplorable superdelegate system, with its covert quid pro quo payoffs
after the Clintons take power, was part of a seamless fix. Premature coronation by media and
party wigs after primary victories in red states no Democrat would win in the general
election helped ice it.
Perhaps revelations will turn up on mainstream media, from the Sabbath Gasbags to NPR,
knifing Bernie with Hillary talking points at every opportunity, when he wasn't being
ignored. Thomas Frank wrote persuasively on WaPo's bias in Swat Team in Harper's, and there
have been tidbits on off-record Clinton media cocktail parties and such. But I'd like to know
how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. Certainly Jeff
Bezos has a Washington wish list. I marveled at how many journalists suddenly sounded like
breathless valley girl propagandists. And still do. What faster way to tank journalism's
credibility than that perception?
I guess that's why after catching headlines more of my reading time shifts to alternative
offerings such as those presented here.
But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was
achieved.
I worked as a journalist in America for over a decade. I cannot stress enough how
unnecessary such a literal fix would be. (Though doubtless words were and are exchanged
between concerned parties when needed.)
The hive-mind position of most U.S. journalists -- and especially of editors, who tend to
be the most compliant with the power-structure and often the stupidest people in the room --
was (and is) an automatical default to unquestioning support -- even worship -- of the
Democratic Party, its elite, and Clintonite neoliberalism.
I once wrote a long feature that got a crush-letter from Joe Lieberman's office. The
editors at the magazine in question were ecstatic and printed that letter as its own separate
feature in the next issue. Personally, I thought Leiberman was scum, but kept my qualms to
myself and was glad I used a byline.
It seems to me that the HRC campaign's JFA was expressly designed to -- and succeeded in
its design -- circumvent the statutory $2700 limit on direct campaign contributions. Yet I
have not seen commentary that suggests any laws were violated. What am I missing?
To me, it seemed that the Democratic Party had already decided for clinton before the
primaries, as at my local caucus the party had planted each neighborhood group with a party
faithful, not from the neighborhood, who would argue for clinton and fear monger about Trump.
I know this because I talked to the plant in my group, asked her where she lived, and
discovered it was not in my neighborhood; it was a different town. Others reported the
same.
Also, a Dem party leader came up to me and said "Sanders is not going to be the nominee"
and "When this is over (meaning the primary), then you'll be supporting Hillary, right?" I
told her to never assume anything.
So, thanks to Brazile, no matter her motivation, for providing proof of what we already
knew.
I think you don't see that skill set very much in party leaders because they so rarely
need for the party to win elections. They do need to be able to maintain control
over their parties, so they're great at being cutthroat and cheating. But apart from certain
important individual elections, the success of the party as a whole isn't a big priority for
them. There are spoils to divide either way.
I worked on the Sanders primary campaign in my city. I watched as the state/regional
leadership consistently tanked the gotv and other Sanders ground outreach while a few local
leaders working in smaller areas worked their hearts out on the ground. Surprisingly (or not)
the state/ regional leadership bailed to work on the HRC campaign within hours of closing the
primary office.
I swear, in one of her interviews on the past weekend, Brazile made a quick, underbreath,
reference to 'poor Seth Rich' in recounting the death threats aimed at her. Glad someone has
not forgotten that connection.
It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the
agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an
agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the
state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial
fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate
phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic
transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC
1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban
outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to
disclose.
Considering the importance of voter file access, it is impossible to imagine that your
chief competitor having joint authority over hiring the people who handle all your customer
service and monitor your compliance with voter file contract is not a material fact. If,
under DC contract law or FTC commerical regulations, these kinds of conflicts of interest are
mandatorily disclosable (I do not practice in DC but I doubt DC applies caveat emptor to that
degree), then 18 USC 1343 was broken and Jeff Sessions could indict everyone involved.
It is even worse for the state parties agreement. The DNC arguably has a duty of loyalty
to its state affiliates which makes agreeing to encourage them all to sign up even though it
is concealing its knowledge that the money will be allocated in a way that will be bad for at
least some of them seem utterly inconsistent with the honest services provisions of 1346. All
in all, it is probably a good thing for the DNC that the Sessions aides I went to law school
with paid less attention in criminal law that I did.
It seemed to me that the nondisclosure of material facts and of conflicts of interest
might, arguably, constitute some type of criminal activity and that Donna Brazile's
characterization of the agreement as "not a criminal act" was, perhaps, a bit too facile but
I did not know the specific statutes or claims that might be involved. I really appreciate
your detailed observations here.
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
When it comes to politics, it isn't Russians we need to worry about, it's Americans. That's
where the collusion is – between the parties.
It was the Republicans' turn, period. Jeff Sessions doubtless knows that.
Just want to point out that the state-party=>DNC pass-through is not at all new. Has
been active in some form and proportion in every presidential campaign since 1992 (mainly, or
at least nominally due to changes in FEC regulation), but really ramped up in and after
2008.
Pushback by states has decreased over time, as state party executive directors are now
almost always (even in off-cycle years) routed in from DC, instead of staffing from the local
pool of operatives.
One of the important impacts is on state legislatures. Gutted of necessary funding, and
discouraged (and sometimes contractually inhibited) from soliciting further funds on the
national level, state parties have little left in their coffers to support their legislative
candidates and committees (and forget about the bottom of the ticket).
So this kind of money hoovering is a significant factor in the national net loss of Dem
seats in state houses in non-"battleground" states.
During oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC three years ago, Justice Samuel Alito
dismissed the Campaign Legal Center's
analysis showing how, absent limits on the total amount that donors could give to
multiple political committees, candidates could use joint fundraising schemes to raise
huge, potentially corrupting contributions.
These scenarios, Justice Alito claimed, are "wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible." Hillary Clinton, though, is proving that the Campaign Legal Center was right all
along.
I'm not at all a campaign finance expert. Perhaps readers will weigh in?
Yes, the amounts are new. Just saying this was the direction things were going for a while
already. Good will between DNC and state parties already at a low ebb, DWS a big part of
that.
As we know, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows corporations, individuals
and labor unions to make unlimited contributions to independent organizations that use the
money to support or defeat a candidate. Rules prohibit coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or
organization making "independent expenditures."
Clearly this was not the arrangement between the HVF, State Democratic Central Committees
participating in the PAC and the DNC. Hillary was pulling the strings at the DNC. But I'm just now appreciating that the Hillary Victory Fund is not a Super PAC.
Joint fundraising is fundraising conducted jointly by a political committee and one or
more other political committees or unregistered organizations. Joint fundraising rules
apply to:
Party committees;
Party organizations not registered as political committees;
Federal and/or nonfederal candidate committees;
Nonparty, unauthorized political committees (nonconnected PACs); and
Unregistered nonparty organizations. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i) and (2).
The HVF was the first joint fundraising committee between a presidential candidate and the
Democratic party since the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC. A horrible
precedent at that!
McCutcheon declared a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates
and parties in a two-year cycle unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts opined, "The existing
aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to
disclosure."
Right!
The HVF demonstrates how rechanneling dark money from super PACs toward candidates and
parties doesn't stop unethical and undemocratic processes.
That the HVF was needed to balance the Obama debt is one thing. That the HVF can pass
through money from State committees to the DNC and then coordinate activities there while
passing off as a joint fundraising committee is another thing.
The rechanneling of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by rich D elites to bypass
individual contribution limits was a brilliant financial engineering feat–one that the
Rs will surely emulate.
Before conducting a joint fundraiser, all participants must enter into a written
agreement that identifies the JFR and states the allocation formula -- the amount or
percentage that the participants agree to use for allocating proceeds and expenses. 11 CFR
102.17(c)(1).
What was the allocation formula of the joint fundraising committee?
As the HVF fairy tale plays out, Clinton is the witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to the
forest with a castle of confections, with the intention to eat them.
Are Democrats capable of outsmarting the witches that want to cannibalize the party?
Thanks Lambert for this. As usual, you have seen around corners and cleared the mud from
the water. Thank God you like crawling through this sh*t, so that I at least don't have
to.
Our local radio host Warren Olney, on KCRW who started his show "To The Point" (which is
syndicated nationally on Public Radio International) during the 2000 Bush v Gore Supreme
Court crowning of Bush fiasco is doing a week long retrospective of the disintegration of
Americans' faith in "our" institutions (ha!) before he goes to a once a week podcast.
I have listened to him for 17 years and I don't know how he could stomach covering U.S.
society, politics, and culture during those years of non-ending sh*t show. He was fair to all
guests including some right wing loonies, but you never got the feeling he was going for
"balance." He always seemed to get the truth. Gonna sorely miss him.
So glad you are still on the case, and loving it. You have my gratitude, and soon, a
contribution.
How much of the $250,000 the Sanders campaign paid for the DNC voter list went to the
Clinton campaign? I am still wondering if this kind of thing has occurred in other elections?
As far as relitigating the primary goes, we should've had that fight back, if not in 2000,
then definitely in 2004. After Team Clinton, people who justified their sellouts and perfidy
with 'we must never have another McGovern or Carter', gave the GOP a gift of a unified
government that should have been the permanent end of their credibility. Because while
McGovern, Carter, and Mondale went down in flames they didn't so thoroughly destroy the
anti-reactionary institutions as badly as the Third Way did.
The endless 2016 primary is our punishment for giving these centrist vipers a second
chance.
I appreciate Lambert going through these documents and laying out the timeline. One of the
things that this read sparked for me was the realization the Joe Biden was elbowed out just
as much as Bernie Sanders. I didn't follow the Biden decision-making process at the time but
checking back on the timeline it seems like Clinton pre-empted any attempt by dear old Joe to
actually decide to run. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2016_presidential_race
It doesn't take much elbowing to oust someone who was polling in single digits in his home
state. I donated to O'Malley's campaign before Bernie got in, and, regrettably, am still on
his mailing list.
The bottom line is that the political system is owned by the ruling oligarchy and that the
Democratic Establishment is in bed with them. If a serious candidate from the left poses a
challenge, they will rig the Primary against that candidate.
The Democratic Establishment is pretty much paid to lose and to make the consultant class
rich. Equally as importantly, they exist to co-opt the left.
Sure there are a few voices talking that make sense like Tulsi Gabbard. They are the
exception to a very corrupt party.
A big part of why the middle class has declined is because of the total betrayal of the
Democratic Party from the ideas behind the New Deal.
The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20
million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC
had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for
consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of
his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right?
My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put
the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they
had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any
comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him
out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the
lack of money.
"Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial
about the true nature and scope of the problem
"Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party
is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a
functioning democracy."
Thanks. This was plain and simple money laundering to get around the Federal Election
Commission rules and regulations. That no one has been brought to justice shows how corrupt
the American political process is. It would great if you could post how you would reform it.
I would start with paper ballots counted in public and halt corporations from buying
elections.
If I understand the law correctly, this really wasn't money laundering, since laundered
money becomes dirty by virtue of its being the result of a crime (like drug dealers
depositing cash at HSBC (IIRC)). Handling money in a complex and obfuscated way is not, in itself, money laundering. I'm
not sure what the word is, though.
Violating campaign laws is a crime. Circumventing can often be shown to be violating. Need
a prosecutor willing to prosecute white collar crime, a rare breed for at least the last
decade.
But trump has been attacked by Clintons, and he has DOJ but nothing is happening.
Some very good points are made here. Carping about the inequities of the Democrat Party
establishment isn't going to change their behaviour. Too much lucre. One needs to change the
people running the party. From the ground up and with concrete regulatory features. Full
stop.
However, one might look to the UK Labour party to see how it reacted when J. Corbyn, a
lifelong member and activist, became leader of the party through grandee miscalculation. The
Thatcherist Blairites went ballastic and basically decided to destroy the party rather than
let a fairly mild democratic socialist offer an alternative to their beloved neoliberal
economic policies. Too much lucre. They almost destroyed Labour in Scotland and were intent
on defenestrating Labour in England, whilst retaining some feeble structure as a mock
substitute, so that the Tories would, in fact, become the one and only alternative.
The forces aligned against the democratic tendencies of ordinary citizens are formidable
and reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. They have the money, technological reach
and hence the power of capital and its persuasive abilities.
i dont think a campaign had owned the dnc like that before. i think it had nothing to do
with hilary being a good team player, and everything to do with money and juicy
consulting/lobbying jobs. and pointing this out is not "sulking". know your enemy, and don't
excuse their crimes and predations by an argument that "that's just the way things are".
I am a Bernie supporter. He was pushed to the side by the Dem's – a party to which I
belonged for forty years – in a total panic when it was shown to the Dem's that Bernie
was able to reach disaffected party members as myself by raising a large amount of money
through individual small donors.
That Bernie accomplished this feat was a huge factor, IMO, in why and how my former party
felt it necessary to malign and derail Bernie and his supporters before, during and after the
Democratic -meh – Nominating Convention.
The Dem's should have just named the Hillary for America Fund the Hillary for Hillary
Fund.
Hillary cares only for and about Hillary. She's the reason Trump is POTUS today.
My family has been Democrat for many generations. Most of my family members have,
unfortunately, BTFD on this one. I used to find them to be reasonable folk. Trump derangement
syndrome has infected them all. This is a common complaint these days.
Forgot to thank Lambert for all of his great care and hard work in putting this together
for us. Thank you, Lambert.
In Brazile's account I do believe I remember reading that my home state, CA, did not sign off
on the agreement with regard to the HFV fund. But I seem to remember that Naked Capitalism,
or perhaps in the commentariat here, did state that the Dem's here in CA were in an uproar
over Hillary Victory Fund taking all of the state party monies. Am I having a flashback or
did I actually remember this wrong? Anyone know?
I thought the most interesting thing about Brazile's comments to date was that Obama left
the DNC indebted and therefore more vulnerable to the highest bidder. Not easy to bail that
out on $27 donations. So typical of these Goldmanite administrations, this use of finance as
a political weapon.
Presstitutes from guardian have no shame. Look, for example, at the following statement "The former
Clinton staffers – among them high-profile figures such as Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri and campaign
manager Robby Mook, the target of stringent criticism from Brazile – wrote: "It is particularly troubling
and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians
and
our opponent , about our candidate's health."
It is widely suspected that Hillary Clinton has second stage
of Parkinson or some other serious neurological diseases?
It is telling that Guardian is afraid to open comments on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party. ..."
She also said she "got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how to spend money" as DNC chair,
when she "wasn't getting a salary. I was basically volunteering my time".
"I'm not Patsey the slave," Brazile said, referring to a character in the Oscar-winning film 12
Years a Slave.
In her book, Brazile writes that she did not ultimately try to make the change of candidate because:
"I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her.
I could not do this to them."
On ABC, she admitted she had not had the power to make the change but said: "I had to put in on
the the table because I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a quote-unquote
plan B. I didn't want a plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary and I wanted her to
win. But we were under pressure."
Brazile writes that on 12 September 2016, Biden's chief of staff called saying the vice-president
wanted to speak with her. Her thought, she writes, was: "Gee, I wonder what he wanted to talk to
me about?"
On ABC, she said she did not mention the possible switch. "I mean, look, everybody was called
in to see, do you know anything? How is she doing? And of course my job at the time was to reassure
people, not just the vice-president but also reassure the Democratic party, the members of the party,
that Hillary was doing fine and that she would resume her campaign the following week."
It is unclear if Biden was ever willing to step into the race. The former vice-president, who
many believe could a run for the presidency in 2020, made no immediate comment.
Asked if she still thinks a Biden-Booker ticket could have won, Brazile equivocated, saying: "Well,
you know, I had a lot of other combinations. This was something you play out in your mind."
Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong
challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the
DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party.
The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan
in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In
which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled
by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working
on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence
reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the
Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely
reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the
British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than
truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July
of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served
as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the
White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats'
go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator,
as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion
to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again
with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an
exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep
inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and
discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from
this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured
Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton,
and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign
governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note,
by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain
about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made
up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop
(cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe
that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the
past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow
them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it
past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election.
It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied
on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration
covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's
pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others
working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a
"bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research
on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.
Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation
headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian
government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on
purported money laundering. On Monday,
indictments were filed against
former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.
But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier
compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was
bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant
claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence
sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress
and a special prosecutor.
The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of
intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting
contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are
real
concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via
liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources
were also utilized by Steele.
According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel
to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself,"
Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played
absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was
released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to
Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."
Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and
provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any
way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need
to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.
An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less
than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community
in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called
Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017
Russian ICA.
Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime.
It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company
that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence,
and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the
Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump
was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to
a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion
GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting
opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end
of the election cycle.
Perkins Coie is also home to Michael
Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration
of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach,
and, on May 4, 2016,
he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike,
for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence
of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the
FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.
When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and,
again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach
through
an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report
detailing the intrusion, ominously named
"Bears in the Midst."
This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet
of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with
a spokesperson from either
the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.
It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond
the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving
into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person
Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele
Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion
GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already
paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the
part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm
assets require the approval of either the
management or executive committee
of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).
But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports"
cobbled together from what
Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes
to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was
assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts
normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.
The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its
explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive
charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report
alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and
directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored
and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."
These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22,
when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal
deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled
to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention
when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors,"
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald
Trump."
If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton
campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the
2016 Aspen
Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack
of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready
to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration,
Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence
community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.
According to the
Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the
Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit
the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this
briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told
the New York Times
. The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives
-- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate
of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or
was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of
the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution,
shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community.
Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that
was used.
The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted
Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C,"
a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan
cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief
U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually
mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been
influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party
behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions
set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis
of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August
2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent"
then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and
allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion
with Nazi U-boat commanders.
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to
such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence
community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding
with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George
Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political
actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian
actors who would like to undermine Putin.
To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016
US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the
US election is quite another. "
This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute
the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia,
Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism
can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.
In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no
question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and
now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling.
Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is
made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians,
full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double
standard?
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing
the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made
use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions
for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.
Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing
about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once
enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium
One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.
November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty
laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.
So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of
doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the
Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed
Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.
But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were
complicit in the misdeeds.
We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the
Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.
We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.
We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to
believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.
What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is
of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying
Russians for smear documents! America First!
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump.
Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others
have all lied.
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would
allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things
to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him
in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?
Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely
smeared the Trump team?
Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both
received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.
Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier
relied on collaboration with Russian officials.
Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller,
participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security
violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw
the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and
stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.
In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured
email server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously
wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama
administration covering up lawlessness.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government
emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial
relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate
that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well
so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and
put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:
"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."
In the same interview:
"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign,
reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
Did everybody catch that?
In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic
political opponent.
But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent.
I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in
its entire 10-year existence.
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email
server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something
seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign
government, you have some screws lose.
Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal
offence.
The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC ,
and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.
Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side
can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that
the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power
and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?
But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing
that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is
going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"
If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client
privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press,
Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks
maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.
Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.
The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation,
allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that
makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the
claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this
blighted nation for the next four years.
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt
to accuse one and defend the other is futile."
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"
I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental.
Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's
pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in
the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket.
Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed
cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real
or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?
In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal
commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.
BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs
a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.
"... What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication." ..."
"... Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics. ..."
"... The Power Elite ..."
"... The Organization Man. ..."
"... hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace. ..."
"... Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite." ..."
"... It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer. ..."
"... Rafe explained it this way ..."
"... Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks. ..."
"... As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ..."
"... America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure. ..."
Many working-class Americans voted for Donald Trump believing he would address their needs,
not those of rich Republicans. But all pols, it seems, end up conforming to their political
group's priorities, as Lawrence Davidson explains.
By Lawrence Davidson
In 1956, William H. Whyte published a book entitled The Organization Man about
America's societal changes in the post-World War II economy. Basing his findings on a large
number of interviews with CEOs of major American corporations, Whyte concluded that, within the
context of modern organizational structure, American "rugged individualism" had given way to a
"collectivist ethic." Economic success and individual recognition were now pursued within an
institutional structure – that is, by "serving the organization."
Whyte's book was widely read and praised, yet his thesis was not as novel as it seemed.
"Rugged individualism," to the extent that it existed, was (and is) the exception for human
behavior and not the rule. We have evolved to be group-oriented animals and not lone wolves.
This means that the vast majority of us (and certainly not just Americans) live our lives
according to established cultural conventions. These operate on many levels – not just
national patriotism or the customs of family life.
What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set
themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are
those,
to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of
organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty
and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication."
Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands
of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and
career party politics.
For insight in this we can turn to the sociologist C. Wright Mills , whose famous book
The Power
Elite was published the same year as Whyte's The Organization Man. Mills's
work narrows the world's ruling bureaucracies to government, military and top economic
corporations. T hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military
and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the
specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to
the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace.
Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who
guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and
applied, are Mills's "power elite."
How this works out in the military is pretty obvious. There is a long tradition of
dedication to duty. At the core of this dedication is a rigid following of orders given by
superiors. This tradition is upheld even if it is suspected that one's superior is
incompetent.
It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the
Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called
greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to
demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer.
The Organization Man or Woman in Politics
Running for and holding office in countries like the United States and Canada often requires
one to "take the vows of organization life." Does this support democracy or erode it? Here is
one prescient answer: the way we have structured our party politics has given us "an appalling
political system which is a step-by-step denial of democracy and a solid foundation for a
'soft' dictatorship."
One of the elegant rooms at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club. (Photo from
maralagoclub.com)
Those are the words of the late Rafe Mair , a Canadian politician, broadcaster,
author and a good friend of this writer. Rafe spent years in Canadian politics, particularly in
his home province of British Columbia, and his experience led him to the conclusion expressed
above. How does this translate into practice?
Rafe
explained it this way : "In a parliamentary [or other form of representative]
democracy the voter transfers his rights to his member of parliament [congressperson, senator
or state legislator] to exercise on his behalf – the trouble is, by running for his
political party the [elected person, in turn, is led to] assign your [the voter's] rights to
the [party] leader for his exclusive use!"
There is no law that makes the elected official do this. However, the inducements to do so
are very powerful.
Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion.
They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break
careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections
right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a
primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the
party ranks.
As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost
endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders.
They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless
doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership.
I believe we are prisoners of a corrupted "democracy."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter
which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling
instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for
taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and
all kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his
entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the
compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[more info on this at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 11:42 am
Yes, our ertswhile democracy has been completely corrupted. Thanks to Lawrence Davidson,
William Whyte, C. Wright Mills, and Rafe Mair for this consideration of the systemic
corruption of political parties. The diseases of conformity within party organizations are a
nearly inherent problem of democracy.
The improper influence which determines the policies conformed to by parties is the
central problem, and stems largely from influence of the economic Power Elite, directing the
policies to which the Organization Man must be obedient to be chosen. This distortion can be
eliminated by Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections
to limited individual contributions.
Our problem is that we cannot make such reforms because those tools of democracy are
already controlled by oligarchy, which never yields power but to superior force. Talk of
justice and peace is not in their language of might makes right, and has no effect
whatsoever. They yielded to the 1964 Civil Rights Act only because their fear of riots in the
streets led them to pretend that MLK et al had been persuasive.
The foreign wars may be stopped by the defeat, isolation, and embargo of the US by foreign
powers. But within the US, the full price of democracy must again be paid the People of the
US. The oligarchy must be defeated by superior force: only those who deny enforcement to
oligarchy and terrify the rich will bring them to yield any power. That is likely to await
more severe recessions and inequities caused by the selfish and irresponsible rich.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:42 pm
You are exactly right Sam F. Unfortunately time is quickly running out for our corrupt
"civilization." The time to cultivate and practice wisdom has passed. The sad truth is that
our goose is cooked; there will be no cavalry showing up to save us. We are now "eating our
karma" and will reap our just deserts. Not because I or anyone say so, but because implacable
laws of nature will now play out. Dominant intellectual species occupy a precarious position
in planetary evolution, and we are on the verge of a great fall – and all the King's
horses and all the King's men will not be able to put our extincting species together again
..
Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Your reply touches a responsive chord, in that humanity seems to have made so little
permanent progress in its million years or so, mostly in its last few hundred years, an
insignificant fraction of planetary history. But the history and literature of temporary
progress lost is significant as the repository of ideas for future democracies, at those rare
moments when they are designed.
Our diseased society is but one tree in the forest of democracies. The US is or will be
like the apparently healthy tree that took down my power lines last night, a pretty red oak
with brilliant autumn leaves, but sideways now and blocking the road. But like the leaves on
that tree, we can see the problem and still hope to be as happy as this year's leaves on
healthier trees.
As in what I like to call the universal mind of humanity, individuals may have foresight
and thoughts beyond their apparent functions, which survive in that greater mind of their
thoughts recorded or just passed along, and in that way their learning is not in vain.
Drew Hunkins , October 30, 2017 at 10:34 am
Trump did nix out the TPP and did desire a rapprochement of sorts with Moscow. He also
regularly asserted that he wanted to re-build American manufacturing in the heartland and
wanted to rein in Washington's footprint across the globe. Of course Trump ultimately
capitulated to the militarist Russophobes. One can only put so much stock in campaign
pronouncements, but he did come off as less bellicose than Killary, that was clear to any
fair minded observer.
Trump's also been a nightmare as it comes to workers' rights in general, consumer and
environmental protections and fair taxation as it relates to regressive vs progressive rates.
He was also an Islamophobe when it comes to Iran and fell right in line with Adelson and the
other ZIonist psychopaths.
The most welcoming aspect of Trump was his desire to make peace with Russia, this has been
completely sabotaged by the deep state militarists. This is the reason the Corkers, Flakes
and much of the establishment mass media browbeat and attack him relentlessly. Most of them
ignore what he actually should be admonished for opting for nuclear brinkmanship instead.
exiled off mainstreet , October 30, 2017 at 11:25 am
This is the best description I have seen about Trump's role.
Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 10:37 am
Thank you CN and Lawrence Davidson for what I think is a accurate explanation of the
failure of our Democracy. I especially like the reference to C. Wright Mills who is a heroic
character for me. I think Mr. Mill's book on the Power Elite was prescient, as was his
thinking in general. He published a little known book "Listen, Yankee" (1960) that was very
insightful about the then current Cuban Revolution. It seems in retrospect that there was
plenty of warning at the time for America to wake up to the goals of Big Government and Big
Business but it was either successfully repressed or ignored by those who might have made a
difference, like Labor. At any rate, C. Wright Mills died too early, because he seemed
uniquely suited to make a difference. His writing remains current, I'll add a link.
I am a big CW Mills fan too. We have had many warnings – now we are going to
experience the fate of those who ignore wisdom.
tina , October 30, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Hey, college UWM 1984- 1987 Mass Comm, I did not graduate , but we studied Mills, Lewis
Mumford, and my favorite, Marshall McLuhan. Also, first time I was introduced to Todd Gitlin
and IF Stone. While I did not pursue a life in journalism, I so appreciate all those who did
the hard work. I still have all my college required reading books from these people, it is
like a set of encyclopedias, only better. And better than the internet. Keep up the work CN ,
I am not that talented, but what you do is important.
First, let me commend Lawrence Davidson for his selection of two of the most insightful
writers of the sixties to use as a springboard for his perceptive essay. A third(John Kenneth
Galbraith) would complete a trilogy of the brilliant academic social analysis of that time.
Galbraith's masterpiece(The Affluent Society) examined the influence of the heavy emphasis
corporate advertising had on American culture and concluded that the economic/social
structure was disproportionately skewed toward GDP(gross domestic product) at the expense of
educational investment. This was in direct contrast with the popular novels and essays of Ayn
Rand, the goddess of greed whose spurious philosophy had come to epitomize the mindset that
continues to plague the globe with the neoliberal ideals that have been reinvented under many
names over time; i.e. laissez faire, trickle down,the Laffer curve, free market economics and
monetarism.
Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Usually such claims are themselves no more than campaign hot air. However, in their
ignorance, voters may well respond to such hot air, and the result can be a jump from the
proverbial frying pan into the fire. U.S. voters seem to have taken just such a leap when
they elected Donald Trump president.
Nowhere in this essay are either of the terms "Hillary" or "Clinton" mentioned. U.S.
voters had the choice of a known evil on the "D" side of the ballot, or another person well
understood to be a shallow, self-centered, rich *****. They were going to end up with an
unqualified person either way the voting went. Quite possibly the nod went to Trump because
1) his promises were surely more believable than those of Clinton and 2) Trump wasn't yet the
known destroyer of entire nations.
Describing the predicament of the voters as "ignorance" just isn't fair when looking at
the overall picture.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm
Yes. Voters were put in a no win situation. That's why I did not participate in the "show"
election.
Realist , October 31, 2017 at 4:33 am
What were Obama's reasons for failing to take a stand, once elected, on all the promises
he made during his campaigns? He mostly gave away the store to the other side, and insulted
his supporters while doing so. Talk about progressives not getting a "win" even after
carrying the elections. Two terms earlier, the media called the contest one of two
"moderates" between Bush and Gore. If that was "moderation" practiced by Dubya, I need a new
dictionary. Most recent elections have been pointless, especially when the Supreme Court
doesn't allow a complete recount of the votes. In a field of 13(!) primary candidates last
year, the GOP could not provide one quality individual. The Dems cheated to make sure the
worst possible of theirs would get the nomination. I see nothing but mental and moral midgets
again on the horizon for 2020. I don't expect Trump to seek re-election. He will have had a
bellyful should he even survive.
I believe what has happened to all of us is: "The Imposition of a New World Order." This
plan has been helped by puppet politicians. Therefore the question must be asked: "Is There
An Open Conspiracy to Control the World'?
[More info on this at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/is-there-open-conspiracy-to-control.html
john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Stephen: why do you ask the question to which you already know the answer? Yes, we're all
screwed and have been for years. The bankers already control the world and the military make
sure its stays that way.
Very true john wilson. Questions beget answers and information.
cheers Stephen J.
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:52 pm
It's like the Purloined Letter by Poe – the truth of our enslavement is so obvious,
that only the deeply brainwashed can fail to see it.
Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:48 pm
The parts of The Organization Man I found most interesting were the chapters about
"Testing The Organization Man". The companies were deliberately selecting for people
we currently label Corporate Psychopaths. Whyte suggested memorizing some "attitudes" before
taking one of the tests. Among them:
I loved my father and my mother, but my father a little bit more
I like things pretty much the way they are
I never worry much about anything
I don't care for books or music much
I love my wife and children
I don't let them get in the way of company work
You can substitute any number of things that you won't allow to get in the way of
company work .
Ecology. Laws. Regulations. Integrity. Religion.
"Screw planet Earth. Exxon comes first!" Or "screw Jesus and the horse he rode in on. We
need to cut taxes and balance the budget. People are poor because they're too lazy to get a
job."
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:53 pm
Good points. Brainwashing in action revealed.
john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Democracy is another word for consensual slavery. In a communist system or a dictatorship
etc you are told you are a slave because you have no voice or choice. In a democracy you do
have a choice and its between one salve master and another. If you vote Democrat you are just
as much a slave to the system as you are if you vote Republican. The possibility of a third
choice which might just free you from your chains, is a fantasy and only there as window
dressing to give democracy some credibility. The term for this dilemma is called being
TOTALLY SCREWED!!
mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Amen John. You got it right brother.
exiled off mainstreet , October 31, 2017 at 11:01 am
This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century
version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of
republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way
things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure.
"All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)"
Notable quotes:
"... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
"... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
"... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
"... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
"... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
"... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
"... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
"... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
"... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
"... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
"... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
"... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
"... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
"... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
"... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
"... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
"... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
"... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
"... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
"... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
"... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above
All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign
was similar to the
German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.
On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General
John Kelly and
concluded :
The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would
look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they
haven't served in the military . ...
The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to
do . ...
Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but
theirs. ...
Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...
Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White
House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.
All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of
the
power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton.
The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with
a similar outcome.)
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian
adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological
pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor
General McMaster, had won. I
stated :
Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary"
candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that
insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office.
An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the
White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public
figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
The military took full control of White House processes and policies:
Everything of importance now passes through
the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies
to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to
them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be
told again and again.
With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress
any and all criticism against itself.
On Thursday the 19th Kelly
criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a
phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:
Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar
FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.
The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a
fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not
lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's
unjustified attack she
responded:
MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that
-- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's
something highly inappropriate
It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.
... ... ...
If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do
they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military
golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000
strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.
And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he
commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:
Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had
maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees'
peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber
bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees,
consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.
Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States
Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the
competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he
promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely
waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will
rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a
get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.
On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent
incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis
set
(vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:
Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is -
is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there ,
by putting our troops in a position to die?
In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to
explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:
So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa --
in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers;
teaching them how to respect human rights ...
Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it
learn that from committing mass atrocities in about
each campaign it ever fought?
One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a
dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?
But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever
the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be
declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be
blocked from communicating.
The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933
"Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will
develop from it.
Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink
The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The
more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards
China/Russia and other currencies.
Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
@1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over
simplifies the issue.
Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take
the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not
a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained
his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the
reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."
That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called
'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an
application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean
that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms
by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his
'asymmetric' style.
It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is
as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep
their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an
oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the
alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up
the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart;
reality is slapping you in the face.
One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha
Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so
strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction,
which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to
corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes
most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to
meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.
What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in
agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he
failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last
decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian
Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a
Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success
of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian
refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can
they conjure a war out of this?
On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in
Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.
When that info is combined with:
1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army
units
3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control
northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they
fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)
together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the
area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...
I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US
Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total
dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin,
Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and
development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking
woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development.
The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments
and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.
There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military
intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think
anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the
Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or
join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero
Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point
where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within:
Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something
viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees
Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game
promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.
The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being
forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses.
And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to
spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with
the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.
There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of
the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related
sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.
funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the
initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its
pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical
land route as well.
At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to
be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top
military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a
truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the
"translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more
effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War
propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down
to the Buzzfeed crowd.
We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA
ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would
people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?
Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta
accomplished in Afghanistan:
"Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am
anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am
very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US
policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of
extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch,
under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan
military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come
Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that
mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America
in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of
the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view
it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in
Afghanistan?
"Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the
United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We
would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody
would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs
of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"
I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only
knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.
We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and
indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as
another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful
one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.
LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by
Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while
the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had
been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can
get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can
muster.
American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After
Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right
to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in
control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump,
who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation
and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the
information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the
blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear
arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no
longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of
billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority
to launch our nuclear arsenal."
Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military,
in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is
disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to
whether the President could be bypassed in the process.
Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear
strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.
The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is
also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump
has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of
military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of
supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and
support."
Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.
. . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our
country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform
that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and
pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object
of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in
reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol
of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol
of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the
power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The
Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the
same outcome.)""
I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the
police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few
notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.
I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist
ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against
enemies foreign and domestic.
The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.
a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"
This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 :
The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger
Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French
Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went
wrong!
If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda
she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda,
especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces.
Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a
war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and
they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage
for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military
will only ever face another Vietnam.
On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes:
"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that
I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of
a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to
three quarters of them would be in jail."
> It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
> Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida
congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national
joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out
repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the
empire." Bullshit.
Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump
says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
"The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über
Alles" campaign of 1933."
This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII
started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe
and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany
was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the
slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have
us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out
for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it
Hitler's "MAGA".
The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for
Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who
now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a
nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is
evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war
which is also being waged within the US government.
This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is
run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident,
but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their
own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC
contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of
the operation.
Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter
shooting up targets with a SAW-249.
The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when
there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the
minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump
is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
"One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights"
was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than
a dozen awards and decorations".
The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to
teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the
American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?
Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever.
Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better
formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.
The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public
trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you
stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise -
imagine being this a-hole's son?
These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the
same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards,
ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists,
who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system
turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.
As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people,
not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are
obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues
such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades
and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what
makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable.
The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are
expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is
HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose
themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found
out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the
Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour
is.
The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves
about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome
war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the
occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked.
As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of
naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the
cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them,
while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history,
disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military
casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire,
syphilis or fragging of their own.
The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are
cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption
(plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a
putrid slime from there.
He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can
have anything but contempt for them.
It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military
junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.
One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post
from October 12, 2017:
Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short
summary:
Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday
that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad
-- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."
"The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and
decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such
as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a
dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as
thin as Donald Trump's skin."
The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the
president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."
"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying
to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.
At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal.
An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since
Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks
are, they fit into that mode.
Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to
run for office and win that office.
They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a
rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder,
war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have
that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.
Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order
to save it" attempts.
MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at
others.
re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom
he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .
The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some
prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan &
Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had
enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo)
prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and
tortured.
None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong.
The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it
was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a
13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.
Meanwhile the
Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and
prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they
supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes,
Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.
The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in
the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism,
and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in
the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient
class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides
familial, or close, etc.)
Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is
personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc.
That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the
double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.
.... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the
media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are
politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides
of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong,
they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond
soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and
has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.
To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.
First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump
why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and
the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?
Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted
with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.
Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never
fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish
bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.
@J 49 The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do,
not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA
would be out of power?
Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across
Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better
soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights
These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news
reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they
were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were
not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism
applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be
such a thing).
I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having
supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all
bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the
US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In
the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with
ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and
allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS,
similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with
ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia,
clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend
insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget
(again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil,
North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.
Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY
positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John
Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a
walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.
Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try
to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to
his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and
of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.
Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops
into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of
the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama.
Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable
specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the
military. Heroes of convenience.
What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all
about.
1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures"
like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold
War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.
2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first"
vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:
>> replaced/retired many military officers;
>> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind")
;
>> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional
nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.
The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support
further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has
changed the calculus.
The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different
type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to
foreign influence.
So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and
the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.
Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office.
He surrendered his top people.
Saker says it was lack of character.
I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you
acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced
him out of the WH.
Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even
with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep
State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.
He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC
justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with
Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.
There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
And we know the limits they face.
Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin
and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of
opportunity, though it looks bleak.
One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these
terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling
it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.
SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the
service industry being sold as the "solution".
The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over
here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns
6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the
bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and
the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has
its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels
me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of
this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned
ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my
time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the
members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service.
My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of
Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in
1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic
for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went
its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals,
not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie
to Congress.
The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in
their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering
a nation.
In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment)
of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.
IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now
dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are
alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections
of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death.
Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren
Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his
reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.
One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.
We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's
not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than
Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something
that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on
the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist
the urge to pop off on twitter.
Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult.
Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just
say I'm talking about perception.
Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle
to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts.
Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.
Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or
NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold
reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the
public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his
brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a
positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and
her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The
true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged
that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking
for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.
"But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.
Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the
military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the
supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald
Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major
split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant
figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and
traitors is absurd.
Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise
hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The
number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the
Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly
and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik
faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).
Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The
various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The
actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late
1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs
(then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many
areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising
hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external
economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in
power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S.
continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive
another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S.
does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to
try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel"
whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey.
Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless
disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.
"... The Republican Party is home to many a vile reactionary, but its principal function is, and long has been, to serve the most odious wing of the American ruling class. ..."
"... Being unfit and unprepared for the office he suddenly found himself holding, Trump had no choice but to call on seasoned Republican apparatchiks for help. Thus he ended up empowering the very people he had beaten into submission months before. ..."
"... Thus the Republican Party and the Donald became locked together in a bizarre marriage of convenience. Their unholy aliance has by now become a nightmare for all concerned. ..."
"... Moreover, with each passing day, the situation becomes more fraught – to the point that even Republican Senators, three of them so far, have already said "enough." ..."
"... Vice President Mike Pence, his constitutionally prescribed successor, is an opportunist too, but he is also a dedicated theocrat and a thoroughgoing reactionary. A skilled casting director could not have come up with a more suitable vector for spreading the plagues that Republican donors like the Koch brothers seek to let loose upon the world. ..."
"... With Pence in the Oval Office, the chances of nuclear annihilation would diminish, but everything else would be worse. Trump is temperamentally unable to play well with the denizens of the "adult daycare center" that official Washington has become. On the other hand, because his effect on people is more soporific than terrifying, and because he is, by nature, a "pragmatic" conservative -- a mirror image of what Clinton purported to be -- Pence could end up doing more to undermine progress than Trump could ever imagine. ..."
"... Therefore, Trump's demise, though necessary, would be a mixed blessing, at best. ..."
"... After all, Democrats are part of the problem too -- arguably, the major part – and they can hardly remain entirely indifferent to the concerns of voters who lean left. ..."
The Republican Party is home to many a vile reactionary, but its principal function is,
and long has been, to serve the most odious wing of the American ruling class.
Before Hillary Clinton threw away a sure victory last November, Donald Trump was well on the
way to blowing that dreadful party apart.
No credit is due him, however. The harm he was on track for causing was unintended. Trump
was not trying to do the GOP in; he was only promoting his brand and himself.
However, by stirring up longstanding rifts between the party's various factions, he
effectively put himself on the side of the angels. Without intending anything of the sort, and
without even trying, Trump turned himself into a scourge upon America's debilitating duopoly
party system.
As Election Day approached, it was unclear whether the GOP's Old Guard would ever be able to
put their genteel thing -- their WASPish Cosa Nostra -- back together again.
With Hillary Clinton in the White House, their odds were maybe fifty-fifty. Had the
Democrats nominated a less inept Clintonite like Joe Biden or an old school liberal like Bernie
Sanders, their odds would have been worse.
But then, to nearly everyone's surprise, including his own, Trump won -- or, rather, Clinton
lost, taking many a Democrat down with her. The debacle wasn't entirely her fault. For years,
the Democratic National Committee had been squandering its resources on getting Democratic
presidents elected, leaving down ticket Democrats wallowing in malign neglect.
And so, for a while, it looked like the GOP would not only survive Trump, but would thrive
because of him.
Even so, Republicans were not exactly riding on Trump's coattails. The party's grandees had
problems with the Donald, as did comparatively sane Republican office holders and office
seekers; so did Republican-leaning voters in the broader electorate. But with Clinton flubbing
so badly, none of this mattered.
Being unfit and unprepared for the office he suddenly found himself holding, Trump had
no choice but to call on seasoned Republican apparatchiks for help. Thus he ended up empowering
the very people he had beaten into submission months before.
Thus the Republican Party and the Donald became locked together in a bizarre marriage of
convenience. Their unholy aliance has by now become a nightmare for all concerned.
Moreover, with each passing day, the situation becomes more fraught – to the point
that even Republican Senators, three of them so far, have already said "enough."
Republicans continue to run the House and the Senate, and they occupy hosts of other top
government offices, but the Republican Party has gone into damage control mode. It had little
choice, inasmuch as its Trump induced, pre-election trajectory is back on track.
After only a brief hiatus, the chances are therefore good once again that if the country and
the world survive Trump, he will be remembered mainly for destroying the party that Abraham
Lincoln led a century and a half ago.
This is therefore a good time to give Republicans space to destroy themselves and each
other, cheering them on from the sidelines – especially as they turn on Trump and he
turns on them.
Saving the world from that menace is plainly of paramount importance, but it is important
not to lose sight of the fact that the alternative is arguably even more unpalatable. Trump is
an accidental malefactor; he goes where self-interest leads him. Vice President Mike Pence,
his constitutionally prescribed successor, is an opportunist too, but he is also a dedicated
theocrat and a thoroughgoing reactionary. A skilled casting director could not have come up
with a more suitable vector for spreading the plagues that Republican donors like the Koch
brothers seek to let loose upon the world.
With Pence in the Oval Office, the chances of nuclear annihilation would diminish, but
everything else would be worse. Trump is temperamentally unable to play well with the denizens
of the "adult daycare center" that official Washington has become. On the other hand, because
his effect on people is more soporific than terrifying, and because he is, by nature, a
"pragmatic" conservative -- a mirror image of what Clinton purported to be -- Pence could end
up doing more to undermine progress than Trump could ever imagine.
Therefore, Trump's demise, though necessary, would be a mixed blessing, at
best.
Trump is not likely to "self-impeach" any time soon; and. at this point, only persons who
have the ear of Republican bigwigs can do much of anything to hasten his departure from the
scene. But there are other ways to "deconstruct" the duopoly party system -- as Trump's
fascisant, pseudo-intellectual (formerly official, now unofficial) advisor, Steve
Bannon might infelicitously put it.
After all, Democrats are part of the problem too -- arguably, the major part – and
they can hardly remain entirely indifferent to the concerns of voters who lean left. ...
... ... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge)
and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in response to requests by President Bill Clinton." ..."
It covers over approximately two decades of declassified documents, from the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), White House, and United States
Department of State, regarding American covert activities in Chile. It is based on more than
24,000 previously classified documents that were released as part of the Chilean
Declassification Project during the Clinton administration, between June 1999 and June
2000.
The Pinochet File was selected as one of "The Best Books of 2003" in the nonfiction
category by the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker said, "The evidence that Kornbluh has
gathered is overwhelming." in its review. The Newsweek review of The Pinochet File describes it
as "...actually two distinct but intersecting books. The first is a narrative account of the
Nixon administration's involvement in Chile. Its mission was to make sure that Allende's
election in 1970 didn't serve as a model for leftist candidates elsewhere. The second consists
of the reproduction of hundreds of salient intelligence documents released in 1999 and 2000 in
response to requests by President Bill Clinton."
The inclusion of key source documents allows the reader not only to corroborate Kornbluh's
findings, but to acquire a flavor of the extent of U.S. covert activities within Chile, and to
understand the tenor of conversation in the White House and CIA regarding Salvador Allende's
presidency. While the U.S. claimed to support Chile and its democratic election process, the
documents show intricate and extensive attempts first to prevent Allende from being elected,
and then to overthrow him with a coup d'état. The coup d'état required first
removing the commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces (General René Schneider),
who opposed military interference in political situations; he was assassinated by CIA-funded
coup plotters (retired General Roberto Viaux and active duty General Camilo Valenzuela). Once
Augusto Pinochet took power, his human rights violations were tolerated, even though the U.S.
knew that thousands of people had been detained and American citizens Charles Horman and Frank
Teruggi murdered. The CIA fostered an extensive cover-up of its involvement in fomenting the
coup, including dissembling to the Church Committee. The White House also withheld key
documents. Subsequently, the role of the US in this period of history was not correctly
understood based solely on the findings released at that time. Furthermore, extensive black
propaganda, especially in El Mercurio, shaped world perceptions of Allende, essentially
painting him as a Communist pawn and portraying the wreckage of the Chilean economy as due to
his decisions. In contrast, the declassified documents show that Richard Nixon enacted an
"invisible blockade" in concert with American multinational corporations and international
banking organizations, which were pressured to withhold loan refinancing. Consequently, much of
the history that has been written without access to these documents may need to be reexamined,
as Kornbluh discusses in the book's introduction:
Indeed, the documents contain new information on virtually every major issue, episode, and
scandal that pockmark this controversial era. They cover events such as Project FUBELT, the
CIA's covert action to block Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile in the fall of
1970; the assassination of Chilean commander-in-chief René Schneider; U.S. strategy and
operations to destabilize the Allende government; the degree of American support for the coup;
the postcoup executions of American citizens; the origins and operations of Pinochet's secret
police, DINA, CIA ties to DINA chief Manuel Contreras, Operation Condor, the terrorist
car-bombing of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C., the murder by burning of
Washington resident Rodrigo Rojas, and Pinochet's final efforts to thwart a transition to
civilian rule.
The inclusion of key source documents provide a rare behind-the-scenes view of covert regime
change in operation. Key documents from the CIA, United States National Security Council (NSC),
White House, DIA, and State Department were declassified in the year 2000. The more than 24,000
records correspond to an average of about three records per day gathered over two decades and
Kornbluh's analysis was not complete and in print until 2003.
Thank you, I really enjoyed this documentary, it summarizes what many latinoamericans know or
sense, in fact the same type of interventions have taken place in Argentina, Colombia,
Panama, Mexico, Granada, Bolivia, Cuba, not to mention many other countries in the rest of
the planet. It's pure modern imperialism.
Regarding this piece: "Politics is not all that complicated. It is a game of incentives.
And, right now there is no incentive for Republicans to split from the President" [Amy
Walter, Cook Political Report].
I have to say thank you for putting me on to her writing. To my mind though the most
important point in the piece is this one:
Here's why this matters: Angry people vote. Complacent people sometimes vote and
sometimes don't. And dispirited or disillusioned people stay home.
That is the basics of all victories. If the DNC cared about winning as opposed to
fundraising they would take that to heart. But signing up voters it seems,is just not what
they *do* only slinging tote bags.
"... While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. ..."
"... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
"... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
"... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
"... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
"... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
"... And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints all over it ..."
"... Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no matter their policies towards their people. ..."
"... The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility. ..."
"... Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. ..."
"... So here's the list of US invasions of sovereign nations since 1776: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm ..."
While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented
history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has
occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America
and fomented coups against
democratically elected populists .
The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 - whose government was replaced by an authoritarian
monarchy favorable to Washington - the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba
in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government
was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
For decades, these actions were considered imperatives of the Cold War, part of a global struggle
against the Soviet Union and its supposed leftist proxies. Its key participants included scheming
diplomats like
John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger, who advocated aggressive, covert policies to stanch the
supposedly expanding threat of communism. Sometimes that agenda also explicitly converged with the
interests of U.S. business: In 1954, Washington unseated Guatemala's left-wing president, Jacobo
Arbenz, who had had the temerity to challenge the vast control of the United Fruit Co., a U.S. corporation,
with agrarian laws that would be fairer to Guatemalan farmers. The CIA went on to install and back
a series of right-wing dictatorships that brutalized the impoverished nation for almost half a century.
A young Che Guevara, who happened to be traveling through Guatemala in 1954, was deeply affected
by Arbenz's overthrow. He later
wrote to his mother that the events prompted him to leave "the path of reason" and would ground
his conviction in the need for radical revolution over gradual political reform.
... ... ...
" Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought
to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist
Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946
to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. "
In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back
against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United
States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory
against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe.
CIA operatives gave millions
of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then
an unprecedented, clandestine
propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated
sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots,
and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.
"We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political
expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets,"
recounted F. Mark Wyatt
, the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2½ decades of direct
support to the Christian Democrats.
This
template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring
down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines
President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American
funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian
parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.
In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of
nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing
slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties,"
detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas
elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove
him anyway. "
Rude Trevor Vargas, 10/19/2016 11:32 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it,"
I laughed out loud when I read this. Was this printed the same day we started bombing Yemen
on behalf of one of the world's cruelest regimes, the Saudis? It's always amusing when
neoliberals clutch their pearls at the very mention of Assad's crimes against humanity, take a
breath, then give the Saudis, who are every bit as horrible, weapons by the ton.
The difference? The Saudis give us oil. Assad doesn't.
Elisi Newell, 10/18/2016 3:18 AM EDT
As the late great Chalmers Johnson aptly observed, the U.S. is a malignant society. To
further self-educate, read Johnson's Blowback Trilogy.
Brian Hanley, 10/17/2016 1:25 PM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a
well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies
elsewhere."
Excuse me? The USA's worst behavior is right now! The USA fomented a coup in Ukraine,
backed the coup against the elected government. We are still calling it the legitimate
government of Ukraine. We brought NATO to the brink of war in Europe. And Hunter Biden, who
was right in the midst of that, our vice president's son, is now worth $4 billion. This is
gross nepotistic corruption at the top level of our government as far as much of the rest of
the world is concerned.
Behind us? This is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history.
And then there is the madness we are pursuing in Syria against that government, funding a
revolutionary army against the Syrians. What's going on in journalisim's la-la land? Is that
because all of that was mostly Hillary's architecting that nobody can mention it?
centex1, 10/17/2016 8:48 AM EDT
Why limit it to elections ? We have a long and meddlesome history of interfering in just
about everything - everywhere !!
JohninCT, 10/17/2016 6:51 AM EDT
And, so what else is new? The only thing the rumors of Russian hacking are doing is provide
cover for the chosen candidate. Plausible deniability is being set up for Hillary Clinton.
"Oh, That treasonous activity wasn't me. It must have been the Russians" Same game the
Republicans ran with Tailgunner Joe and the CIA in the '50's.
Stand there and wave some papers in the air alleging proof Hill. It's an old game honed to
its finest under John Foster and Alan Dulles and then brought to its finest public lying under
Hammering Hank Kissenger keeping us in Viet Nam waiting for Nixon's "secret plan". [Got an
extra 10 to 15,000 Americans killed. thanks Henry!] All they had to do was wave the red flag
and the lemmings ran off the cliff.
And so Ishann, what else is new. We're now stuck in a war begun during yet another a
Republican administration to pay back their friends. And, apparently, clarified for Mr. Obama
with the explanation from the military industrial complex that what is called "globalism" is
in their best interests and his continued good health in office. And, many of these folks say
their conservatives and patriots. they still lie pretty well!
And, so it goes. The Russian hacking myth gives their candidate plausible deniability. And,
we'll have a female President who probably should be in Leavenworth and would be if she had
been in the military when she conducted her hiding of misuse of classified documents.
As Freedom Flies, 10/17/2016 5:22 AM EDT
You want a one-world government and we are getting closer by the year. Is this not what
Globalism was intended to be? Everyone has an opinion?
I think we should just get used to this because this is what the founders of Globalism
wanted.
murray1, 10/17/2016 5:21 AM EDT
ever hear of Monroe Doctrine? other countries have similar goals as well.
rogerdsl, 10/16/2016 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]
The true is that the US has to apologize to so many people by the actions of so called
"patriots" like Kissinger, who were just long distance criminals and their servants in central
and South America.
No wonder it's better not to say that you are an American if you travel there.
In Chile, the US embassy was just a CIA office for the operation to kill the President
elected Salvador Allende.
And all this for what? Forty years later there is a socialist as president of Chile.
The university of Chicago was also involved in the coup by sending graduate economics
students to drive the Chilean government and inject billions of dollars into the economy.
Dumb and dumber in real life
Wildthing1, 10/16/2016 4:07 PM EDT
Changed? With all of our new technological advances? And the vulnerabilities of the internet
published to the entire planet. Add questions of involvement in a military coup against Charles
DeGaulle.
Hillary Clinton visiting Honduras just before their coup. Add having Kissinger &
Brzezinski as favored advisers. And that the cold war was hyped to create permanent war footing
for permanent MIC needing permanent wars to test out new weapons and get rid of the old in spasms
of creative destruction.
There have been many to question an anachronistic NATO by the way and it is proving in more
all the time. The question is even more relevant after invading Iraq. How can we live with ourselves and our
arrogance of power? Fulbright is a bright as ever.
Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List
By William Blum – Published February 2013
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign
government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Lucky Barker, 10/15/2016 3:11 PM EDT
American experts officially helped Boris Yeltsin to organize massive fraud in the 1996
president elections in Russia.
There were now published payment documents!!!
Imho these was the US experts that would later become to falsify US elections in Florida
(Bush vs Gore)
Ludovici, 10/15/2016 12:03 AM EDT
"While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it..." You're kidding, right? The US
gov just took out Libya, helped in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in
Ukraine, and are right now trying to overthrow the secular Assad in Syria. Whatever the US
State Dept's true aims, they haven't changed a bit in a hundred years. Still up to the same
skullduggery that the propaganda machine accuses other nations of.
M Stirner, 10/14/2016 11:09 PM EDT
The irony.
The WaPo writes about US government fabricated sex scandals to influence foreign elections,
and totally ignores EXACTLY the same behavior by Obama/Clinton and the rest of the ruling
elite against Trump.
Robert Clark, 10/14/2016 10:24 PM EDT
you left out the last Haitian election in which the Clinton State Dept. team was
instrumental in getting the third most popular candidate elected, as per the NYT article of 15
MAR 2016...."The night of the runoff, which Mr. Martelly won, Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff,
Cheryl D. Mills, wrote a congratulatory note to top American diplomats in Haiti.
"You do great elections," Ms. Mills wrote in a message released by the State Department
among a batch of Mrs. Clinton's emails. She wrote that she would buy dinner the next time she
visited: "We can discuss how the counting is going! Just kidding. Kinda. Smile"
nestormakhno, 10/14/2016 1:47 PM EDT
So Kissinger, the thug responsible for Pinochet, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. But I'm
totally out of my mind for voting for Jill Stein for President, huh?
And for the record, the recent parliamentary coup in Brazil has Obama's fingerprints
all over it
rap n fly, 10/14/2016 11:48 AM EDT [Edited]
Thank you for this reality check. When we look at the problems in the world, we should
remember that a key reason democratic institutions are so fragile in many of these countries
is because of our meddling over the years. It was perceived to be in our direct national
interest to undermine democratic institutions and install and support "freindly" leaders, no
matter their policies towards their people.
The blowback has and will continue. We should remember this when making "holier than
thou" pronouncements about countries around the world, and acting as thou the problems of
these countries in the modern era are not our responsibility.
Doug Wenzel, 10/14/2016 11:32 AM EDT [Edited]
As Tom Lehrer said over fifty years ago:
"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till someone we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!"
SKYDIVER, 10/14/2016 11:04 AM EDT
Thank you WAPO! I've been saying this for years: The U.S. has regularly done its worst
to interfere not only with elections in foreign countries, but also with other functions in
these sovereign nations. Most blatant was the Bush-Chaney attack on Iraq. It had zero to
do with WMD and lots to do with trying to farm out democratic governance to a country that was
not interested in or ready for democracy. Of course, Bush also wanted to take over their oil
fields - a failed effort - and to avenge perceived threats against HW Bush. What Iraq had
before Bush was simply a civil war - absolutely none of our business - and we've often
interfered with civil wars in other countries. Democracy is great, but not all nations - whose
entire populations are quite comfortable with the systems they grew up under - like or want
democracy. We are wrong to interfere in the internal affairs of such countries, and we need to
stop doing it.
zixu, 10/14/2016 8:25 AM EDT
It is a good reminder that the usg is a basic thug in the world. This whole anti russian
campaign and the sabre rattling that goes with it are part of a classic smear campaign. It has
been supported by most of the msm including the wp. this warmongering has no basis in fact. It
serves a purpose for the victoria nulands and the neocons in the usg.
steveh46, 10/14/2016 10:31 AM EDT
Ummm. Just because the usg has been thuggish doesn't mean the current Russian gov't isn't
thuggish.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:24 AM EDT
US under the neocons and AIPAC went to war in Iraq based on lies, killing 5,000 US soldiers
and over 500,000 Iraqi civilians.
We also had the Johnson Vietnam war after the Kennedy assassination of Diem. In Vietnam we
had over 58,000 American deaths and over 1.3 million non-American deaths. Proportion.
JMater, 10/14/2016 8:22 AM EDT
Israel has been trying to influence our government for decades using its proxies at AIPAC
and other spy agencies. It is time to expose these traitors and prosecute them.
Ma123456, 10/14/2016 8:16 AM EDT
And don't forget the most recent example: Obama said he wouldn't meet with Netanyahu
because he didn't want to influence the upcoming Israeli election, yet US operatives were on
the ground in Israel doing just that (led by "the architect of the grass-roots and online
organizing efforts behind both of Obama's presidential campaigns")
www.newsmax.com/JohnFund/israel-netanyahu-election-hillary/2015/03/18/id/630817/#ixzz4N3pX2Qyo
This is so interesting, because wikileaks has just come out and said........... that the
Clinton political camp knew all about the emails links, months before they came out to the
public. According to Wikileaks the Clinton camp decided to use this theft on who ever was
Hillary's political rival . Poor Trump he never saw it coming.
Please also : that Hillary was originally going to run against J. Bush. It was set in stone
by the special interest groups that own America. Since both political parties knew about this
theft ( This group also owns both political parties) it was really no big deal. IF this theft
information had to be used.....it would be fruitless. Hillary was going to have a easy breezy
run and, then become president. Bush would then go back to his wealthy lifestyle and life
would go on. They did not expect Trump to get as far as he did this election. So the big theft
would have to be blamed on him.
According to Hillary.......Donald Trump is UNFIT to become president:
Because he has NO EXPERIENCE making people pay for access to government officials!
Because He has NO BACKROUND in leaking intelligence that gets our people killed abroad!
Because he couldn't wipe a server with both hands!
Regarding this piece: "Politics is not all that complicated. It is a game of incentives.
And, right now there is no incentive for Republicans to split from the President" [Amy
Walter, Cook Political Report].
I have to say thank you for putting me on to her writing. To my mind though the most
important point in the piece is this one:
Here's why this matters: Angry people vote. Complacent people sometimes vote and
sometimes don't. And dispirited or disillusioned people stay home.
That is the basics of all victories. If the DNC cared about winning as opposed to
fundraising they would take that to heart. But signing up voters it seems,is just not what
they *do* only slinging tote bags.
"... ...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that spend over $70 billion annually ..."
"... The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump. ..."
"... They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications, including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT). ..."
"... It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy, it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version. ..."
"... "Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude to Russia " I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies. ..."
"... Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country ..."
"... Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning. Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian people. ..."
"... No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than in Russia ..."
"... There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful" -- nothing could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one. ..."
...Trump has suggested he may reduce the bloated CIA and 16 other US intelligence agencies that
spend over $70 billion annually, not including 'black' programs, on who knows what? Tapping
communications and assassinating assorted Muslims from the air no doubt.
Trump has called for an 'even-handed' approach to the question of Palestine, enraging neocons
who fear Israel's headlock on Congress and the White House may be loosened. The neocon press, like
the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and Washington Post, have been baying for Trump's blood. Not since
World War II has the media so dramatically dropped its mask of faux impartiality to reveal it true
political agenda.
Adding to his list of foes, Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress
for his sensible attitude to Russia. The vast military industrial complex is after Trump, fearing
he may cut the $1 trillion annual military budget and efforts to dominate the globe. Members of Congress
under orders from the pro-war neocons are trying to undermine Trump.
They are all using Russia as a tool to beat Trump. The hysteria and hypocrisy over alleged
Russian hacking is unbelievable and infantile. Sen. John McCain actually called it a grave threat
to American democracy, thus joining the Soviet old fools club. Of course Russia's spooks probe US
electronic communications. That's their job, not playing chess. The US hacks into everyone's communications,
including leaders of allied states. It's called electronic intelligence (ELINT).
But don't blame the wicked Moscovites for revealing how Hillary Clinton's Democratic National
Committee rigged the primaries in her favor against Sen. Bernie Sanders. That cat was well out of
the bag already.
It's not Russian TV (for whom I occasionally comment) that is undermining America's democracy,
it's the nation's neocon-dominated media pumping out untruths and disinformation. Ironically, Russian
TV has become one of the few dissenting voices in North America's media landscape. Sure it puts out
government propaganda. So does CNN, MSNBC and Fox. At least RT offers a fresher version.
Watching our intelligence chiefs and Sen. McCain trying to blacken Trump's name by means of a
sleazy, unverified report about golden showers in a Moscow hotel, is particularly ignoble.
It's also a laugh. Every one who went to Moscow during the Cold War knew about the bugged hotel
rooms, and KGB temptresses (known as 'swallows' -after the birds) who would knock on your door at
night and give you the old Lenin love mambo while hidden camera whirled away. I asked for 8×10 glossies
to be sent to my friends. But sadly for me, the swallows never came though I did meet some lovely
long-legged creatures at the Bolshoi Ballet. So-called honey traps were part of the fun of the cold
war.
Humor aside, it's dismaying to hear senior US intelligence officials who faked 'evidence' that
led to the invasion of Iraq and used torture and assassination attacking Donald Trump. Of course
their jobs are at risk. They should be. The CIA, in particular, has evolved from a pure intelligence
gathering agency into a state-sanctioned Murder Inc that liquidates real and imagined enemies abroad.
The KGB used to do the same thing – but more efficiently.
Our intelligence agencies are a vital component of national security – which has become our new
state religion. But in true bureaucratic form (see Parkinson's Laws) they have become bloated, redundant
and self-perpetuating. They need a tough Trump diet and to be booted out of politics. This past week's
display of the deep state's grab for power – a sort of re-run of one of my favorite films, 'Seven
Days in May' – should remind all thinking Americans that the monster police state apparatus created
by President George W. Bush is the greatest threat to our Republic.
(Reprinted from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
"Trump is now under attack by religious fundamentalists in Congress for his sensible attitude
to Russia "
I see no evidence that Evangelicals are doing this en bloc. Over 80% of Evangelicals voted for
Trump and I've never heard any I've met say a bad word about Putin and his religious policies.
If there are some like Cruz who are doing this, they are not representative of Evangelicals and
their motives do not spring from support of Evangelicalism.
Not a flattering comparison. Gorby is a fool who destroyed the country (and btw, what "brutal
policies"?), creating chaos, disaster. When what needed was reforms, gradual careful reforms.
Look at China; that's what the USSR should've done in the 1980s.
Not even close, actually. Totally different impetuses. This set of cliches below:
These policies enraged Moscow's security agencies, its hardline Communist elite ('nomenklatura')
and vast military industrial complex. Gorby's proposed budget cuts would have put many of them
out of business. So they decided to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev to save their own skins. The coup
utterly failed and its drunken, bungling leaders jailed.
Betrays lack of understanding of what was going on in USSR since 1988, including the vast majority
of Soviet population voting for preservation of USSR later, on referendum. Even Gorbachev himself
admitted in 1988 or 1989 in one of his interviews on Soviet TV that he knows that he is being portrayed
as wearing a food coupons, instead of medals, on his suit.
Meanwhile, Caucasus was already burning.
Now, in the hindsight, look how much "happiness" Gorbachev's incompetent "reforms" brought Russian
people.
No wonder this marked (on his head) imbecile spends more time in London or elsewhere than
in Russia.
There is another "Western" cliche' that Gorbachev (and later Yeltsin) "reforms" were "peaceful"
-- nothing
could be further from the truth, including ethnic cleansing of Russians (and others) from very many
places, which today, in view of lack of those cleansed Russians, can barely, if at all, run their
own infrastructure, let alone built a serious new one.
There is no denial the fact that Soviet Party nomenclature degenerated but the so called "coup"
was not really a coup. It is a very long conversation but most of today's oligarchs as well as ideologues,
such as swine-looking late Gaidar, are from party, komsomol and security apparatus. Make your own
conclusions.
Looks like Atlantic honchos are really worrying at the possibility of the release of the JFK
assassination documents. I like the line "One, that the press is "the enemy of the American
people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that
the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect."
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy. ..."
"... Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no? ..."
"... I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction. ..."
"... Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes. ..."
Trump tweeted Saturday morning,
"I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened."
Trump's announcement came a day after his longtime confidant Roger Stone went on
Infowars , a radio show and website known for spreading conspiracy theories, and
announced that Trump would not block the release of the documents, which are set to be issued
by the National Archives in the coming days. Earlier that day, Politico Magazine had published an in-depth piece saying that Trump would likely
block the release of the files.
Here's the thing that happens, apparently, when a conspiracy theorist becomes president of
the United States: The lines between decision and reaction blur. The American people are
accustomed to public officials spinning their way through public office. No president has been
truly forthcoming with the electorate. Many have misled the American people.
... ... ...
Regardless of the files, though, Trump's attention to them is a window into
how he wants to be seen. In one dashed-off tweet, Trump positions himself as doing something
noble -- advocating for transparency, against the warnings of the intelligence community --
while feeding at least two major conspiracies. One, that the press is "the enemy of the
American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to
the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect.
"The best conspiracy theories have all the trappings of a classic underdog story," wrote Rob
Brotherton in his book, Suspicious Minds . "We want to see top dogs taken down a peg;
we want the downtrodden underdog to triumph. And when it comes to conspiracy theories, unfair
disadvantage is par for the course
The best initial attitude to have is one of skepticism...not only of conspiracy theories
but of denials of conspiracy theories. Until, that is, definitive evidence is revealed. You
are a fool to believe in conspiracy theories without credible evidence You are also a fool
for denying them without evidence. The fact is that we know through credible records
including the CIA's own internal records that they have been involved with many conspiracies
with foreign militias, dictatorships, corporations, thugs, gangsters and assassins. You are a
damn fool not to take an allegation seriously and to blanket dismiss new allegations unless
proven false. In fact, the CIA had (has?) a campaign to discredit any criticism of its
policies as "conspiracy theory". Gaslighting is a common tool they have used against anyone
who dares critiques or questions them.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing.
It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy.
Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the
USA, yes or no?
The files were due to be released on this day after 25 years. In 1992, after the movie JFK
came out, people were intrigued and wanted the files released. The president ordered them
sealed for another 25 years (Oct 2017) and President Trump happens to be President. He will
release the files, if no conspiracy there, we will FINALLY get the transparency we the people
have been asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
How exactly will the files show there was "no conspiracy there"? Do you expect somehow the
files will erase the numerous eyewitness accounts of shots from in front of the
motorcade?
Not only that, but the Parkland doctors said JFK's wounds ran contrary to what the Warren
Report concluded. And the only doctor who saw both the assassination, the Parkland Hospital
work, and the Bethesda autopsy, Dr. Burkley, was never consulted by the Warren Commission,
and when asked later whether he thought shots may have hit Kennedy from more than one
direction, replied: "I don't care to comment on that."
Bugliosi was intellectually dishonest in his massive tome. He hid inconvenient facts in
order to push his agenda; i.e. that a lone gunman did all of the work alone. Serious scholars
like Newman and DiEugenio have revealed his omissions for all to see.
I can't say for sure how the Clintons did it, but we should recall that Bill met JFK in
1963 and used that opportunity to plant a miniature tracking device. Hillary, using one of
her witch spells, then met Bill earlier than officially recorded, and the two of them
recruited Oswald and Ruby, with the help of Soviet agents using Vince Foster as a temporal
go-between. Foster killed himself over his guilt in the assasination. They were desperate to
get Hillary elected to stop the release of the files, but of course they failed. Now we will
get another reason to lock her up. I have no proof but know this in my heart to be true.
They would have had to recruit Jack Ruby from organized crime --- see Who Was Jack Ruby?
by Scripps-Howard White House correspondent Seth Kantor for more on "the mob's front man when
they moved into Dallas."
Edit: Kantor was previously a reporter in Dallas-Ft. Worth and before that, a veteran of
Guadalcanal --- he played a key role in testifying that Jack Ruby, who he knew well, was at
Parkland Hospital while JFK was in Trauma Room One, which Ruby denied. The circumstances
indicate a strong possibility Ruby planted the so-called "Magic Bullet" on an unattended
stretcher.
The lame stream news media are forever searching for ways to attack Trump. You'd think he
would get some credit for releasing the 3,000 documents. But no, once again he has ulterior
motives.
I remember Walter Cronkite saying that it's difficult for people to come to the conclusion
that one man could have affected history to the extent that Oswald did.
That's a fine thought, but has nothing to do with an actual murder case in which Oswald is
supposed to have killed Patrolman Tippit and then President Kennedy, despite not one single
shred of concrete, credible evidence tying him to either of the weapons supposedly used. In
fact, even worse, the weapon or weapons used don't even consistently show up in the
chain-of-custody by the Dallas police, bullets don't match, wounds are seen by attending
physicians which had to be fired from the front, etc.
"How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back?" is one reductio of the Warren
Commission fantasies, which is why they assiduously avoided calling scores of eyewitnesses of
the assassination to testify, and mucked up the autopsy evidence. I mean, their whole "case"
amounted to "Well, Oswald was a communist" (not correct) "who hated Kennedy" (wrong again!)
"and killed a policeman" (this is completely bogus, with key Tippit-killing witness Helen
Markham described by a WC attorney as a "crackpot" among other problems) and "Oswald was at
the Texas School Book Depository" (True, he worked there in a job arranged by Ruth Paine) "so
he must have shot JFK" ---
(Wrong, the eyewitness testimony --- see The Girl on the Stairs: My Search for a Missing
Witness to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Barry Ernest, for example -- places him in
the "wrong place" to have shot anyone down in the motorcade from the sixth floor, and that's
just the first major problem, it would take too long to recount them all, as in HUNDREDS OF
PAGES, so that's just a few hints about what faces anyone investigating and/or reading about
the JFK assassination, as well as the murders of Tippit and Oswald, or Jack Ruby's extensive
ties as an organized crime factotum in Dallas and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
Adrienne Lagrange, being the highly intellectual you try and portray. Why don't you see
that by writing this negative story about President Trump you not only make yourself sound
foolish, but you push neutral people to the President's side. Why do you think former
President Bush came out after 9 years of silence to condemn "conspiracy theorist" days before
President Trump announced the release of the JFK files? President Bush sr WAS involved with
the CIA in Texas during the JFK assasination in 1963. Obviously, he does not want the truth
to come out and so he got out in front of story to discredit what the files will show.
Corruption is common in the U.S Government, President Trump is dismantling this corruption a
little bit at a time. This is only the beginning.
What more do you need? The JFK literature is voluminous, and maybe you need to actually
try to read some of the key source material and critics and go from there.
Try reading Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher or On the Trail of the
Assassins by Jim Garrison, or Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. If you have the time
to deal with over 1200 pages about the JFK assassination, read Vincent Bugliosi's
Reclaiming History , and THEN read the ferocious debunkings of Bugliosi available
online.
N.B. Some of the most important discussions in Bugliosi's massive tome are in the
Endnotes, especially but not only "What the Parkland Doctors Saw." Conspiracy of
Silence by Parkland M.D. Dr. Charles Crenshaw is another useful text, as is Mafia
Kingfish by John Davis.
Ok: my honest opinion is that you can't summarize anything as complex as the planning,
execution, and subsequent coverup of the JFK assassination (including extensive use of media
assets for DECADES afterward) in anything short of a manuscript of hundreds of pages, and
many of the best work is already available, "just google it" ---but again, you have to be
willing to read those hundreds of pages with some sense of other background facts about the
Cold War and spy agencies.
This is one of the most intricate and far reaching events or set
of interconnected events in modern history --- just take a look at the "tags" on the front
page of kennedysandking.com and you'll see what I mean.
On the only occasion in which I had time in tutorials with Chomsky, I asked him first about
his views on the nexus of players at 544 Camp Street. That question and his answer might not
even make much sense to you without extensive background reading. Sorry, but that's just the
facts.
I truly understand your point regarding the complexity of the issue and I apologize for my
earlier comment.
I'm aware of the massive inconsistencies in the examination of his body, how it was
"handled", "magic bullets", and lots of other stuff I once knew but have forgotten. There's a
LOT of stuff, that's for sure.
I'm also very aware of how certain agencies (especially intel agencies) operate. Their
allegience to the truth is suspect at best.
I guess I was asking for was something like "It was basically an effort by (a list such
as... certain elements in the FBI/CIA/NSA/government... and/or foreign governments... and/or
the Mafia... or Cuba... or it was basically a coup driven by the MIC... (which I think it
was) or whatever combination it may be)." Basically the 100k foot view, a very simplistic
view. And I realize my opinion is not _nearly_ as informed as yours.
But that would certainly open up much noise from people like that moron I blocked earlier.
And certainly no one needs more of that....
I'll check out the links. Thanks.
By the way... I met Jim Marrs twice when I lived in Texas, actually around a campfire. It
was interesting meeting him, and he was a very interesting man regarding the JFK
assassination. I didn't know he passed, apparently quite recently.
I hope these documents get released and I hope they answer a lot of the open questions
still remaining.
JFK was murdered by the CIA.....he wanted to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces
and scatter it to the winds"......he fired Allen Dulles. Dulles was one of seven
commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President
John F. Kennedy..oh and he had no problem murdering people....
I don't believe a single word from a politician. They are professional liars. It's their
job to lie and spin webs of deception. I watch and judge them by their actions.
I couldn't care less what color orange TrumPutin wears. He declared war on corporate media
and that is good enough for me. I don't support him because of his position on Snowden but I
agree with him on many issues.
JFK was a naive fool. He moved against forces he did not fully understand. I don't blame
him for trying. He was a patriot.
Atantuc reasserting it's superior newsmaking capabilities with click-bait headlines,
unsupported assumptions and trolling. Well done. You fall below tabloid, yellow
journalism.
LOL---americans are little antagonistic children that prefer lies to truth...see comments
below! and are gullible enough to believe anything told them...who needs conspiracy theories
when people are so stupid...everyone in Europe understood that americans were idiots when
they accepted the impossible claim that 1 shooter killed JFK...and now they are more stupid
believing that 1 gambler shot 500 people in las vegas...a nation of dimwits
The American public had to wait TWELVE YEARS to see the Zapruder film of the
assassination, showing the effect of the kill shot from in front of the motorcade. But by the
time Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane had become a best seller a few years after the 26 volumes
of the Warren Commission's hearings and exhibits were published (with no index --- it was
left to United Nations-employed scientist Sylvia Meagher to assemble that, which spurred
critics of the WC fantasies and outright lies to expose the multiple flaws and fallacies in
the first "official investigation," i.e., the first attempted coverup) the credibility of the
Krazy Kid Oswald nonsense was already held in disrepute by informed observers.
The article above can't whitewash the mainstream media's role in the coverup, of course ---
search "Operation Mockingbird" or "Walter Sheridan and the Garrison investigation" or " Jim
Di Eugenio critique of Phil Shenon's JFK books" etc,
Any claims that the Soviets or Cubans did it have been thoroughly debunked. It was an
American domestic coup. If you believe the Warren Commission, I've got Indian treaties to
show you.
No one has presented evidence that there was another shooter. Clint Black, the secret
service agent at the scene adamantly say's no other gunshots from the grassy knoll
area. Simply no proof. As for the Vegas shooting as well.
I disagree with your faith-based following of Bugliosi. I think Dr. Cyril Wecht blows
Bugliosi out of the water, from a forensics standpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
See the book Reclaiming Parkland for an extended dismantling of Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History, or just search "critical reviews of Bugliosi's JFK assassination book." It's an
embarrassment that Bugliosi wrote such fine books on the Simpson case and on the Supreme
Court's Bush v. Gore decision, but was apparently either blackmailed into writing obvious
lies or somehow convinced himself "no one with sufficient familiarity with the JFK
assassination in the requisite granular detail will ever read my book and expose my silly
attempts to distort the historical record." It took enormous chutzpah on his part to title
the book "Reclaiming History."
Search "Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?" at
reclaiminghistory.org , which has links to a series of reviews of Bugliosi, none of which
you will ever see discussed on CNN or any other corporate mass media outlet. Instead, without
bothering to read the book much less deal with hundreds and hundreds of footnotes and
"Endnotes," some of bear on crucial points about the JFK assassination (such as "What the
Parkland Doctors Saw" ---see the Endnotes from 404-408} the corporate media is happy to
perpetuate as best they can the "one lone nut with no ties to the CIA killed two days later
by another lone nut with no relevant ties to the mob" confabulations.
"Reclaiming Parkland" is not one I've read, but I will. I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and
do perpetuate disinformation and distraction.
Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots
and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s
exposed all sorts of similar schemes.
Search "MKUltra" and "Operation Artichoke" or just "The CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald" and you
can run across all sorts of interesting facts. not wild speculation, but facts, some of it
from CIA documents etc. etc.
Newman did his homework. He has combed through the declassified records and published his
findings on Oswald and the CIA, and on what really happened in Vietnam.
In my view the Miami and Chicago plans being aborted make the existence of multiple
shooters in Dallas-- such as Files -- more believable; the conspirators were simply not going
to miss another chance. Interestingly, Files himself says his superior told him the Dallas
plot was supposed to be called off, but they ignored the order.
Did you know that Gerald Posner, who wrote the definitive book concluding that Oswald
acted alone ("Case Closed"), is fully in favor of releasing the remainder of the documents --
in agreement with Pres. Trump's friend Roger Stone, who is a "conspiracy theorist"?
Did you know that the original "conspiracy theorist" -- the late Mark Lane -- was a
leftist and ardent supporter of JFK?
For the educated, this is about transparency, not ignorance.
Posner? Are you posting this as some kind of joke? Posner fabricated, altered, distorted
evidence on practically EVERY key point about the supposed role of Oswald, and totally
ignored all the revelations about Oswald's connections which exposed the role he played as an
intelligence agency asset.
Try reading some "critical reviews" of Case Closed, they are devastating and some are
maliciously funny, as well.
I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that if a guy like Posner is in favor of
releasing the rest of the documents, it's a non-controversial issue.
I can promise you this; Vincent Buglioti wrote THEE masterpiece. Reclaiming history, The
JFK assassination. 1612 pages, twenty year's of research, and he embarrassed every other JFK
assassination writer' I've read Posner's book. Very well researched. But truthfully, it
cannot compare to Bugliotis " opus"
Get real --- Bugliosi has been thoroughly debunked. One of his favorite tricks is to
partially quote the FBI reports from Sibert and O'Neill out-of-context and ignore
contradictory witness testimony from witnesses (and there were dozens) not called to testify
before the Warren Commission. His book (and yes, I read ALL of it but with the advantage of
having ALSO read the WC report (the 26 volumes in large part, although not the part where
they had dental x-rays from Jack Ruby's mother --- I kid you not --- so much as the
inadvertently revelatory portions) as well as dozens and dozens of other books on the
assassination, so I could immediately spot some of Bugliosi's howlers) is considered
essentially a fraud on the public by informed critics of the JFK assassination.
"Conspiracy theories are a way to stand up, through disbelief, against the powerful. Those
who spread conspiracy theories in earnest are, whether they mean to or not, partaking in an
act of defiance against established institutions as much as they are questioning accepted
truths."
I disagree. Conspiracy theories are a way for the ignorant and stupid to delude themselves
that they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Conspiracy theories provide a way of
feeling smart and shrewd without bothering with all that evidence and logic stuff.
Your comment makes no sense, since there are political assassinations like that of
Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, which have been both officially and
"unofficially" found to be the result of conspiracies. The House Select Committee on
Assassinations is one "official theory" that posits a conspiracy in the killing of President
Kennedy. You could also search "The Lincoln Conspiracy the book" and read that. In fact, you
don't have any idea at all about any of this, do you? You're just parroting some supposed
sage advice from the usual suspects.
"[L]ending credibility to the idea that the official story (sic) of JFK's assassination is
indeed suspect" is the incontrovertible fact that there are multiple "official stories," and
at least one of them posits the probability of a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination.
Since Oswald cannot even be tied to the supposed murder weapon by a credible
chain-of-evidence, nor placed in the so-called "sniper's nest" at the time shots rang out in
Dealey Plaza, nor be credibly rigged up as the killer of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, it is
hardly surprising that anyone stuck trying to defend the relentlessly debunked Warren
Commission fantasies about the JFK-Tippit-Oswald murders is up against equally relentless
debunking right up to today.
A fact that the Democratic Party toadies try to push is that Trump does not tell the
truth.
He says things that are at variance with the claims the "press" try to toss at the people,
but that doesn't make them untrue.
The "press" was determined to tell people that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by Spain, even
though it made no sense for them to be engage in aggressive actions that the New York Journal
claimed would then escalate into overt military action. If they felt that way, they would
have acted militarily from the start. Morons never questioned this and the U.S. easily
entered war with Spain. Even though the explosion on the Maine seems to have been the result
of a carelessly disposed of cigar.
Similarly with R.M.S. Lusitania. Imbeciles wouldn't ask why the Germans would engage in
something like murdering innocent civilians on an ocean liner if they wanted war. Why not
just carry out an invasion or declare war? Only now it's being admitted that Lusitania was
illegally carrying war supplies and ammunition from the U.S. to the Allies, making it a
legitimate target. Indeed, it is not necessarily proved that it actually carried civilian
passengers.
Similarly for the claims the the U.S. spied on the USSY with U-2 spy planes. The same with
the failure of the government and the "press" to admit the suspicious nature of claims of the
"Gulf of Tonkin Incident".
The fact is, Trump and others in the Republican Party have said many things that the
"press" denied, only to have the "press" shown to be lying later.
Hillary Clinton supporters were carrying out acts of violence after the election in
Trump's name to try to undermine him. Germany didn't pay its agreed upon amount for the
maintenance of NATO. Obama did bug Trump's campaign headquarters. Puerto Rico's sorry
condition is the result of massive corruption in its government. There are many women who, as
Trump asserted, will let a man with money and power take liberties. In fact, climate isn't
changing. "Climate" is the massive, interconnected, self regulating system comprised of
things like land, ocean, sky, solar energy, life. Land, ocean, solar energy, life are no
different from fifty years ago. Only the weather is changing, and that is caused by
chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather modification chemicals from high
flying jets, producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon
and can last for an hour or more. Stop chemtrails and everything will return to normal.
Todd Akin was criticized for saying that, in "legitimate rape" women's bodies will fight
being impregnated. Democratic Party followers insisted Akin was saying rape was legal. He was
referring to rapes that actually occurred, not lies that many women do lodge against rich and
powerful men to get money.
J. Edgar Hoover said that "civil rights" marches and such were tools of the Kremlin to try
to undermine democracy. In their desperate attempt to rescue the claim that the Russians
interfered with the 2016 election, none other than The Atlantic has taken up Hoover's
insistence that such demonstrations were a means used by the USSR to try to destroy
democracy. And the dullards of the Democratic Party's target audience won't realize they are
now agreeing with the Republicans.
Trump and the politicians come from rarefied levels that know facts that government and
the "press" lies to the public about. One fact, that there may be actual sections of
government, or "government", that act independently of any rules and can even roll over the
rest of "government". "Government" is just a sleazy swindle to make the rich richer. No one
controls them! Not even elections! They publish fake "vote tallies", then put who they want
in. Trump speaks of the Deep State of power mongering going on behind the scenes. Hillary
Clinton operated her own shadow government with a system of unregistered servers only one of
which has been acknowledged. It's been suspected for a long time that the "intelligence
network" acted solely on its own recognizance, answerable to no one. Questions Trump raises
can point people to the truth.
"My" research? Look, just GO ONLINE to another website like
JFKfacts.org or kennedysand king.com
, or search "James Di Eugenio on the JFK assassination," I have read around 150 books and
articles and much of the Warren Report (the volumes not the summary) and the House Select
Committee hearings reports, but compared to "serious researchers" I am a dilletante. Besides,
you really NEED to study this either for yourself as a kind of "research project" or if
possible, in a university level course environment.
There are THOUSANDS of really interesting books about aspects of the JFK assassination ---
search "Reclaiming Parkland" by Di Eugenio and go from there, whatever.
Follow the links, and expect it to take many many hours to get the beginning of an
understanding.
Ok, why don't you at least realize it's FAR more complex than any possible "avionics
system," it's something akin to people on Quora asking me to "summarize Hamlet," or
"summarize King Lear." It's just absurd. Besides which, the subject matter is far too
important for anyone to take their views from a few summarized paragraphs, whether about
Hamlet or Lear or the JFK assassination.
So yeah, I did "research" and I think the facts speak for themselves, as you would learn by
delving into the posts at
jfkfacts.org or
kennedysandking.com , or reading Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. The thing is, it's one of
the most complicated interlocking sets of topics in modern history, not something that can be
scrawled on a postcard.
The danger is that intelligence agencies cause Facebook to influence elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because
a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have
been to help the Dems. ..."
"... In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic ..."
"... But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized. ..."
"... Chaos Monkeys ..."
"... The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads." ..."
"... Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the spread of misinformation , click-bait
and other problematic content on Facebook." ..."
"... "The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service," he
wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our policies
and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge since I
joined almost 10 years ago." ..."
And why it was so hard to see it coming In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the
timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.
Things we thought we understood -- narratives, data, software, news events -- have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald
Trump's surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.
Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried
to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing
out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic , and elsewhere:
Facebook's enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information
spheres, the increasing scourge of "viral" hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks,
and the Russian information ops agency.
But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It's not that this hypothetical
perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem -- for all political stripes -- is understanding the
set of conditions that led to Trump's victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained
precisely how.
* * *
We've known since at least 2012 that Facebook was a powerful, non-neutral force in electoral politics. In that year, a combined
University of California, San Diego and Facebook research team led by James Fowler published
a study in Nature , which argued that Facebook's "I Voted" button had driven a small but measurable increase in turnout,
primarily among young people.
Rebecca Rosen's 2012 story, "
Did Facebook Give Democrats the Upper Hand? " relied on new research from Fowler, et al., about the presidential election that
year. Again, the conclusion of their work was that Facebook's get-out-the-vote message could have driven a substantial chunk of the
increase in youth voter participation in the 2012 general election. Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook
is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the
general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have been to help the Dems.
The potential for Facebook to have an impact on an election was clear for at least half a decade.
The research showed that a small design change by Facebook could have electoral repercussions, especially with America's electoral-college
format in which a few hotly contested states have a disproportionate impact on the national outcome. And the pro-liberal effect it
implied became enshrined as an axiom of how campaign staffers, reporters, and academics viewed social media.
In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, "
Facebook
Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out ," in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively
depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an "information fiduciary," charged with certain special roles
and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)
In late 2014, The Daily Dot
called attention to an
obscure Facebook-produced case study on how strategists defeated a statewide measure in Florida by relentlessly focusing Facebook
ads on Broward and Dade counties, Democratic strongholds. Working with a tiny budget that would have allowed them to send a single
mailer to just 150,000 households, the digital-advertising firm Chong and Koster was able to obtain remarkable results. "Where the
Facebook ads appeared, we did almost 20 percentage points better than where they didn't," testified a leader of the firm. "Within
that area, the people who saw the ads were 17 percent more likely to vote our way than the people who didn't. Within that group,
the people who voted the way we wanted them to, when asked why, often cited the messages they learned from the Facebook ads."
In April 2016, Rob Meyer published "
How Facebook Could Tilt the 2016 Election " after a company meeting in which some employees apparently put the stopping-Trump
question to Mark Zuckerberg. Based on Fowler's research, Meyer reimagined Zittrain's hypothetical as a direct Facebook intervention
to depress turnout among non-college graduates, who leaned Trump as a whole.
Facebook, of course, said it would never do such a thing. "Voting is a core value of democracy and we believe that supporting
civic participation is an important contribution we can make to the community," a spokesperson said. "We as a company are neutral
-- we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."
From the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment on, or share.
The same was true even of people inside Facebook. "If you'd come to me in 2012, when the last presidential election was raging
and we were cooking up ever more complicated ways to monetize Facebook data, and told me that Russian agents in the Kremlin's employ
would be buying Facebook ads to subvert American democracy, I'd have asked where your tin-foil hat was," wrote Antonio García Martínez,
who managed ad targeting for Facebook back then. "And yet, now we live in that otherworldly political reality."
Not to excuse us, but this was back on the Old Earth, too, when electoral politics was not the thing that every single
person talked about all the time. There were other important dynamics to Facebook's growing power that needed to be covered.
* * *
Facebook's draw is its ability to give you what you want. Like a page, get more of that page's posts; like a story, get more stories
like that; interact with a person, get more of their updates. The way Facebook determines the ranking of the News Feed is the probability
that you'll like, comment on, or share a story. Shares are worth more than comments, which are both worth more than likes, but in
all cases, the more likely you are to interact with a post, the higher up it will show in your News Feed. Two thousand kinds of data
(or "features" in the industry parlance) get smelted in Facebook's machine-learning system to make those predictions.
What's crucial to understand is that, from the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment
on, or share. That's what matters. People call this "engagement." There are other factors, as Slate' s Will Oremus noted in
this rare story about
the News Feed ranking team . But who knows how much weight they actually receive and for how long as the system evolves. For
example, one change that Facebook highlighted to Oremus in early 2016 -- taking into account how long people look at a story, even
if they don't click it -- was subsequently dismissed by
Lars Backstrom, the VP of engineering in charge of
News Feed ranking , as a "noisy" signal that's also "biased in a few ways" making it "hard to use" in a May 2017 technical talk.
Facebook's engineers do not want to introduce noise into the system. Because the News Feed, this machine for generating engagement,
is Facebook's most important technical system. Their success predicting what you'll like is why users spend
an average of more than 50 minutes a day on the site, and why even the former
creator
of the "like" button worries about how well the site captures attention. News Feed works really well.
If every News Feed is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to?
But as far as "
personalized newspapers " go, this one's editorial sensibilities are limited. Most people are far less likely to engage with
viewpoints that they find confusing, annoying, incorrect, or abhorrent. And this is true not just in politics, but the broader culture.
That this could be a problem was apparent to many. Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble, which came out in the summer of 2011,
became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse.
Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends'
-- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. "So no conservative links for me."
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the "personalization" of media might bring. Most germane to this
discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people
are seeing and responding to?
"The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.
As the number of different segments and messages increases, it becomes harder and harder for the campaigns to track who's saying
what to whom," Pariser wrote. "How does a [political] campaign know what its opponent is saying if ads are only targeted to white
Jewish men between 28 and 34 who have expressed a fondness for U2 on Facebook and who donated to Barack Obama's campaign?"
This did, indeed, become an enormous problem. When I was editor in chief of Fusion , we set about trying to track the "digital
campaign" with several dedicated people. What we quickly realized was that there was both too much data -- the noisiness of all the
different posts by the various candidates and their associates -- as well as too little. Targeting made tracking the actual messaging
that the campaigns were paying for impossible to track. On Facebook, the campaigns could show ads only to the people they
targeted. We couldn't actually see the messages that were actually reaching people in battleground areas. From the outside, it was
a technical impossibility to know what ads were running on Facebook,
one that the company
had fought to keep intact .
Across the landscape, it began to dawn on people: Damn, Facebook owns us .
Pariser suggests in his book, "one simple solution to this problem would simply be to require campaigns to immediately disclose
all of their online advertising materials and to whom each ad is targeted." Which
could happen in future campaigns .
Imagine if this had happened in 2016. If there were data sets of all the ads that the campaigns and others had run, we'd know
a lot more about what actually happened last year. The Filter Bubble is obviously prescient work, but there was one thing
that Pariser and most other people did not foresee. And that's that Facebook became completely dominant as a media distributor.
* * *
About two years after Pariser published his book, Facebook took over the news-media ecosystem. They've never publicly admitted
it, but in late 2013, they began to serve ads inviting users to "like" media pages. This caused a massive increase in the amount
of traffic that Facebook sent to media companies. At The Atlantic and other publishers across the media landscape, it was
like a tide was carrying us to new traffic records. Without hiring anyone else, without changing strategy or tactics, without publishing
more, suddenly everything was easier.
While traffic to The Atlantic from Facebook.com increased, at the time, most of the new traffic did not look like it was
coming from Facebook within The Atlantic 's analytics. It showed up as "direct/bookmarked" or some variation, depending on
the software. It looked like what I called "dark social" back in 2012. But as BuzzFeed 's Charlie Warzel
pointed
out at the time , and as I came to believe, it was primarily Facebook traffic in disguise. Between August and October of 2013,
BuzzFeed 's "partner network" of hundreds of websites saw a jump in traffic from Facebook of 69 percent.
At The Atlantic, we ran a series of experiments that showed, pretty definitively from our perspective, that most of the
stuff that looked like "dark social" was, in fact, traffic coming from within Facebook's mobile app. Across the landscape, it began
to dawn on people who thought about these kinds of things: Damn, Facebook owns us . They had taken over media distribution.
Why? This is a best guess,
proffered by Robinson Meyer as it was happening : Facebook wanted to crush Twitter, which had drawn a disproportionate share
of media and media-figure attention. Just as Instagram borrowed Snapchat's "Stories" to help crush the site's growth, Facebook decided
it needed to own "news" to take the wind out of the newly IPO'd Twitter.
The first sign that this new system had some kinks came with "
Upworthy -style " headlines. (And you'll never guess what happened next!) Things didn't just go kind of viral, they went
ViralNova , a site which, like Upworthy
itself , Facebook eventually smacked down
. Many of the new sites had, like Upworthy , which was cofounded by Pariser, a progressive bent.
Less noticed was that a right-wing media was developing in opposition to and alongside these left-leaning sites. "By 2014, the
outlines of the Facebook-native hard-right voice and grievance spectrum were there," The New York Times ' media and tech writer
John Herrman told me, "and I tricked myself into thinking they were a reaction/counterpart to the wave of soft progressive/inspirational
content that had just crested. It ended up a Reaction in a much bigger and destabilizing sense."
The other sign of algorithmic trouble was the wild swings that Facebook Video underwent. In the early days, just about any old
video was likely to generate many, many, many views. The numbers were insane in the early days. Just as an example,
a Fortune article noted that BuzzFeed
's video views "grew 80-fold in a year, reaching more than 500 million in April." Suddenly, all kinds of video -- good, bad,
and ugly -- were doing 1-2-3 million views.
As with news, Facebook's video push was a direct
assault on a competitor, YouTube . Videos changed the dynamics of the News Feed for individuals, for media companies, and
for anyone trying to understand what the hell was going on.
Individuals were suddenly inundated with video. Media companies, despite no business model, were forced to crank out video somehow
or risk their pages/brands losing relevance as video posts crowded others out.
And on top of all that, scholars and industry observers were used to looking at what was happening in articles to understand
how information was flowing. Now, by far the most viewed media objects on Facebook, and therefore on the internet, were videos without
transcripts or centralized repositories. In the early days, many successful videos were just "freebooted" (i.e., stolen) videos from
other places or reposts. All of which served to confuse and obfuscate the transport mechanisms for information and ideas on Facebook.
Through this messy, chaotic, dynamic situation, a new media rose up through the Facebook burst to occupy the big filter bubbles.
On the right, Breitbart is the center of a new conservative network. A
study of 1.25 million election news
articles found "a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system,
using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world."
Breitbart , of course, also lent Steve Bannon, its chief, to the Trump campaign, creating another feedback loop between
the candidate and a rabid partisan press. Through 2015, Breitbart went from a medium-sized site with a small Facebook page
of 100,000 likes into a
powerful force
shaping the election with almost 1.5 million likes. In the key metric for Facebook's News Feed, its posts got 886,000 interactions
from Facebook users in January. By July, Breitbart had surpassed The New York Times ' main account in interactions.
By December, it was doing 10 million interactions per month, about 50 percent of Fox News, which had 11.5 million likes on its main
page. Breitbart 's audience was hyper-engaged.
There is no precise equivalent to the Breitbart phenomenon on the left. Rather the big news organizations are classified
as center-left, basically, with fringier left-wing sites showing far smaller followings than Breitbart on the right.
And this new, hyperpartisan media created the perfect conditions for another dynamic that influenced the 2016 election, the rise
of fake news.
In a December 2015 article for BuzzFeed , Joseph Bernstein argued that "
the dark forces of the internet became a counterculture ." He called it "Chanterculture" after the trolls who gathered at the
meme-creating, often-racist 4chan message board. Others ended up calling it the "alt-right." This culture combined a bunch of people
who loved to perpetuate hoaxes with angry Gamergaters with "free-speech" advocates like Milo Yiannopoulos with honest-to-God neo-Nazis
and white supremacists. And these people loved Donald Trump.
"This year Chanterculture found its true hero, who makes it plain that what we're seeing is a genuine movement: the current master
of American resentment, Donald Trump," Bernstein wrote. "Everywhere you look on 'politically incorrect' subforums and random chans,
he looms."
When you combine hyper-partisan media with a group of people who love to clown "normies," you end up with things like
Pizzagate , a patently ridiculous and widely
debunked conspiracy theory that held there was a child-pedophilia ring linked to Hillary Clinton somehow. It was just the most bizarre
thing in the entire world. And many of the figures in Bernstein's story were all over it, including several who the current president
has consorted with on social media.
But Pizzagate was but the most Pynchonian of all the crazy misinformation and hoaxes that spread in the run-up to the election.
BuzzFeed , deeply attuned to the flows of the social web, was all over the story through reporter Craig Silverman. His
best-known analysis happened after the election, when he showed that "in the final three months of the U.S. presidential campaign,
the top-performing fake election-news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets
such as The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Huffington Post , NBC News, and others."
But he also tracked fake news
before the election , as did other outlets such as The Washington Post, including showing that Facebook's "Trending"
algorithm regularly promoted fake news. By September of 2016,
even the Pope himself was talking about fake news, by which we mean actual hoaxes or lies perpetuated by a variety of actors.
The fake news generated a ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
What made the election cycle different was that all of these changes to the information ecosystem had made it possible to develop
weird businesses around fake news. Some random website posting aggregated news about the election could not drive a lot of traffic.
But some random website announcing that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump definitely could . The fake news generated a
ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
A few days before the election Silverman and fellow BuzzFeed contributor Lawrence Alexander traced 100 pro–Donald Trump
sites to
a town of 45,000 in Macedonia . Some teens there realized they could make money off the election, and just like that, became
a node in the information network that helped Trump beat Clinton.
Whatever weird thing you imagine might happen, something weirder probably did happen. Reporters tried to keep up, but it was too
strange. As Max Read put it in New York Magazine , Facebook is "like a four-dimensional object, we catch slices of it when
it passes through the three-dimensional world we recognize." No one can quite wrap their heads around what this thing has become,
or all the things this thing has become.
"Not even President-Pope-Viceroy Zuckerberg himself seemed prepared for the role Facebook has played in global politics this past
year," Read wrote.
And we haven't even gotten to the Russians.
* * *
Russia's disinformation campaigns are well known. During his reporting for
a story in The New York Times Magazine
, Adrian Chen sat across the street from the headquarters of the Internet Research Agency, watching workaday Russian agents/internet
trolls head inside. He heard how the place had "industrialized the art of trolling" from a former employee. "Management was obsessed
with statistics -- page views, number of posts, a blog's place on LiveJournal's traffic charts -- and team leaders compelled hard
work through a system of bonuses and fines," he wrote. Of course they wanted to maximize engagement, too!
There were reports that Russian trolls
were commenting on American news sites . There were many, many reports of Russia's propaganda offensive in Ukraine.
Ukrainian journalists run a website dedicated to cataloging these disinformation attempts called StopFake . It has hundreds of posts reaching back into 2014.
The influence campaign just happened on Facebook without anyone noticing.
A Guardian reporter who looked into
Russian
military doctrine around information war found a handbook that described how it might work. "The deployment of information weapons,
[the book] suggests, 'acts like an invisible radiation' upon its targets: 'The population doesn't even feel it is being acted upon.
So the state doesn't switch on its self-defense mechanisms,'" wrote Peter Pomerantsev.
As more details about the Russian disinformation campaign come to the surface through Facebook's continued digging, it's fair
to say that it's not just the state that did not switch on its self-defense mechanisms. The influence campaign just happened on Facebook
without anyone noticing.
As many people have noted, the 3,000 ads that have been linked to Russia are a drop in the bucket, even if they did reach millions
of people. The real game is simply that Russian operatives created pages that reached people "organically," as the saying goes. Jonathan
Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University,
pulled data on the six publicly known Russia-linked Facebook pages . He found that their posts had been shared 340 million
times . And those were six of 470 pages that Facebook has linked to Russian operatives. You're probably talking billions of shares,
with who knows how many views, and with what kind of specific targeting.
The Russians are good at engagement! Yet, before the U.S. election, even after Hillary Clinton and intelligence agencies
fingered Russian intelligence meddling in the election, even after news reports
suggested that a disinformation campaign was afoot , nothing about the actual operations on Facebook came out.
In the aftermath of these discoveries, three Facebook security researchers, Jen Weedon, William Nuland, and Alex Stamos, released
a white paper called Information
Operations and Facebook . "We have had to expand our security focus from traditional abusive behavior, such as account hacking,
malware, spam, and financial scams, to include more subtle and insidious forms of misuse, including attempts to manipulate civic
discourse and deceive people," they wrote.
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people. And we figure out how to use it to push conservative values."
One key theme of the paper is that they were used to dealing with economic actors, who responded to costs and incentives. When
it comes to Russian operatives paid to Facebook, those constraints no longer hold. "The area of information operations does provide
a unique challenge," they wrote, "in that those sponsoring such operations are often not constrained by per-unit economic realities
in the same way as spammers and click fraudsters, which increases the complexity of deterrence." They were not expecting that.
Add everything up. The chaos of a billion-person platform that competitively dominated media distribution. The known electoral
efficacy of Facebook. The wild fake news and misinformation rampaging across the internet generally and Facebook specifically. The
Russian info operations. All of these things were known.
And yet no one could quite put it all together: The dominant social network had altered the information and persuasion environment
of the election beyond recognition while taking
a very big chunk
of the estimated $1.4 billion worth of digital advertising purchased during the election. There were hundreds of millions of
dollars of dark ads doing their work. Fake news all over the place. Macedonian teens campaigning for Trump. Ragingly partisan media
infospheres serving up only the news you wanted to hear. Who could believe anything? What room was there for policy positions when
all this stuff was eating up News Feed space? Who the hell knew what was going on?
Hillary Clinton is running arguably the most digital presidential campaign in U.S. history. Donald Trump is running one of
the most analog campaigns in recent memory. The Clinton team is bent on finding more effective ways to identify supporters and
ensure they cast ballots; Trump is, famously and unapologetically, sticking to a 1980s-era focus on courting attention and voters
via television.
Just a week earlier, Trump's campaign had hired Cambridge Analytica. Soon, they'd ramped up to $70 million a month in Facebook
advertising spending. And the next thing you knew, Brad Parscale, Trump's digital director, is
doing the postmortem rounds talking up his win .
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people on the west and east coasts," Parscale said. "And we figure out
how to use it to push conservative values. I don't think they thought that would ever happen."
And that was part of the media's problem, too.
* * *
Before Trump's election, the impact of internet technology generally and Facebook specifically was seen as favoring Democrats.
Even a
TechCrunch critique of Rosen's 2012 article about Facebook's electoral power argued, "the
internet inherently advantages
liberals because, on average, their greater psychological embrace of disruption leads to more innovation (after all, nearly every
major digital breakthrough, from online fundraising to the use of big data, was pioneered by Democrats)."
In June 2015, The New York Times ran an article about
Republicans trying to ramp up their digital campaigns that began like this: "The criticism after the 2012 presidential election
was swift and harsh: Democrats were light-years ahead of Republicans when it came to digital strategy and tactics, and Republicans
had serious work to do on the technology front if they ever hoped to win back the White House."
"Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power."
It cited Sasha Issenberg, the most astute reporter on political technology. "The Republicans have a particular challenge," Issenberg
said, "which is, in these areas they don't have many people with either the hard skills or the experience to go out and take on this
type of work."
University of North Carolina journalism professor Daniel Kreiss wrote a whole (good) book, Prototype Politics , showing that Democrats had
an incredible personnel advantage. " Drawing on an innovative data set of the professional careers of 629 staffers working
in technology on presidential campaigns from 2004 to 2012 and data from interviews with more than 60 party and campaign staffers,"
Kriess wrote, "the book details how and explains why the Democrats have invested more in technology, attracted staffers with specialized
expertise to work in electoral politics, and founded an array of firms and organizations to diffuse technological innovations down
ballot and across election cycles."
Which is to say: It's not that no journalists, internet-focused lawyers, or technologists saw Facebook's looming electoral presence
-- it was undeniable -- but all the evidence pointed to the structural change benefitting Democrats. And let's just state the obvious:
Most reporters and professors are probably about as liberal as your standard Silicon Valley technologist, so this conclusion fit
into the comfort zone of those in the field.
By late October, the role that Facebook might be playing in the Trump campaign -- and more broadly -- was emerging. Joshua Green
and Issenberg
reported
a long feature on the data operation then in motion . The Trump campaign was working to suppress "idealistic white liberals,
young women, and African Americans," and they'd be doing it with targeted, "dark" Facebook ads. These ads are only visible to the
buyer, the ad recipients, and Facebook. No one who hasn't been targeted by then can see them. How was anyone supposed to know what
was going on, when the key campaign terrain was literally invisible to outside observers?
Steve Bannon was confident in the operation. "I wouldn't have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn't known they were building
this massive Facebook and data engine," Bannon told them. "Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We
know its power."
The very roots of the electoral system had been destabilized.
Issenberg and Green called it "an odd gambit" which had "no scientific basis." Then again, Trump's whole campaign had seemed like
an odd gambit with no scientific basis. The conventional wisdom was that Trump was going to lose and lose badly. In the days before
the election, The Huffington Post 's data team had Clinton's election probability at 98.3 percent. A member of the team, Ryan
Grim, went after Nate Silver for his more conservative probability of 64.7 percent, accusing him of skewing his data for "punditry"
reasons. Grim ended his post on the topic, "If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She's got this."
Narrator: She did not have this.
But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized.
In the middle of the summer of the election, the former Facebook ad-targeting product manager, Antonio García Martínez, released
an autobiography called Chaos Monkeys . He called
his colleagues "chaos monkeys," messing with industry after industry in their company-creating fervor. "The question for society,"
he wrote, "is whether it can survive these entrepreneurial chaos monkeys intact, and at what human cost." This is the real epitaph
of the election.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads."
The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that
was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook. And so, during the most significant shift in the technology of politics since the television,
the first draft of history is filled with undecipherable whorls and empty pages. Meanwhile, the 2018 midterms loom.
Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the
spread of misinformation
, click-bait
and other
problematic
content on Facebook."
"The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service,"
he wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our
policies and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge
since I joined almost 10 years ago."
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
Republic is the policies system where leaders are obliged to leave after their maximum allowed
term in office or if they lose the election (as opposed to the monarchy). the question who
really select the rulers remain open, and in most cases people are not gven the right to do so --
the elite preselect candidates for which common people can vote in general elections.
Democracy is more then that -- it is unrealistic, utopian dream of direct rule of people,
without intermediation of the elite. As such it is mostly a propaganda trick. Still be
can strive for more fair representation by the elite. The key question here are the mechanisms of
the filtration and the rotation of the elite as well as providing a channel for people from
lower strata to enter the elite. Right now universities are still serving as a path to
upward mobility but this channel is more and more blocked.
For example the US Senate is an example of almost life appointment to political position.
Putting the limit on the time one can a senator might improve the situation, but it
created the problem of short-termism. But taking into account to what extent senators are
controlled by MIC and various other powerful lobbies it might not matter much. "It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about
two-thirds of their time raising money."
The class who holds economic power always also hold political power.
Notable quotes:
"... Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all the others. ..."
"... So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect you'd be quite happy to be part of. ..."
"... Trump is no Caesar but a Cataline. Just a sad sideshow in the slow implosion of Pax Americana. ..."
"... I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the facts of society are the same. ..."
"... Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the direction of national policy. ..."
"... In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion to lose. ..."
"... It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count. ..."
"... Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s. ..."
"... Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business. ..."
"... Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch. ..."
"... Revolutions usually occur because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is reflexive/rote. ..."
"... People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by. ..."
"... I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place. ..."
"... We're delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites. ..."
"... People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a dictatorship. ..."
"... Last November, a decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician' who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats. ..."
"... Thank you for a wonderful article. Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases? Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their people. ..."
"... Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens, Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like Trump and Brexit. Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back. Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the sly). Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone wars. Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off. ..."
"... Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult. Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and the death of democracies, as this article points out. ..."
"... When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always loaded. ..."
"... The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise aspects of the Mafia type power. ..."
"... The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies. ..."
"... One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance. Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking industry and manufacturing. Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and east Asia. ..."
"... The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance in large populations. ..."
"... Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to the poor' which would end terribly. ..."
"... Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs. The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair. ..."
"... Don't forget the role of the corporations and their associated 'think tanks'. In reality the USA is a corporatocracy as nicely pointed out by Bruce E. Levine in The Blog of the HUFFPOST in 2011. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html ..."
"... "...in today's meritocratic era." This description is a myth put about by the oligarchs to justify their economic and political power. ..."
"... The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's. ..."
"... If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based on party membership. ..."
"... Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the solution, but what is ...? ..."
"... So an oligarchy hiding behind a sham democracy is the best we can hope for? ..."
"... In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either ..."
"... So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise? ..."
"... With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing. ..."
"... Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers and drone tanks. ..."
"... I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result of its own cronyism. Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique. ..."
"... 'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs. ..."
"... The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book 4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to avoid the limitations of single perspectives. ..."
"... To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the broader picture. ..."
"... The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't become an oligarchy without the will of the people. That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job. ..."
"... Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control for some time and will be for awhile more ..."
Yes, but the fundamental issue has always been, how do you chose the oligarch and how do you
get rid of one who is clearly badly failing or abusing power?
Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least
leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all
the others.
Oligarchy clearly serves some developing countries well, always assuming the oligarchs are
people dedicated to doing their best for the country as a whole. And they do do that
sometimes.
Yet, we have supported nonsense like killing a Gadaffi, who gave his people good
government and peace, and pitching Libya into chaos.
All in the dishonest name of democracy from our dishonest "democratic" politicians.
Look at Israel, always slapping itself on the back as the Mideast's "only democracy,"
while it consorts happily with kings and tyrants in its neighborhood and continues to hold
millions of people in occupation against their will.
Representative democracy. Not democracy by the crowd. Not eternal referenda. Not local "community" groups holding a lot of power. This is simply the tyranny of small
groups of ideological left and ring wing extremists who will sit for 4 hours on a wet Tuesday
evening in some hall somewhere to get their way, knowing that most normal people have better
things to do with their lives.
It is the way of socialist workers and the like at University with their endless union
meetings and motions, hoping to sneak through some crap the "represents" the student body of
thousands on the basis of less than 100 votes. When challenged as to legitimacy the response
is always "no one is prevented from getting involved".
That I suspect is your type of democracy, as it certainly is Corbyn's.
So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a
representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics
and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect
you'd be quite happy to be part of.
Marxism 101.
Trouble is liberals on the one hand bang on about proletariat solidarity, yet on the
other, peddle identity politics and turn a blind eye at increasingly fragmented
communities. And when the modern oligarchs come out and play they scratch their heads and blame "the
stupid".
Your comment is the equivalent of the reply one normally gets from lefties btl if you say you
don't want to be paying more tax i.e. "go to Somalia".
The nuance that there may be something between high tax and low tax is lost on them.
In your case, the idea that having what Beveridge proposed originally as a "safety net" of
state provision rather than a lifestyle choice of full coverage of everything is lost on you,
hence you suggest the choice is a binary everything or nothing.
Yours is the ignorance of the socialist and yes, a lack of personal freedom in your
thinking that I'd reject every time.
The first rule of oligarchic fight club:
You do not talk about oligarchic fight club!
Or apparently Republics?
From the little golden book of how to overthrow oligarchs by overthrown oligarchs
(*Minion Free Edition)
India has democracy, but it is suppressing Kashmiris who want to be independent. In the last
decade more than 30000 people have been killed by Indian army. Why? Because they want
freedom.
Sparta used slave labor for its agricultural needs, freeing its people to train and form the
backbone of its militaristic society.
I agree that the best system for managing human affairs remains an open question. Locke
and Hobbes are not done debating, and Churchill's attribution that democracy is the worst
system of governance aside from everything else we've tried bears consideration as well. (If
you want to discard democracy, it only seems fair that you present a viable, well thought-out
replacement.)
"How the oligarchy wins..." "... two recent books can teach us about defending democracy from oligarchs'
I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a
revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an
elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the
facts of society are the same.
Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of
someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the
direction of national policy.
In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the
best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion
and $1.8 billion to lose.
It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about
two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend
time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of
you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count.
Look at a phenomenon like Macron in France. He came from nowhere and seems to have very
limited talents, yet the plutocratic interests who backed him managed to grab the French
Presidency. Former French President Sarkozy, a man who proved mostly ineffective, took huge sums from
General Gaddafi to the richest woman in France, a woman rumored to not have been even fully
competent at the time.
Not only are the contributors of big money - both individuals and lobby groups - at the
center of Western politics, but our very institutions are constructed to accommodate
leadership which does not reflect the views of a majority. This is done in many structural
ways from district gerrymandering to the nature of the "first past the post" ballots we
use.
Look at Britain's most utterly incompetent modern politician, David Cameron, the man who
single-handedly created the entire Brexit mess plus engaged in a terrible lot of dishonest
and brutal behavior in the Middle East. He was never popular and ruled with something over
35% of the vote. Britain's institutions accommodated that.
In Canada, Stephen Harper, the man most Canadians likely regard as the shabbiest ever to
rule the country, managed to do terrible things with about 39% of the vote.
And everywhere, people don't vote for war, interests do, rich interests.
Economist Ha Joon Chang wrote about the meteoric economic rise of South Korea. He talked
about how governmental policy chose areas to heavily subsidize (like educating engineers) to
stimulate growth. They were successful but Chang also talks about the "losers" left
behind.
If we only look at economics and if we assume economic growth is always a positive with no
downside (slums, environmental degradation, authoritarian oppression, rulers passing laws to
protect their privilege, etc.), than your premise looks sound.
I think being dire is an important key. Maybe it is dire in Britain for many people now. It
isn't here, in Australia, just yet although people are going backwards.
The other issue is a lack of political literacy. You have to convince people they need a
revolution. Many people are poor because understanding things like politics and society is
not their strong point.
You may have a large group of people who are prime to vote for socialism but you'd have to
explain to them why and convince them not just take it as a given they will. You may have an
overwhelming amount of people who would benefit from socialism and you could win the
revolution then they'd do something dumb like vote for Trump or Pauline Hanson. It is not a
given that having victorious numbers of struggling people means socialism will be voted
for.
Something is out of balance in Washington.
Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more
than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million).
It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the
combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.
Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing
them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and
public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of
the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent
business.
Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to
stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch.
You say that, but wind the clock back 80 years and they were saying the same things about
tanks and airplanes. Modern day, 'urbanised feudalism' with the petrol engine instead of
horses. Otherwise known as Fascism. Didn't quite work out did it...
I don't think Jeremy Corbyn should be punished for having different political opinions to me,
nor do I want Jacob Rees-Mogg punished because his opinions differ from mine, whereas you
were calling for the latter to be punished for his political views.
For most people the options for dealing with those of a different political opinion are
not either 1) imprisonment or 2) confiscation of property/forced labour. Those are extremist
positions.
I find truth in your words. I used to understand the fear of "mob rule", which democracy
seemed vulnerable to. Governing is complicated and, ideally, is broad-minded as laws and
policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my
experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a
complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become
politically active until their situation is relatively dire.
Revolutions usually occur
because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most
people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is
reflexive/rote.
Most of the time, democracies are fundamentally guided by people who have a deeper interest
in governance. As long as the engaged populace takes reasonable account of society as a
whole, there will be no upheavals. When the scales tip too far we get an "acting out" that is
unrestrained and chaotic and understandable.
This is simplistic and not meant to be absolute. Just an observation.
People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many
people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather
together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if
they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by.
In Australia plenty of people choose to live off the minimum wage. Many choose not to work
full time. The state picks up after them with health care and income top ups. They are highly
unlikely to make an effort to overthrow the oligarchy or the plutocracy. Why bother when you
can work 30 hours a week at an easy job and get along just fine in life.
I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many
people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place.
In the UK we have circa 1200 quangos controlling our lives, and look how the tories have
recently abused select committee appointments. In the USA they have organisations such as the
council on foreign relations which wields huge power across all areas of policy, combined
with the intricacies of all the mechanisms it prevents democracy from taking shape. We're
delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now
going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites.
By "Greece" I suspect this article means "Athens". Sparta had a different system and was not
subjected to these issues. In fact, that system was superior in many ways, but apparently all
has to be judged according to the rule that democracy would be the best.
Or one from the elite arises and takes power and skips democracy and devolves the US straight
to tyranny, as also forewarned by the classics. Its a good job Trump never got in last
year...oh fuck
People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a
dictatorship.
Should you be interested in the truth of what is happening in that empire, just navigate
different news sites.
What about the GOP and the Democratic parties as competing oligopolies? Last November, a
decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician'
who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to
differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats.
Once you use the concept of class you out yourself as the oligarch's willing executioner.
There's no proof that democracy can't adapt and survive, yet a catastrophist will insist it's
so.
They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty
on the bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top
would involve too much hard work for many.
If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election,
that's it.
And yet the Bourbons do not still rule France, neither the Romanovs nor the Bolsheviks
rule Russia, and the once-mighty Habsburgs are a distant memory.
Of course, the reason our democracies are not supposed to go the same way is that the
populace can change things themselves through elections rather than having to rise up and
overthrow the whole system. But what happens when the electoral system fails? What happens
if, no matter how the electorate votes, the political class thumbs its nose at them and
carries on as usual?
To take the most obvious example of democratic failure - the US - where will the American
electorate go after Trump? Can we seriously expect the same people who voted for him, and
undoubtedly did not get what they wanted, to flock to support some business-as-usual Democrat
or oily Republican?
Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of
recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth.
They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens
from corporate wrongdoing.
If there's ever been a country not ruled by oligarchy I'd like to see it.
The United States vacillates between a sly oligarchy of the Left who use the dole as its
virtue signaling to garner votes, and the Right whose use of government for self
aggrandizement is more obvious.
Indeed, any notion that the genetic impulse to self aggrandizement will change is
spurious.
As such, the only and imperfect defense, is to limit government power thus reducing the
oligarchs' potential for self dealing and, more importantly, requiring frequent
elections which although in the long run don't eliminate the problem, tend to engender
compromise and periodic shifts in power from one faction to another.
I think today's China is a good example of what a modern oligarchy looks like- a Party
structure that provides privilege through membership, but no clearly definable ideology other
than consolidating power and projecting it. It is ironic that a supposedly socialist country
devotes so much energy into preventing labour from organising into unions and has such
massive inequality.
Russia on the other hand is a sham democracy where the structure of democracy is in place,
but thoroughly eviscerated so that it exists only to confer legitimacy on the oligarchy (with
Putin and his inner circle at the core). If Putin was to die suddenly (or become
incapacitated) there may be a real world example of oligarchical collapse as rival factions
try to occupy the vacant centre of power. It could very well create a space in which genuine
grassroots democracy could grow, but equally it could tear the country apart.
Neither country has a history of democracy, and the rule of law isn't anywhere near as
strong as in liberal western democracies, and is easily subverted. Russia particularly has a
culture of political coups, as the country relies on unequal power distribution to function,
making separatist movements a very real threat.
They are complaining, but you can't hear them, because they are oppressed and colonized and
disenfranchised. In the country, in inner Mongolia, in Turkestan, and in Tibet, and when they
want to claim their rights and their family gets persecuted for a few generations. And if
anyone talks about it, the Communist party threatens to not trade with you.
Precisely. In a world where a handful of people could control a whole army, who's to stop
that handful from assuming total control over the rest of us?
I'm not even sure there's much that can be done to stop it, since the nations that refuse
to embrace new military technology tend to get defeated by other nations that have no such
qualms.
Thank you for a wonderful article.
Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases?
Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their
people.
I sincerely wish you to have the same freedom to 'live freely and succeed or fail due to
their own personal talents' as my grandparents had in the 20s and 30s.
That is, the freedom to be unemployed without help for years (but with the freedom to grow
what food they could in the back yard of a slum in an industrial city). The freedom to see
some of their children die because there was no treatment if you were diabetic and poor. The
freedom to send your 13 year old son to work with a broken foot (stamped on by one of the
cart-horses he tended) because he was the only earner. The freedom to work hungry for two
days until payday because bills had been paid (rent, coal) and there was no money... I could
go on and on. I really hope you get to enjoy all this freedom. And please do emjoy it without
a murmur of complaint because being helped by all your neighbours that make up 'the state'
isn't freedom, is it?
Both Greece and Rome went through quire a few multiple systems in multiple situations. It
does not make sense to say they are singular political types at all.
Considering that in another thread you called on forced labour and confiscation of private
property for those you disagreed with politically, your version of 'proper democracy' would
have been called 'τυραννία' by the Ancient Greeks.
No, working with poor people convinced me socialism is no better. I'm not inclined to work
hard and have to support people who choose to work part time and collect benefits part time
as a lifestyle choice.
Successful for whom? All of those were extremely unequal societies. The spoils of the Roman
and British Empires mostly went to enrich the oligarchs while the vast majority of the
population laboured in poverty.
The majority was only able to prosper once the power of the oligarchs was broken, either
from above (the early Roman emperors tore the old senatorial class to pieces) or from below
(gradual democratic and labour reforms in Britain conceded for fear of a potential
revolution).
That would work fine before the age of automation now where humans are taken out of the job
scope entirely. Then it becomes a lot harder to justify on a philosophical, ethical and moral
level the logic of giving money to people for doing nothing (because there's nothing left for
them to do).
You're talking about a fundamental change in the mentality that we reap what we sow, that
our efforts directly correspond to the rewards and resources we gain at the end of it. I
don't think that's possible. Neither is it desirable.
two World Wars and a Great Depression largely wiped out the holdings of the extremely
wealthy
There was also a couple of generations trained under arms and seasoned under
fire. There was a mixing of classes unlike any other and enough people who would not
put up with a return to the status quo.
A world war is entirely necessary. To assume that peace is inherently good for humanity as a
whole in terms of population numbers, technological advancements, or political stability is
ridiculous in my honest opinion. Peace represents stagnation. It relies too much on
ever-convoluted webs of interdependence (like that Concert of Europe before WWI, once
declared as peace for its time).
The American revolutionaries had it right when they said that the tree of liberty
regularly requires the blood of tyrants and patriots to continue flourishing.
Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states
like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens,
Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values
and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like
Trump and Brexit.
Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back.
Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the
sly).
Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone
wars.
Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off.
Interesting idea. So the core of a nation's military power decides what politics makes it up
(dependent on who's got the most access to the power to kill). In that case the automation of
war for drones and robots cannot be anything but bad news: they are the new cavalry,
affordable only by the very rich and powerful and so awesome in destructive power at almost
no human cost if they are destroyed that they would make the perfect enforcers for a strict
feudal order.
Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult.
Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and
the death of democracies, as this article points out.
Set the cap at a reasonably high figure to reward hard work, innovation, etc. Somewhere
around $5B should work. Why $5 billion? Because of the ~2K billionaires in the world, most,
like 80-85% or so, have less than that amount, and it becomes a break point within the
oligarchy, dividing their unity. Think of the egos involved: many of those with $1-5B would
relish seeing the 200+ hyper rich brought within striking distance of equality on their
level.
Second, agree with the politicians that taxpayers know best how to spend their money.
Change the budget process so that the politicians pass the budget, but the people decide
whether or not to fund it. Establish dedicated tax payment centers so when tax time rolls
around, the proposed budget is available for the citizenry to examine.
Then allow the taxpayer to fund those parts they agree are necessary and make sense, by
establishing discrete step amounts scaled to the size of the tax bill, e.g., say your tax
bill came to 1582 whatevers, dollars, pounds, etc. At that size your increment might be 25 or
50, let's say 50 for argument's sake.
That means our taxpayer could fund up to 31 different parts of the budget. To ensure that
the money gets spread around, we can limit the number of allocations to any given part to 3
or 4, and close a choice when its budget request is met. Anything left over that doesn't meet
the minimum step level would go into the general fund for the politicians to allocate, either
topping off programs that didn't quite get their budget requests filled or funding something
that didn't get sufficient funds from the public to be viable.
Now here's were you can get voluntary revenue enhancement: allow the taxpayer to top off
the leftover amount for the privilege of allocating it themselves rather than surrendering it
to politicians' control. That amount wouldn't be applied against future taxes, it is
payment-for-privilege. In our example the taxpayer could add 18 to the leftover 32, a choice
many would make.
Third, bring voting into the modern era: use those handy tax payment centers both to vote
in local, state, and national elections (while changing the voting period from a day to a
week) and to provide feedback to politicians. Whenever anything controversial comes up, like
healthcare or bailouts or war, allow the citizenry to override their representative's choice
of vote if a majority of voters choose to vote the other way on that particular matter.
Fourth, establish mental standards for running for political office. Test would-be
candidates to determine whether or not they are sociopaths. I'd prefer to not allow such
people to hold political offices or appointments, but would accept just identifying them so
voters know what they will get.
Taken together, those steps would ensure that democracy is strong and safe from co-option
by oligarchs, both directly and indirectly by providing a genuine incentive to pay attention
to issues.
Indeed you're right. And to be fair, why should he? The world's spent long enough whining on
about great powers like the US trying to foist their ideas of a better world by their own
rules and standards on everyone else (democracy spreading anyone?), so if we are to truly put
words to action then an isolationist US allowing for other powers to fill the vacuum and
return the world to multipolarity cannot be seen as anything other than a good thing.
That doesn't sound very much like China here which is used as an example of a dictatorship
(more de-facto than de-jure since the Chinese president and premier only has the absolute
writ of God for ten years).
Apart from those in Hong Kong, there really isn't much of anyone in China's domestic
population complaining about being oppressed, unfree, colonised, or unable to become who they
can be.
It really some downs to how you define the term 'Liberal'. Socially Liberal? Economically
Liberal? The latter being a modern euphemism for being about as reactionary as it gets.
But that is breaking down as middle class benefits (pensions etc.) begin to disappear. There
is a growing awareness , I think, that inequality is becoming extreme between the very rich
and everyone else. Good article, anyway.
I'd rather describe it as socialism giving everybody endless free stuff, hence we get more
and more reliant on the state and those who wish to live freely and succeed or fail due to
their own personal talents see the idea of personal responsibility denuded everywhere.
Socialists seem to think "freedom" is achieved by having the state always there in
everything to back you up, to a lot of the rest of us that is most definitely not freedom at
all.
When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he
demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It
doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always
loaded.
That would depend on the quality and sophistication of the constitution. Social multi-party
representative democracies with a house of review don't decay like executive presidencies do.
"In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than
by arms. Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.'
With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil
oligarchy."
Two things.
1. The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that
sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise
aspects of the Mafia type power.
2. The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and
system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are
largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies.
Also, I don't think anyone interested in politics does not understand that material
economical structure is the basis, and ideology is just the result or sales pitch.
Unfortunately, your view is one that is becoming more prevalent, on the left and right.
All about ensuring that the correct thinking people are not held back by the plebs. Ti that effect they accuse them of false consciousness by one half and being anti-business
by the other.
One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance.
Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The
coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking
industry and manufacturing.
Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and
east Asia.
Articles and reviews like this one is WHY I HAVE READ THE GUARDIAN FOR DECADES.
The government need not favour the down trodden, it need only offer a job at a living wage to
anyone willing to contribute to their community. This would make us all equal enough.
The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad.
Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned
oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance
in large populations.
They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty on the
bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top would
involve too much hard work for many.
If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election,
that's it.
Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These
articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class
could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to
the poor' which would end terribly.
Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs.
The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from
the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the
remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair.
The masters need only cut out some unpopular group and tell some convenient story about
how they brought it on themselves in order to get your support.
The only way for democracy to thrive is for the community to supply a new a chair for
every one taken by the masters, as was done in the post war period up till the mid seventies.
Since then it has been economic musical chairs with austerity, budget constraints and
irreducible unemployment as far as they eye can see.
And yet, the American voters brought in Trump the oligarch, and tasked him with destroying
the institutions that perpetuate oligarchy.
Democracy will be destroyed through utter stupidity of the lower classes. They can easily
be egged to see an enemy in their fellow citizens and turn to oligarchs for protection.
Specifically, in the US, the white majority wants Trump to prevent a transition into whites
becoming the largest minority, instead of the majority. These are their expectations and they
are prepared to tolerate any outrage as long as they think he is working towards that
goal.
The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's.
I should also add that Aristotle included a third factor. The size and nature of ones armed
forces:-
If the core was cavalry, then it would be a feudal monarchy (Macedon, Persia)
If it was elite heavy infantry, then it would be an oligarchy (Sparta, Rome)
If it was through either mass light infantry or naval based, then it would be a Democracy
(Athens)
Now consider the UK after 1945, you have a this huge 'citizen's army' that has been out in
field (one way or another) for over half a decade. Add onto that the huge losses of wealth
and (more importantly) the alliances that were forced upon us. There could be nothing but an
effective mass popular Democracy in this country. And for the first time in its history.
But alas, the Oligarchs bided their time and when the first sign of crisis came along, the
struck. The 1970's for fucks sake, which were nothing compared to the cataclysms between
1914-1914, that same said Oligarchs created. Yet you would not think it the way those people
bang on about it. Thus now, we have the 2010's, a decade that we will be warning our children
about.
With the subheading 'What happens when you forget the lessons of history'.
If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based
on party membership.
However, how far are we from that in a system which guarantees that only one of two
parties will end up in power? A glance across the pond shows how that is simply another form
of oligarchy generating a hereditary establishment. That was HC's biggest problem.
Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with
the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the
solution, but what is ...?
Who cares about whether democracy or dictatorship is better. As long as the people get richer
and safer and happier with their lot in life, that's all that matters. Humans don't nearly
live long enough to care more than just staying alive and bettering our own lot in life.
In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at
best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of
the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either
There is also an economic minimum the population needs to be at. Dividing the classes only
goes so far.
There's an argument on the oligarch needing the masses to finance their wealth, especially
through utilities and monopolies (privately run NHS by token choice of companies), but it
almost like the oligarchs don't need the masses anymore and can defend their wealth via stock
exchange and governmental debts.
I would say that the biggest reason for the success of the oligarchs is making security,
defined and framed by them, more important for the mass than freedom.
So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots
become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise?
What seems to be missing is recognizing the fact that very often in human society those on
the bottom aspire to be like the top, even if they disagree with their personalities they
don't disagree with their idea of prosperity and power. So it's going to be endlessly
cyclical. The people take power and become oligarchs in their own right. Then someone has to
take over on the bottom and then it all starts again.
With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil
oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the
system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations
that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.
Aristotle would have argued that countries are oligarchies when they have oligarchical
constitutions.
Democracy works much better when all have economic prosperity. It should also look after the
minorities by giving them equal rights and opportunities. I see democracy in India and look
up to how it has remained a free country. But there are more than 300 million people in India
who are so poor that they cannot afford much in life, most of them live on roads. China on
the other hand is a dictatorship, but has reduced poverty of more than 400 million people in
the last few decades. Which path should others follow?
America under Trump is making the country isolationist. As Economist wrote so well: "The world
does not want an isolationist United States or a dictatorship in China. Alas, it may get
both."
Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is
winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war
means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite
the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers
and drone tanks.
I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result
of its own cronyism.
Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique.
Not all measures aimed at improving equality involve giving extra privileges to currently
disadvantaged groups - one can remove privileges/other advantages from groups which are doing
more than OK, like curtailing legal tax-dodges which are only of use/available to the very
wealthy. One can also remove barriers which (deliberately or not) impact people unequally,
such as voter-suppression tricks.
This set of images is a very simplistic but helpful way of explaining the difference
between different ways to deal with inequality:
If you think that's "contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy" then the oligarchs are winning.
They've told you the woes of the world are all the fault of the liberal middle classes, and
you've believed them.
'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether
the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by
evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs.
The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book
4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to
avoid the limitations of single perspectives.
To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also
look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the
broader picture.
Remember, we wouldn't be in this mess if we had a clear picture, but we have a different
perspective to these past writers. Philosophers and elephants. You've got to combine the
visions and weight them correctly.
The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't
become an oligarchy without the will of the people.
That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least
people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job.
If Trump hadn't been elected Hillary Clinton would now be President. More intelligent
certainly and less likely to destroy the country but still backed by countless very wealthy
people who would have been expecting payback for their support.
So rather than ask how America can avoid becoming an oligarchy I'd be asking if there was
ever a time when it wasn't an oligarchy.
While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people
must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece
thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave
rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.
These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the
people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people
from organizing.
This is the clearest explanation of contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy I've ever
seen.
The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or
whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.
Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too
much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly
effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control
for some time and will be for awhile more
democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown."
Yes, but I'm not sure I see why that is to do with institutional decay - except
if that means that the arrangements for bribing, threatening and manipulating the populace
break down, in which case it just pushes the query back to why that should happen.
Which brings us to consent and to capacity. If the state has the capacity to ensure that
citizens do OK then it will gain their consent. If not, not.
So far so simple for the ancient Greeks. Not so simple for us, now, because one of the
institutional structures controlled by the oligarchy is the one that manufactures and
maintains consent.
That's why, if we have arrived at oligarchy, we will not escape as simply as the city
states of ancient Greece - and perhaps cannot escape it at all.
So those of us who want proper democracy need to try and sew in the ruling class, just as
they have long encouraged disunity amongst us plebs, is that it? Perhaps one advantage (of
few that I can see) of brexit is it's exposing significant disunity in the Tory party.
Nothing new then. Who said " I don't care who makes the decisions as long as I write the
Agenda and the Minutes. Information control is key. We live in a Alice in Wonderland world of
spin.
one solution is creating a more economically equal society
If one were to look at this equality problem rationally and logically, then any
government policy aimed at making people equal would actually amount to government treating
people very unequally.
Sort of like because people are unequal they should be treated unequally in order to make
them equal. So in this sense the very idea of social justice is either irrational or else
meaningless.
Differences in vocation, gifts, interests, locations and aspirations contribute to making
people unequal. Socialism is a provenly unworkable myth.
Those who have economic power also have political power. Is this sop difficult to understand.
Notable quotes:
"... The system, in other words, can't really be "rigged" to work for the rich and powerful unless the people are at least willing to accept a government of the rich and powerful. If the general public opposes rule-by-economic-elites, how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government? ..."
"... To prevent this occurrence, ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united. Among other things, they passed sumptuary laws, preventing extravagant displays of their wealth that might spark jealously, and they used the secret ballot and consensus building practices to ensure that decisions didn't lead to greater conflict within their cadre. ..."
"... While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government. ..."
"... These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing. They would expel people from town squares: a diffuse population in the countryside would be unable to protest and overthrow government as effectively as a concentrated group in the city. ..."
"... They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods. Reading Simonton's account, it is hard not to think about how the fragmentation of our media platforms is a modern instantiation of dividing the public sphere, or how employees and workers are sometimes chilled from speaking out. ..."
"... Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or the beautification of a public space. The result: the people would appreciate elite spending on those projects and the upper class would get their names memorialized for all time. After all, who could be against oligarchs who show such generosity? ..."
"... To understand that, we can turn to an instant classic from a few years ago, Jeffrey Winters' Oligarchy. Winters argues that the key to oligarchy is that a set of elites have enough material resources to spend on securing their status and interests. He calls this "wealth defense," and divides it into two categories. "Property defense" involves protecting existing property – in the old days, this meant building castles and walls, today it involves the rule of law. "Income defense" is about protecting earnings; these days, that means advocating for low taxes. ..."
"... The challenge in seeing how oligarchy works, Winters says, is that we don't normally think about the realms of politics and economics as fused together. At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political purposes. Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality. ..."
"... Winters argues that there are four kinds of oligarchies, each of which pursues wealth defense through different institutions. These oligarchies are categorized based on whether the oligarchs rule is personal or collective, and whether the oligarchs use coercion. ..."
"... Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown." Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people. ..."
"... Even with compulsory voting Australia still funnels votes to those we don't want to elect in the form of transferable 1st pass the post single member electorates. True democracy would grant proportional representation, and allow citizen initiated binding referenda. ..."
"... By these measures you could say America has been an oligarchy from its very conception. Look at the robber-barons of the 19th c. There are occasional "raisings of the veil" such as new deal or great society when the general public gets a fair go. The industrial boom of ww2 is what gave the working class a shot at living a decent life - and of course offshoring industry is precisely closing that door again. ..."
"... Tens of millions of Americans waited patiently for a Dem candidate to talk about our stacked decks, D.C. swamps, and broken systems -- instead, they gave us a Hillary coronation and expected us to embrace the pantsuit. ..."
"... After university econ training, and a long business career, I now consider education a terrible thing. Knowing what I know now about how our systems really work, when I observe our Congressional leaders looking into the camera with point-blank lies day in and day out, I feel they deserve execution; literally, I am feeling like heads should roll. ..."
"... In America, oligarchs win when Dems are center right (in practice, not rhetoric) and are sold out to the oligarchs. Case in point, HC. There is no counterbalance to those who are even further to the right. Oligarchs win without a legit 3rd party. ..."
"... Obama and the Dems lost 1,000 elected positions before Trump came along. It's because he sold out to the big banks. ..."
"... Small D Democrats. Not big D Democrats. The Clintons are clearly in the oligarch class, much like Trump. It is rather hilarious to hear Trump supporters talk about how he cares for the poor. ..."
"... Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people. In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations. ..."
"... It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live in a democracy. ..."
"... They don't come by it naturally. Their delusion is pushed along by very well oiled propaganda machines, probably mostly financed by the taxpayers themselves. ..."
"... Can't recommend Requiem For The American Dream highly enough, absolutely required viewing for anyone wishing to understand the mockery of democracy under which we live. ..."
A few years ago, as I was doing research for a book on how economic inequality threatens democracy,
a colleague of mine asked if America was really at risk of becoming an oligarchy. Our political system,
he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy elites, we can just vote them
out.
The system, in other words, can't really be "rigged" to work for the rich and powerful unless
the people are at least willing to accept a government of the rich and powerful. If the general public
opposes rule-by-economic-elites, how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government?
The question was a good one, and while I had my own explanations, I didn't have a systematic answer.
Luckily, two recent books do. Oligarchy works, in a word, because of institutions.
In his fascinating and insightful book Classical Greek Oligarchy, Matthew Simonton takes us back
to the ancient world, where the term oligarchy was coined. One of the primary threats to oligarchy
was that the oligarchs would become divided, and that one from their number would defect, take leadership
of the people, and overthrow the oligarchy.
To prevent this occurrence, ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep
themselves united. Among other things, they passed sumptuary laws, preventing extravagant displays
of their wealth that might spark jealously, and they used the secret ballot and consensus building
practices to ensure that decisions didn't lead to greater conflict within their cadre.
Appropriately for a scholar of the classics, Simonton focuses on these specific ancient practices
in detail. But his key insight is that elites in power need solidarity if they are to stay in power.
Unity might come from personal relationships, trust, voting practices, or – as is more likely in
today's meritocratic era – homogeneity in culture and values from running in the same limited circles.
The ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power
While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people
must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus
used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants
and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.
These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people.
In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing.
They would expel people from town squares: a diffuse population in the countryside would be unable
to protest and overthrow government as effectively as a concentrated group in the city.
They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic
survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods.
Reading Simonton's account, it is hard not to think about how the fragmentation of our media platforms
is a modern instantiation of dividing the public sphere, or how employees and workers are sometimes
chilled from speaking out.
The most interesting discussion is how ancient oligarchs used information to preserve their regime.
They combined secrecy in governance with selective messaging to targeted audiences, not unlike our
modern spinmasters and communications consultants. They projected power through rituals and processions.
At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic success. Instead
of public works projects, dedicated in the name of the people, they relied on what we can think of
as philanthropy to sustain their power. Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or
the beautification of a public space. The result: the people would appreciate elite spending on those
projects and the upper class would get their names memorialized for all time. After all, who could
be against oligarchs who show such generosity?
An assistant professor of history at Arizona State University, Simonton draws heavily on insights
from social science and applies them well to dissect ancient practices. But while he recognizes that
ancient oligarchies were always drawn from the wealthy, a limitation of his work is that he focuses
primarily on how oligarchs perpetuated their political power, not their economic power.
To understand that, we can turn to an instant classic from a few years ago, Jeffrey Winters'
Oligarchy. Winters argues that the key to oligarchy is that a set of elites have enough material
resources to spend on securing their status and interests. He calls this "wealth defense," and divides
it into two categories. "Property defense" involves protecting existing property – in the old days,
this meant building castles and walls, today it involves the rule of law. "Income defense" is about
protecting earnings; these days, that means advocating for low taxes.
The challenge in seeing how oligarchy works, Winters says, is that we don't normally think
about the realms of politics and economics as fused together. At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating
economic power and using it for political purposes. Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because
democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat
that emerges from economic inequality.
Winters argues that there are four kinds of oligarchies, each of which pursues wealth defense
through different institutions. These oligarchies are categorized based on whether the oligarchs
rule is personal or collective, and whether the oligarchs use coercion.
Warring oligarchies, like warlords, are personal and armed. Ruling oligarchies like the mafia
are collective and armed. In the category of unarmed oligarchies, sultanistic oligarchies (like Suharto's
Indonesia) are governed through personal connections. In civil oligarchies, governance is collective
and enforced through laws, rather than by arms.
Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.'
With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To
use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their
wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens
from corporate wrongdoing.
They build a legal system that is skewed to work in their favor, so that their illegal behavior
rarely gets punished. And they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system
that gives them undue influence over policy. In a civil oligarchy, these actions are sustained not
at the barrel of the gun or by the word of one man, but through the rule of law.
If oligarchy works because its leaders institutionalize their power through law, media, and political
rituals, what is to be done? How can democracy ever gain the upper hand? Winters notes that political
power depends on economic power. This suggests that one solution is creating a more economically
equal society.
The problem, of course, is that if the oligarchs are in charge, it isn't clear why they would
pass policies that would reduce their wealth and make society more equal. As long as they can keep
the people divided, they have little to fear from the occasional pitchfork or protest.
Indeed, some commentators have suggested that the economic equality of the late 20 th
century was exceptional because two World Wars and a Great Depression largely wiped out the holdings
of the extremely wealthy. On this story, there isn't much we can do without a major global catastrophe.
Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece
because of "oligarchic breakdown." Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are
any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there
is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people.
In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With
all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the
future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.
The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs
will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.
Ganesh Sitaraman is the author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution
I think the USA is a
republic and
not a democracy. I also think the distinction isn't a subtle one. Many think we'd be better off
as a democracy. I don't. In a democracy, the majority rules. That means when you are in the minority,
you don't have a say. The electoral college prevents the larger states from squeezing out the
smaller states. However some don't think that is necessarily a problem. Urban life is very different
from rural life and we can't make all of the rules based on urban life.
Whilst the suggestion of "creating a more economically equal society" is obviously desirable,
it's not exactly a practical recommendation against the context of the rest of the article.
Herein lies the key: "...they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system
that gives them undue influence over policy."
Possible solution? No vote; no donation.
Curtail corporate funding of political parties, Super PACs, Unions, etc. and have election
campaigns financed from public funds ONLY. If you can't vote as an individual person/citizen,
you can't contribute.
This would remove a big barrier to reform - lobbyists and political patronage - and ensure
that elected leaders are unshackled, with the freedom to govern based on evidence-based policy
and long-term planning rather than just rewarding the corporate elite who put them there.
Even with compulsory voting Australia still funnels votes to those we don't want to elect
in the form of transferable 1st pass the post single member electorates. True democracy would
grant proportional representation, and allow citizen initiated binding referenda.
White nationalism wasn't necessary when you were 90% of the population - it has only emerged with
the mass immigration era, when socially engineered policies threaten to make you a minority in
your own nation-state. (yes, I am aware that the indigenous population was here first and was
disposessed - but America the nation state was clearly built predominantly on European settlement)
There used to be an effective form of identity politics - based on working class common interest
- that brought a high standard of living to most people (even the oppressed Black minority). It
is the splitting of that identity that has allowed the neoliberals to sideline class as a divider
of common interest.
regarding (1): not sure it is feasible and I don't think we should do it if it is. The market
is a weird animal imho. Both the hedgers and the speculators can drive a market share price up
or down and contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe the speculators are to blame when a company
does well. A lot of people got financially devastated because they had holdings in Enron. I wouldn't
want to punish those investors even further because they invested in a bad company.
regarding (2): I agree. The concept of globalism is a good concept. However the way it is being
implemented isn't.
regarding (3): Again I agree. Most of the regular posters who agree with the media nonsense
don't post on articles like this one because a paid troll sticks out like a sore thumb on articles
like this.
By these measures you could say America has been an oligarchy from its very conception. Look
at the robber-barons of the 19th c. There are occasional "raisings of the veil" such as new deal
or great society when the general public gets a fair go. The industrial boom of ww2 is what gave
the working class a shot at living a decent life - and of course offshoring industry is precisely
closing that door again.
I am not an expert on Greek history but wouldn't the example of Alcibiades suggest that when an
oligarchy falls-- due to war and plague in the case of Athens -- dangerous demagogues who break
away from the same oligarchy ride the "democratic" wave and cause even more misery like the idiotic
invasion of Sicily? Weren't the democratic people-- the landless poor of Athens-- more inclined
to war at that point than the oligarchs? In some sense aren't we seeing what happens when a member
of the oligarchy breaks away in present day U.S-- Trump rode a populist wave that was very democratic
and people powered-- and where has that got us? Sometimes true democracy can be a messy and frightening
affair.
I offer no defense of oligarchies, but the older I get, the more I wonder whether democracy
of the people, by the people, is really for ALL the people.
Take Brexit, Trump, or for a more remote example, the Fascist inspired Hindu right wingers
in India. All of them are in many ways a truer representation of the voice of the people, but
that voice is so ugly, so exclusionary, so narrow, that one might be forgiven to want the sedate
stability of an oligarchy back.
I'm afraid I have to agree. When thinking on these issues, I have a recurring mental image, it's
the crowd scene at Brian's window, in the greatest cinematic example of satire, Life of Brian.
Brian -"You are all individuals. You are all different! "
The crowd -"YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS! WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT! "
......ahhh, reclining in the facetious lounge; unfortunately, this amusement left us with a candidate
ignoring the masses of the American population opening the door for Trump.
Tens of millions of Americans waited patiently for a Dem candidate to talk about our stacked
decks, D.C. swamps, and broken systems -- instead, they gave us a Hillary coronation and expected
us to embrace the pantsuit.
Meanwhile, tens of millions then voted for Trump, knowing point-blank he was lying; they happily
voluntarily deceive themselves (current/active); how sad is this reality ?
As someone already said, instead of treating poor people unequally well, why not treat rich people
the same as everyone else- don't let them hide their money from the taxman, don't give the rich
unfair breaks and handouts
Do you think that is going to inspire Americans to get out and vote?
When the choice for the most powerful office in the world comes down to a choice between Donald
J Trump and Hillary R Clinton (who were friends before the election started), I tend to think
that our problem is not due to voter apathy, but rather voter apathy is due to our problem.
Those who still participate, still think this is all about the left vs the right because they
think they still have a choice. They do. they get to choose between neoliberalism and fascism.
After university econ training, and a long business career, I now consider education a terrible
thing. Knowing what I know now about how our systems really work, when I observe our Congressional
leaders looking into the camera with point-blank lies day in and day out, I feel they deserve
execution; literally, I am feeling like heads should roll.
Our systems have been hijacked,
and the interests of the masses of our populations are being completely ignored--what should be
the penalty for selling out, via acute sophisticated engineering, the population of an entire
nation ?
I dont think its a belief in 2 parties but a belief in a type of fixed yin and yang that drives
this
Opposites like Good v Evil , the Unknown Others (like Foreigners) v the known (your Family
/Friends ) etc . We see things as Either/Or because it is the simplest way of making sense of
our world. But the world is far more complex and nuanced than this and there are degrees of rightness
and wrongness and we as you say take on board the whole rigid structure of one side or the other
-- it plays right into the oligarchs hands
Your instant dismissal of zaarth's point of view is the essential problem of modern democracy
- casual demeaning and disregarding attitude from the ruling elites towards an informed citizen
expressing concerns of inequality and systemic concentration of political power to the oligarchs.
Typical.
There maybe no political will to address these issues, but there sure as hell is plenty of
social will! As for your last sentence "- So redistributionist policies have no future. ", well,
considering that we've had 40years of global wealth being redistributed to the 1%, it's about
time it was spread around a bit more equitably, don't you think?
In America, oligarchs win when Dems are center right (in practice, not rhetoric) and are sold
out to the oligarchs. Case in point, HC. There is no counterbalance to those who are even further
to the right. Oligarchs win without a legit 3rd party.
A article. A case in point - Iceland, where the elite owns the fishing fleet and controls the
financial industry, whereas the majority of the population barely scrape by. People are furious
but how do you overturn centuries of oligarch 'rule and law'?
Disagree. "Why" is always a question. If you don't know and understand "why," the original intent
of a law, you can't interpret and apply it properly. As a result, it gets perverted to the point
that it does no longer make sense. We have plenty of examples in the US.
Without why you can't adapt to the changing environment either.
Do you know how small the odds are to get a large group of people to rally (or vote) around a
cause? This is why grassroots have a low success rate. The founding fathers certainly knew how
small the odds are and gave the people a bone they naively believed to be useful and powerful;
the right to vote. It is one of the biggest cons played on the people and has managed to keep
the natives quiet and complacent, while the elite and powerful do their bidding.
To get back to the argument about the oligarchs buying collaborators, everybody who keeps their
mouth shut to keep their job falls into that category. So that's the majority in work.
That's why i want to go after the politicians and bypass their evil, selfish, stupid pawns they
are encouraging right now.
Start demanding some laws for them to follow that has some teeth when they lie to us.
They want to sanction Russia who was just repeating what republican/tea party had been saying.
"A loophole in American tax law permits companies with just 20 percent foreign ownership to reincorporate
abroad, which means that if a big U.S. firm acquires a smaller company located in a tax haven,
it can then "invert" – that is, become a subsidiary of its foreign-based affiliate – and kiss
a huge share of its IRS obligations goodbye.........Over the next decade, corporate inversions
could cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $20 billion" Rolling Stone
*******
They made this legal, folks, and it's just the tip of the iceburg. Meanwhile, not a peep (cricket,
cricket, cricket.....)
Corporate lobbyists have so much more wealth than the incomes of individual politicians, that
is their political salary, that they are all bought not so much with brown envelopes but with
jobs like Osborne's, a day's work a month for Blackrock for which he is paid £650k a year. It's
so obviously not a payment for what will be done as for what has been done.
Thought provoking and excellent comments that should be read before opining. As for my opinion,
it seems that communism was left out when it might just be the answer to a conundrum that seems
unresolvable. Uniformity of wealth within reason (the rule of seven times) can be achieved and
sustained. But that requires education which again, can be achieved and sustained. That is, if
we don't blow ourselves to smithereens before we achieve such a heightened state which after all
should be a...normal?!
Obama and the Dems lost 1,000 elected positions before Trump came along. It's because he sold
out to the big banks. We don't need two Wall St. parties. Until the Dems learn to respect
their voters and do things like support single payer, this is all we get.
The primary institution that drives oligarchy in the US is the "two party system". It is not enshrined
in the Constitution. It is purely the working of the political class. The people need to quit
believing that there can only be two parties.
The spin and brainwash are now far, far more powerful than the 1960's.
How else do you explain tens of millions of formerly hardworking middle class, now on the outside
looking in (with their adult children), continuing to wave the flag, with a large smile on their
faces, all the way to the poorhouse day in and day out--and not even a peep?
Honestly though, it becomes more undemocratic when people rag on it sy as you have done above.
Do you think that is going to inspire Americans to get out and vote? What you don't understand,
or maybe you do too well, is that the biggest threat to democracy in the US is apathy. When you
present it as such a situation that there is no reprieve, then why should they vote?
As the article points out the oligarchs use selected messaging, which includes anti-left propaganda
and misinformation. So the result is that any political movement that is left of centre (and the
centre has shifted quite a lot to the right in the last few decades) is made to seem like hard-core
socialism or even communism.
When you look at the policies from Bernie Sanders in the USA and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and
see how they've been attacked by the right-wing media, but when you put them into the perspective
of the policies of the 60' and 70's they aren't even particularly left-wing. Most would have been
described as centrist policies.
The oligarchs have succeeded in moving the goal posts to the right and made centrist policies
seem dangerously left-wing.
Modern oligarchs owe their political and economic power to a variety of structures and systems,
such as:
(1) The limited-liability, shareholder-controlled corporation, designed to maximize profits for
the shareholders while protecting them from the consequences of their actions (why can't one sue
the shareholders of ExxonMobil for the actions of the company that they control?)
(2) The global neoliberal 'free-trade' unlimited-capital-flow system, which allows oligarchs
to pit nation-states and workers against one another in a race to the bottom for the lowest wages
and pollution and safety standards - a system promoted by both Democratic and Republican parties
in the United States, which has boosted profits for oligarchs and destroyed the middle class.
(3) The monopolistic tightly-controlled corporate media system, which promotes the interests
of the oligarchs who own and control it, setting the narrative played out across television, radio,
print media and much of the Internet to the overall population in a remarkably coordinated fashion
- such that most 'media' serves to distract or deceive the public, rather than to inform.
There are no doubt others - such as tax codes that allow the rich to accumulate vast wealth,
while stripping wealth from poor people and the middle class - but those are among the most important
factors.
Small D Democrats. Not big D Democrats. The Clintons are clearly in the oligarch class, much
like Trump. It is rather hilarious to hear Trump supporters talk about how he cares for the poor.
Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution.
As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy
to bring government back to the people.
In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With
all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which
the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.
It always takes a revolution/ protest from the people to throw out the political corruption
and then the rich just start again.
Until we get some laws that they have to follow and serious jail time when they do not, we will
not have decent people to choose from. The reason we have such crappy choices is this is the only
job in the world where you can lie and cheat to your boss (us) and face no serious consequences.
It's difficult to see how Ancient Greece fits into either of those narratives if Aristotle's conclusions
from his contemporary, careful, empirical (yes, really) investigations of the whole range of political
variants present in Ancient Greece entered into their analyses. For a start, even in political
units as small as a city-state, he rates democracy as a degenerate form of government (albeit
the best of all three degenerate forms) that naturally tends towards oligarchy (another degenerate
form), though – give or take some refinement of concepts involved – a proper mix of both results
in the best form of "rule by the many", namely "polity", in an over-all ranking of forms of government
by good or "correctness" that is topped by monarchy and tailed by tyranny.
Getting in to all this while not falling victim to the modern trigger word syndrome requires
significantly greater subtlety of thought than seems to be deployed by either of the authors under
consideration, though how much of their analyses has slipped by the author of this piece is unknowable
on the basis of the evidence here available. Have any of the trio even considered a Ancient Ryanair
trip to Ancient Greece for a third millennium looksee?
The oligarchs best work is done through divide and conquer and should they ultimately be truly
threatened then they will prevail through an order out of chaos of their own creation. Most issues
you mention like the widening gap between the rich and poor, climate change.. yada yada are engineered
to fracture society to make us all easier to control. Oh and they love to stamp their handy work
so keep an "eye" out for them !
" Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political
equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality
. "
Hog wash! They know where the money is and they want it transferred into their pockets. And
if some of that money trickles down to the less fortunate, they surely will take credit for it.
The Clintons didn't become multi-millionaires by concentrating on inequality.
I suspect the article's Author, when he said "democrats" (notice lower case) was not referring
to the political party the Democrats (upper case). He meant any who advocate for an increase in
democracy. This presumably overlaps with the Democratic Party, but by no means is congruent to
it.
They are the ones that always have a smile on their faces and constantly give to charities from
the monies they exploited from the ignorant masses. Then in retaliation, the masses put them on
pedestals. It's a very simply routine. Wash, rinse and repeat.
Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political
equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality.
The Dem voters do not overlook that. To be fair the Dem politicians do look at economic policy.
Affordable health care using the rich taxes, environment, clean drinking water and making CO responsible.
Just look at what trump tea/party are dismantling. Dems are also for increasing min wage. They
should do better, but they are not as worthless as republicans. The republicans work for the rich
not us.
I find it strange that you never called out the republicans actions, just the Dems. The republicans
are the ones putting in the policies/laws that are cementing the riches power and making our lives
worse.
A very deep and timely article given that oligarchies threaten the very survival of our world.
Think the widening gap between the rich and poor, climate change, environmental degradation, war
and the mass movements of people fleeing all of the above.
Even with democracy and compulsory ballots in Australia voters still believe their best interests
lie with the representatives of the oligarchs, the banks, financial services and transnational
corporations.
Demonstrably not the case when one looks at successful periods of progressive policies such Butkers
Education act. The idea that the fruits of life are distributed according to talent & effort is
a grim joke that can be dismissed out of hand.
Social privilege repeats itself & counteracting that is a moral duty. As is exposing the myths
that justify it.
You haven't got a clue. have you. I've spent years recruiting people into unions in small unorganised
workplaces, where employers do their best to victimise anyone who tries to form a union. Many
people are either afraid of joining a union - or they have no idea what unions do, except for
the rubbish printed about in the anti-union papers (viz. most of them). I'm happy to say that,
in the end, we succeed in enabling workers to get together in many workplaces to defend and improve
their lot at work. I live in a traditional working class area, near many unionised and non-unionised
workplaces. Whate about you? How many ordinary workers have you ever discussed these matters with?
How many trades unionists?
Read the "Iron Heel" by Jack London" for a description of an extreme oligarchy set in the USA
of the early twentieth century. The book is a narrative by the wife and partner of the main male
character Ernest Everhard (interesting name I know). Some of Everhard's descriptions of what London
saw as consolidation of the American oligarchs are succinct and chilling. If you haven't read
it then it really demonstrates in a fictional sense how long the concept of modern oligarchies
have been around: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1164
"It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live
in a democracy."
They don't come by it naturally. Their delusion is pushed along by very well oiled propaganda
machines, probably mostly financed by the taxpayers themselves.
Our political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by
wealthy elites, we can just vote them out.
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live in a
democracy. The US executive, arguable the most powerful collection of people in the world, is
substantially un-elected. Only the President stands for election and he's not elected by the people
but by an undemocratic electoral college; Hilary Clinton received the most votes and lost the
election.
The rest of the Executive aren't elected, they're appointed and you can't "just vote them out".
Then there's Congress where electorates are so gerrymandered that in the vast majority of cases
the results are foregone conclusions; national elections are decided in a few "swinging" seats.
Congress is also corrupted by the dependence of the system on massive donations, by lobbyists,
and vested interests.
Of the world's democracies, the Unites States must be one of the least democratic.
And the Oscar goes to America, land of the free and milk and honey; created, propagandized and
brought to you by the Hollywood tv and film industry for the last 100 years.
I recently read an essay where the American political system is likened to a rodeo. The bull is
the voting public being ridden by the oligarchs. If the oligarch falls off the bull the bull is
distracted by the rodeo clown (the president) until he can get back on the bull.
Who are our oligarchs and who do they finance, lobby, influence and control in Canberra?
The law. The fucking law is mainly for the very wealthy or influential, not for grafters like
me.
Still, all in all, in Oz we have a labor party that gave us decent wages, Medicare and super.I
think our oligarchs are greedy bastards but not as severe as the American, Russian or Arab oligarchs.
The French knew how to deal with theirs in the 18th century and a couple of ours could do with
that treatment.
As Socrates was forever doing...if we do not define our terms, we quickly end up in the weeds.
Britain is King in Parliament (badly corrupted under Victoria!) and America is a Plutocratic Republic!...No
Democracy intended...or delivered...but much mythologized none the less!
The American people cannot vote out the oligarchs because they make the rules of the game and
the electorate must comply. The author seems to suppose there is a democracy operating on this
planet when the nearest we have approached that ideal is the supposedly representative democracies
of numerous countries.
One of the features that reinforce the oligarchy in power in USA is the agenda of the nine
Supreme Court judges who approved 'Citizens United' and assured the oligarchs that the man with
the money would call the shots.
Another important point that does not surface in this article is the 600BC institution, jointly
with democracy, of theatre. That allowed playwrights to present the naive electorate with plays
enacting the hard choices that citizens would have to make now they were responsible for their
own government. There is a group of greats scholars on the BBC's 2014 series "Guilty Pleasures"
who discuss and approve this point.
On balance over thousands of years some rich bastards made some good decisions? How scientific
of you. Not so much a logical argument as a watery fart.
Please Guardian, don't close this comments section too soon.
This topic truly goes to the heart of why so much of humanity's failings of governance and stewardship
of the Earth is so malevolent.
The quality of the responses highlight that many readers recognize that this is THE issue that
underlies so many of our existing problems.
" Ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united.
"
Nothing couldn't be more relevant then the Guardian running Hillary Clinton articles. Saw at
least 3 on the front page right now. Let's keep the elite neoliberals in power.
There are democracies and "democracies". India has a ruling class that rules for its class, so
not really that democratic. India isn't USA, USA isn't Australia, Australian isn't Germany, Germany
isn't the Netherlands. That's roughly the scale.
One of the interesting conceits of American culture is the way that the mega rich envision themselves
as simply middle class...one sees it all the time.
The short answer is that the politically aware Oligarchs know very well who they are....and the
wannabes know who they are as well!
My favourite is still one of the Koch brothers saying that he had no problem with Oligarchy...so
long as he got the government that he paid for! Beautiful!!
More than oligarchs I see alliances built on niche interests, or interests that are particular
to a group of people. these special interests are wedge issues for that group, kind of like taking
a knee and how that affects the NFL and ripples through the whole culture. Too many niche interests
are being pushed forward, and that's why there's no consensus or very little. That's why there
is gridlock and stasis. we shouldn't be pursuing niche interest anymore. we need larger consensus
agreements, things we can agree on in society as a whole, and we got to keep talking until we
find that agreement. that's how I see it
A hundred years ago, as the West industrialized, oligarchs wielded power via the employment relationship.
Beginning a generation ago with the transfer of manufacturing to China, the instrument of power
shifted to media. Murdoch was one of the first to exploit this. And now we have Trump.
Agree totally. Redistribution of wealth to keep a few from controlling everything is what we need.
And this does have a future as moving to the left is the way for the US to go. The right has shown
for at least the past 40 years to offer nothing.
My guess is that oligarchs don't even think they are oligarchs. They probably think they are actually
part of a meritocracy, having conflated the rigged political system with what they believe to
be their superior abilities
The comments in this thread mostly seem to be by whinging old style Labour supporters, who can
no longer hide the contempt that they have for ordinary people - your "apathetic proles".
Oh rubbish. People choose whether to join a union. It takes closed shop contracts to enforce union
membership, and the fact that unions seldom form in right to work states prove that when given
a choice most workers don't want to join a union.
Nonsense. The American government was elected by the voters. Local and state government to draw
the voting districts for US house races were elected by the voters. US Senate governor and presidential
races cannot be gerrymandered. And Hillary Clinton WAY outspent Donald Trump.
Progressives need to stop whining and complaining about the Koch brothers and start putting
together a slate of candidates and ideas that ordinary Americans want to vote for.
Looted and raised off the back of slaves but in the process laying the foundation of western civilisation.
My point isn't that it's fair or right or good. My point is that the concentration of power
and wealth in a small group of individuals often leads to incredible development that betters
all of humanity down the line.
Who cares what you support? There is no political will for such a thing and the general direction
of democratically elected governments is toward the right not the left. So redistributionist policies
have no future.
Money IS speech. Surely if the founding fathers intended to protect any particular kind of speech,
it must have been political speech. So if I want to use my money to promote a particular policy
or political candidate then any attempt by the government to prevent that is obviously and clearly
a violation of my right to political speech.
One of the best articles I've read here. It's about time an article like this finally gets a hearing.
I mostly read these kind of arguments and perspectives from the comments section. So well done.
Well, given what I said above, one might expect me to agree, but I wouldn't: New Labour nevertheless
did an enormous amound of good: A fairer britain, enormously improved public services, the business
sector properly regulated. taxation improved.
The problem was Blair. The background was Labour, which kept on beavering away with Labour
principles: "society first" in a word.
New Labour achieved a huge amount. A shame abour Blair. If John Smith hadn't dropped dead,
it might be different. With emphasis on "might" - at least Smith, although also restructuring
Labour towards the centre, wasn't so bent on reneging Labour core values.
Luckily the Labour party reneged little: Labour endures :)
Very interesting. While it currently appears impossible to win back democracy there might be some
hope. I sense that things might change soon. The debacle of the current electricity market in
Australia and lack of action to mitigate climate change can be seen in the light of the Oligarchy's
fear of losing their wealth base, which could end up in a rise of democracy.'
In Athens, enslavement for debt had been a fundamental law from the time of Draco in the 39th
Olympiad in the 7th Century BC. However, in the sixth century BC, the lawgiver Solon ordained
a radical new constitution: by cancelling all debts both public and private, he "liberated the
people once and for all" thus paving the way for all citizens to be admitted into the Assembly:
Aristotle, "The Athenian Constitution", Parts 6 and 43 (although the Athenian form of direct democracy
was a limited concept by modern standards - to become a citizen one had to be an adult male, born
of citizen parents).
Most people in the U.S. conflate democracy with capitalism; there's no comprehension of separateness
of political and economic "systems". The prevailing idea is that "America is a nation of business"
and in the 19th Century the Supreme Court declared corporations to be individual persons and most
recently confirmed that "money is speech". So, the people who have the ability to vote out the
oligarchy don't even know what one is, or why it's bad for them. Thus a lying, cheating, greedy
"Billionaire" is seen by the middle and lower classes, or as I'm sure Trump refers to them behind
closed doors, "my marks", as their savior. I personally wonder, as the Trump Administration works
tirelessly to grind its base into the dirt, just how much longer this level of stupidity will
persist.
The process of branding and advertising, a century old, places unmerited trust in non-human entities,
corporations and institutions. Humans are slick and untrustworthy. We assume that Police Departments
are always kind. If harm occurs, is it a rotten cop or rotten citizen? Pick one. Ask a disloyal
NFL player. They hate the troops, peace, freedom and justice, right?
The modern oligarchy is to hide behind labels and brands. God so loved the world that he founded
a privately-held nonprofit with tax advantages ...whatnow? Exxon owns your axxons, folks.
People always die, the default position of humanity is grinding poverty.
What we should be looking at is why come civilisations escaped that. A modern Britain is less
likely to die of poverty today than at any other time in history.
The concentration of wealth in small groups of individuals often provides the impetus for development.
To much concentration of wealth means you end up with exploitation of the plebs the flip side
leaves you with economic stagnation.
The key as in most things is getting the balance right.
Do a bit of reading. I would suggest Nancy MacLean's "Democracy in Chains" for a start. It has
a direct line to the big-money influence of the Koch family over the U.S. government. There are
many others, of course.
ehmm well... thats something that must start within the family and the community, if family fails
theres the community if community fails thats window open to attack. Even so I have been knew
fellows and sisters that even in the must adverse circumstances manage to make themselves educated
and with a good criteria vice versa with fellows from a good environment turn to be as... so is
a matter of choose as well. The problem with that is that this are the times of internet instant
gratification which create the perfect scenario to create a bunch of idiotics egocentric lunatics
with not will nor performance at all just slaves to machines. So ehmmm we need some kind of a
bomb which disables some of the technology, not all, just for a while and try to get some to nromal
"Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratía literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is
a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives
from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred
to as "rule of the majority".
Having this definition in mind I do find rather bizarre that everyone
insists on calling such a system a "democracy" when it is a fact that women and slaves where not
allowed to vote.
Nowadays is getting somehow worse, because manipulation and agnotology have upset everything.
The systems control perfectly everything and this charade are done by a power in the shadow, and
although most people ignore it, this Power is theocratic.
The fact that repeating a lie constantly does not make it an axiom ...
1984 is my `favourite` book, the subtext is that there is in fact no hope from the proles, as
Winston Smith comes to see. They are apathetic & any who might rouse them, are liquidated. They
have the power to overthrow the party, but are mostly just ignored by it, & so just get on with
their lives. The lesson is that power, without the will to use it, is meaningless: still true
as it happens.
Francis Galton was a founder of the science of statistics and a bit of a snob.
Galton was a keen observer. In 1906, visiting a livestock fair, he stumbled upon an intriguing
contest. An ox was on display, and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after
it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 participated, and Galton was able to study their individual
entries after the event.
Galton stated that "the middlemost estimate expresses the vox populi, every other estimate
being condemned as too low or too high by a majority of the voters",[45] and reported this value
(the median, in terminology he himself had introduced, but chose not to use on this occasion)
as 1,207 pounds. To his surprise, this was within 0.8% of the weight measured by the judges. Soon
afterwards, in response to an enquiry, he reported[46] the mean of the guesses as 1,197 pounds,
but did not comment on its improved accuracy. Recent archival research[47] has found some slips
in transmitting Galton's calculations to the original article in Nature: the median was actually
1,208 pounds, and the dressed weight of the ox 1,197 pounds, so the mean estimate had zero error.
James Surowiecki[48] uses this weight-judging competition as his opening example: had he known
the true result, his conclusion on the wisdom of the crowd would no doubt have been more strongly
expressed.
He thought the judges local yokels and was expecting to laugh instead he found that irrespective
of perceived intelligence the mean of the wisdom of the crowd ( the 800 entering the competition
for a prize) was surprisingly accurate.
US media hasn't been "leftist" ever. In the 1930s and a few other periods it's had significant
minorities that were liberal or leftish, but otherwise, it's mostly right-of-center imperial support
mechanism media; now and increasingly, it's extreme right wing (Fox, Murdoch (WSJ, National Geographic,
etc.) Clear Channel and Sinclair dominating TV and radio with more than 1000 stations. Reporters
are sometimes left-leaning but that has little or nothing to do with what's published. Hollywood
tends to be liberal on social issues but rarely moves off the imperial support wagon except for
occasional dips into history to communicate with platitudes. Any media that considers Obama and
Clinton anything but right of center corporate duopolists is way over on the right wing; that
includes everything 95% of people ever hear or see--all networks, cable, every daily newspaper...
The Guardian a little bit, Pacifica radio's 5 stations, Mother Jones and sort of The Nation, Common
Dreams and a few other sites, blogs etc.--that's the left in the US. Pitiful, especially considering
that a large majority of people in the US favor very liberal positions on almost all issues except
war, death penalty and imprisonment.
For me, things really took a decisive turn for the worst when Wilson was president. Before that,
the defacto government wasn't codified. According to this wikipedia article the was a "growing
concern" about the so called money trust.
In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than by
arms.
Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.'
With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy.
I don't know much about economics, but from what I think I know, one can speed up or slow down
the economy by increasing or decreasing the money supply respectively; and prior to Wilson's term,
the government had that power. However after Wilson's term that power moved into the private sector
because laws were passed. I see that as a huge problem and from what I can gather, so did Lindbergh:
I think the citizenry is being screwed by the oligarchy on both the left and the right, which
tend to merge into the same thing. Both are about power and control and have very little to do
with democracy or individual liberties. Neither the capitalists nor the socialists care much about
you. You are a means to an end. Both the right and the left seek to control speech and thought
through the media and through institutions. Both the right and left want a disempowered, compliant
population.
There's lots to think about there. Thanks for a good article, more on democracy please ! It strikes
me we're in a situation where we need to relearn what it is, exactly.
What struck me most was the oligarchy eroding symbols of democracy, and taking over the legal
system of government, and I'd add, taking over the management of government through privatisation
of government services: The civil service increasingly outsourced to the private sector, that
is, the oligarchy.
This is what "the small state" political project, currently centre stage in the UK and the
USA, is leading towards: governments run by the private sector.
And the response is always "it's cheaper and more efficient! And democracy is the representative
- who cares if government departments are shut down and their services delivered by the private
sector? It means less tax !"
And we end up with Network Rail, and the other scandals of privatised services in the UK, and
to Labour's undying shame, much of this was ushered in by New Labour.
I think you need to read the article. Trump fits every definition of an Oligarch, his actions
are exactly how Oligarchs survive, true he may not be the only one in the US.
Jessthecrip seems to have been supporting punishment of some kind for people whose actions demonstrably
cause actual, serious harm to real people. You seem to consider the actions which create such
actual harm (including many deaths) to be a 'political opinion'. I think that's where the difference
in attitude lies.
You Think, the people were well and truly lied to by rather rich and unscrupulous people who hope
to benefit from the chaos as this article makes clear this is the way that Oligarchy works by
manipulating and dividing the demos.
The problem is and always has been, life is not black or white, but gray. One man's fact
is another man's differing opinion.
True. However, a women has the right to abort a fetus. That is a fact. Now we can have an opinion
that she has the right to kill her own fetus, but that wouldn't be a fact because technically
we can't ascertain that the fetus is alive because it doesn't necessarily "stay" alive if we remove
it from the mother (at least not in the first trimester). Therefore legalized abortion isn't legalized
murder. However it is unconstitutional to take everybody's guns away. It really takes verbal gymnastics
to try to make the constitution say anything different, so the proponents for gun control swear
up and down that they aren't trying to take everybody's guns away. However when you ask what their
objective is, they say they want to stop people from killing each other with guns. Without that
measuring rod (the constitution), they don't take that tone. Instead they argue that people don't
need guns. The same can be said for speech. Hate speech imho does more damage than the right to
bear arms, but the 1st amendment gives those fools the right to behave the way the did in Charlottesville.
Those who tried to silence them walked on the 1st amendment, again in the name of the greater
good. As a black man, I'm not about to side with people who think we need to keep those statues
up. I know exactly what those statues represent. However again the constitution is there protecting
their right to voice an opinion to say what I vehemently oppose. I can disagree with them but
I don't have the constitutional right to silence them. When people want to force others not to
speak on college campuses, that isn't constitutional. It is authoritarian. Authoritarianism in
the name of the greater good. some don't have a problem with that kind of authoritarianism, but
when it comes from the orange one, that's authoritarianism that nobody needs because it's really
hard to find his "greater good". His sense of greater good generally seems to benefit some, while
marginalizing others. Personally I think his impeachment is now months overdue, but, as you say,
that is just my opinion. I think firing Comey was an authoritarian move. I think when a head of
state can neutralize his detractors, in theory we can't get rid of him for anything, because he
can simply fire any perceived threat to his power. The fact that he is still in power is an outrage
to me. But then again, I think it was an outrage that HRC was even running for president. They
dumped Gary Hart, because he was having an extramarital affair, but for some reason, HRC was able
to walk through "airport security" with all of her baggage. But, "no election rigging" from state
side. It was all done by the Russian oligarchs according to our wonderful media. However this
is a democracy because we had a choice between, "Lock her up" and "I cannot tell the truth"
This is why I support wealth redistribution through progressive taxation. It's not so much about
achieving "income equality" as it is about preventing power being concentrated in the hands of
a few. Extreme wealth is a public danger. Many would trample on our rights for their own profit,
convenience, or pleasure, and most politicians are all too eager to let the super wealthy buy
their place as public masters.
Yet you were complaining about regions wanting to separate before. The EU doesn't fund Spain's
regional parties by the way, as much as you'd like them to.
I accept that so much of what I see demands action. The world needs more helping hands and kindness.
You can believe in what ever you like, but actions make all the difference. Donate something
like canned food, or volunteer someplace and you can make a real difference in someones life (
more than any book or bible ever did ).
Not true, the standards are high enough, it is the fact that kids from disfunctional families
and poverty cannot reach them. So the teachers just pass them on to the next grade anyway.
You end up with poorly educated adults who 'know' education is useless according to their experience
raising children who continue the cycle.
The curriculum is demanding enough. They just don't demand anything relevant to people's lives.
As long as everything stays irrelevant they can continue rewarding the people who play by the
system's rules and punish those who find that stupid and frustrating.
Reich has a soul full of light and empathy. Once people are allowed to attain their basic needs,
the rest is mostly fluff. Nature provides every resource needed to sustain a wholesome existence...not
a cash register one to be found in the fields of plenty. Ancient greed has never been faced full-on
by humanity. The required efforts to shelter, feed and clothe ourselves are too often run over
roughshod due to the number one vice: Profits first and foremost, with the essentials for survival
marked for the highest bid; callously termed 'what the market will bear'.
Democracy? Not in many decades. We are under the total rule of organized business; which applies
to most developed nations. The virtues of sharing and goodwill would be one remedy to the basic
economic inequalities.
However, in our current bailout experiment (and, not a few economists are status quo baloney
feeders) the inertia is in a free wheeling philosophical advantage to the gods of the highest
profit. You'll never see any sympathy cards slated for modern economists. A simple evident reality
is that
our basic needs for survival are the same. Damned if we can manage to seriously address that fact
first and create systems which have a clear vision for the betterment and uplift of all.
It will not be long before the loud financial bubble pop sounds off again - it will be called
the inevitable market correction or due to aggressive over reach. Oligarchy will feign much needed
financial aid required. We deserve much better. I predict eventually a r e v o l t from those
who suffer the insanity of deprivation in a world of plenty. Certainly in the US our votes are
mean less and less with the likes of Citizens United. Corporations may be legal entities but they
are N O T citizens. All that exists, exists for all.
Yes much more rational to treat everyone "equally" like providing huge subsidies to, e.g. big
oil, big ag, and big pharma so they too can appear to be performing equally.
Unworldly middle-class theorists create revolutions but almost invariably cannot control them.
They tear up the rule-sheets, failing to understand that that loosens or destroys the restraints
on psychopaths of whatever background, who then proceed to hack their way to the top.
Thus Lenin facilitated Stalin; Sun Yat-sen ultimately resulted in Mao; Desmoulins and the Girondistes
were devoured by the Jacobins and their Reign of Terror.
"He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown."
Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution.
" unfortunately, democracy did not defeat oligarchy in ancient greece, except briefly in athens
and its dependencies. and the usa is no kind of democracy. voting for who will be your master
is not democracy, it is elective aristocracy. and that is the political arm of the economic oligarchy
called 'capitalism.'
Who, exactly, doesn't think of "the realms of politics and economics as fused together"?
It's been the basic assumption of UK politics from 1997 until 2015 (at least) that there is
only one "common sense" economic model that works, and that is an extreme market-oriented form
of neo-liberalism.
Most of the electorate in this country still buy into neo-liberalism's deceitful platitudes
as if the argument was over 40 years ago and democracy consists of choosing a few people to manage
it every five years.
Oligarchs in the US have, for 40 years, taken the power from the people. They have accomplished
it by destroying the labor unions and any hint of a labor movement. They have taken control of
the media by buying it ( 80 or so owners of MSM to 5 or 6 owners now), they control the narrative.
They control what we talk about. They control the politicians by "dark money". Outside money floods
strategic states to influence elections down to school board levels. Money is donated to universities
with conditions to control who is hired to run certain schools within the university ( the economics
school at FSU, for example). Economic policies and tax codes have funneled growth income to the
top 140 families in the US. Now we are witnessing the cumulative efforts of these oligarchs bear
fruit. Unions are meaningless, growth income flows to the wealth class, we talk about God, guns
and gays in every election cycle, efforts to do away with all social programs and rig the tax
codes so the middle class pays more and the wealthy pay less. I would say the Oligarchs are in
control and have won. They control the courts and all branches of government....what is left?
Can democracy survive now that they control the ballot box and the elections? And they certainly
can control enough minds to win an election...we witness that in 2016.
You suggest a determinism which is false. Brexit is a classic example where the political will
of the masses acts contrary to the immediate interests of domestic capital.
Someone else seems to have understood this some time ago. ..
"'If there is hope,' wrote Winston, 'it lies in the proles.' If there was hope, it MUST lie
in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population
of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown
from within'"
it does show when the government is exceeding it's authority
Except that when you look at how much power the constitution has given to the state in the
past three decades the answer to the question of whenever or not US is an oligarchy is should
be rather obvious....
Can't recommend Requiem For The American Dream highly enough, absolutely required viewing
for anyone wishing to understand the mockery of democracy under which we live.
Trouble is liberals on the one hand bang on about proletariat solidarity, yet on the other,
peddle identity politics and turn a blind eye at increasingly fragmented communities.
"The Jews, will not, replace us!" I'm so glad the "president" rebuked this blatant display
of identity politics in Charlottesville.
That is a semantic argument over whether or not his votes can be taken to represent his views.
It is still calling for punishment of political opponents because they disagree with the political
opinions of the poster.
Look, I'm not fan of the left way of things but to claim they are entirely to blame is willfully
ignorant of conservative and right wing failings. I can hardly expect either to see my point and
accept that they're the problem, the best I can do is pause now and then I know that I am the
problem as much as any and try to mind myself. If we all just took responsibility for ourselves
left and right and anything in between would matter far less.
Hi wes, hope you are doing well. Yes, the people DO have the power, but they either don't know
how or choose not to use it. Similar to Dorothy and her ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz; she
had the power all along, but didn't know it.
There is also the tendency of treating laws like dogma and the constitution like the bible.
I wouldn't call the constitution a bible, but it does show when the government is exceeding
it's authority. In times when some are actually concerned about whether or not the USA is a oligarchy,
we need some way to separate fact from opinion.
Spot on article. Lots of loopy comments. Personally I find the positions the Guardian takes to
be those that further the interests of our ruling elite.
Where are the discussions about Trust Law which is nothing more than a huge tax avoiding scheme
for the wealthy.
How about the control of the legal costs the high street solicitor can claim
when he wins for the average person against the badly behaved housing associations and landlords,
the insurers and employers. It has forced good solicitors out of these types of litigation. The
result is occurrences like Grenfell Tower. The Guradian always goes on about Legal Aid. Solicitors
don't need poverty rate legal aid. They need the corrupt, the greedy and incompetent to pay the
same rates per hour for the small man's lawyers when they lose as they pay for their own lawyers.
This funds all the work those small high street solicitors do in investigating cases that go nowhere,
and enables them to provide free advice.
Or take the continuous false fears propaganda of those who wish to ignore the Leave vote. The
majority voted for an end to cheap migrant labour driving down wages and living standards for
the working population, for an end to an economy dominated by financial services and house price
inflation.
Racially polarized voting does not constitute a "people." It echoes a much earlier time, when
there was a slave society on American land.
Roughly 1 in 4 active duty enlisted men and women in the US Army are black, compared with about
13.5% of the total population, hence 80%+ higher than their representation in the general population.
I think the people really do have the power. I think as long as we have the bill of rights,
the power is still ours to retain or relinquish. Just because the scotus doesn't strike down unconstitutional
laws like the patriot act, brady bill (gone at the moment but likely to come back), I don't think
it means that we have no power. It is just that well informed people such as yourself have a difficult
time informing those less informed because the media is engaged in a very effective endeavor to
keep them misinformed. As you correctly pointed out in another post, people will believe anything.
It is only those who really care enough to actually stop and think are what you are saying, only
those will be informed despite the efforts of the media to keep them in the dark. If you can get
enough people behind you, I think you could really change this. Me? I don't think the masses care
enough. I think they are good people. It is just that they can't think ahead enough to see the
crisis as it presents itself today. They don't feel the sense of urgency and as long as the media
continues this game of deception, they will be more worried about the local football team they
any existential threat until the media makes it out to be an existential threat.
Which brings to mind another question: who lobbies for the homeless veterans? The oligarchs
depend on the armed forces for their vast wealth and position, then discard them.
Conveniently forgotten in all this is the fact that most of history's most horrendous dictators
and political psychopaths came from the poor. Most, if not all, revolution political movements
come from the upper middle class...people who have enough money to be comfortable and afford luxuries,
but not enough that they are afraid of changing things to their financial and, possibly, social
detriment. The only people who really want to defend and protect the status quo are the wealthy,
for obvious reasons, and the poor, who do not want to change the system--which is all they know
and perhaps all they understand--but only change their position in it. I meet a lot of people
who are wealthy and well-educated--these
attributes are not necessarily reflective of each other--and a great many people who are poor.
Trust me, you definitely do not want the latter group running things. "Street smarts" are great...on
the street.
Enlightening! The judiciary is the bastion of oligarchy and the media, for the most part, confuses
and divides public opinion to ensure all remains under control -- of the oligarchs.
The taxation curve is a very low order matter. The primary question is the difficulty of the first
level, of getting a job where you feel you are making a valuable contribution, either because
of the remuneration or because of the job satisfaction. We don't need the numbers in the masters
accounts to achieve this, we can make our own numbers and give them to people who are willing
to make a worthwhile contribution. Even if the masters slander them as "unworthy". Even if they
are not really our sort of people.
The main use of taxation is to prevent masters from hiring their own private armies or worse
still the national army.
Excuse me? Who, exactly, doesn't think of "the realms of politics and economics as fused together"?
Anybody under the age of about 16, from what I can see. What a dumb statement. Interesting
subject here, though.
Aristotle went further. Those with money Pay to participate and the money is used to pay those
that are too poor and otherwise would not participate. Now the question is how much needs to be
paid? The Duke of Westminster and the like should probably cough up a good whack so that the homeless
and families at the food bank can be paid to participate.
The United States of America is an oligarchy as shown in 2008 when the banks through their control
of the Federal Reserve and numerous politicians stole billions from the public purse. Then, Obama's
consistent failure to deal with the criminal acts of JP Morgan and other banks shows who is in
running that country. C
Which of course is why the political mainstream has imploded and Trump was elected. If you
know that the criminals in charge vote for the man they detest most even if he is an utterly preposterous
showboating unprincipled liar.
And Trump being the worst type of oligarch may create 'oligarchic breakdown' and bring the
whole corrupt shitheap called US democracy crashing down.
Brexit has split the oligarch's poodles in the U.K. Ie. Blairites & Osborne v Gove / Johnson
/ Tory head bangers and may consign the Conservative party to oblivion. This may lead to a genuinely
left wing government that represents the many and not the few.
One of the questions is why? The other is that even if it is in the constitution, does it mean
it can never be changed? If the reality on the ground and social threats have changed over the
last 200 years, so should the laws that protect us from those threats.
Maybe, but remember that currently even a university education in economics leaves people thinking
that taxes and borrowings "fund" government spending and that banks " lend on" deposits according
to the "money multiplier".
Donald Trump is the oligarchy. His disruption at the feeding trough comes from his greed:
instead of understanding that oligarchs maintain stability by sharing, he remains primarily concerned
with distributing privileges to his closest circle.
Trump is not a radical anti-oligarch. He's just a simpleton oligarch who doesn't understand
the rules.
In response to the well-researched truth of this politically significant article, the propaganda
reversal machine is in full force by the comments of upended sanity-and- unreality reverence toward
the existentially ridiculous, dangerous and deceptive kleptocratic regime of 45; see, e.g., the
comment of whatever or whoever is called in print "Light_and_Liberty."
Maybe I'm just noting the comnent activity of bots. Anybody who is a real person and would
want to know the truth about 45's vile regime needs only to read every political article of the
Guardian UK US edition today.
Democracy was not the norm the city states of ancient Hellas, but just one among a number of political
systems. Whilst Athens had democracy in that all male citizens could vote and take part in the
governing of the city (from the introduction of the system by Cleisthenes in 507 BC, and lasting
for around 200 years), Sparta, for example, never had any form of democracy but two hereditary
kings supported by a council of elders and the ephors. This system served the Spartans well because
they were constantly on a war footing and their kings led their armies (hence the need for two
kings, in case one was killed in battle, as happened with Leonidas).
Some city states had τύραννοι , or "tyrants", though it did not have its modern connotations of
oppression and cruelty. It merely meant an absolute ruler, good or bad.
In ancient Athens, a citizen who chose not to vote was called an ιδιώτης, which gives us our modern
word "idiot".
The ancient Greeks were innovators in politics (also. of course, a Greek word) - as in almost
every other sphere of life - and would not have attached the modern value terms to them that we
do today. They were the greatest experimenters in history and the debt we owe to them in the modern
world is incalculable.
"the word that is no where mentioned in the Constitution is one big hoax and the perpetuation
of the same," 'One nation under God' was not mentioned either.. but nothing is static and things
tend to evolve or devolve..
There has been lot of chit chat about a 'Democratic Republic' in the 30+ yrs Ive resided in the
USA... Seems to me that a more accurate description would be "Empire" given the big enforcement
stick in over 5,000+ locations across the Globe added to the huge production of military weaponry
that is sold to various despots every year. An Empire which, like all those before it, cannot
sustain indefinitely.
You know the masters are happy reading this sort of divisive posting. So the jocks hate the nerds,
get over it. The jocks are the one's suffering the main burden of unemployment.
You got it totally backwards: can oligarchy survive in the face of democracy unchained.
The election of Donald Trump was a middle finger to the establishment ruling class (aka oligarchy)
and the results are self evident. We have a Federal Bureau of Investigation investigating a phony
dossier and calling it Russian Collusion. We have a special counsel looking for anything to indict
him with vis-a-vis that phony dossier so as to remove him from office. We have the Republican
party -- the president's own party -- intentionally doing nothing to forward the agenda of the
people. We have embedded federal employees who are undermining the president's agenda. We have
the media and Hollywood in full propaganda mode. We have Democrats aiding and abetting rioters
and protesters and call it 'The Resistance'.
So, yes, it is interesting to see what happens when Democracy takes on Oligarchy and Oligarchy
cannot accept the people's effrontery in voting for their own interests.
The taxation shenanigans only work as long as long as the economy is a zero sum or worse game.
That is when austerity and targeted spending on "job creation" in the private sector means that
money creation only happens for the wealthy. The first step in not taxing the stagnant wealth
pools, but rather getting the fresh water of government spending heading onto the dried plains
of the working class.
Remember the masters feel far more threatened that we do, they have never experienced an honest,
respectful human relationship in there lives and have no sense of self reliance what so ever.
Threatening taxation as a first step to reform, is certain to get maximum response even from the
"liberal" majority of the masters.
Good article in the causes - thanks for your work - but whilst the suggestion of "creating a more
economically equal society" is obviously desirable, it's not exactly a practical recommendation
against the context of the rest of the article.
Herein lies the key: "...they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system
that gives them undue influence over policy."
So we need to specifically advocate for curtailing corporate funding of political parties,
Super PACs, etc. and have election (& referendum) campaigns financed from public funds and heavily
regulated private citizen donations. If you can't vote, you can't contribute. This would remove
a massive barrier to widespread reform in the shape of lobbyists and political patronage whilst
ensuring that elected leaders are unshackled, with the freedom to govern based on evidence-based
policy and long-term planning rather than just rewarding the corporate elite who put them there.
The book brackets a discussion of Sparta, which was an atypical oligarchy (although it regularly
supported more conventional oligarchies militarily). The focus of the book is not on the Athenian
oligarchies of the later fifth century, but on oligarchic rule as practiced in the wider Greek
world (e.g. Corinth, the Boeotian koinon, Thasos, Chios, Ephesus). These regimes did not follow
Sparta's austerity model, but neither did the Athenian oligarchies of 411 and 404. Kolkhis above
is correct on Sparta that while there was a mirage of austerity around Sparta, over the course
of the fifth and fourth centuries it gradually developed into a more conventional oligarchy of
extreme wealth stratification. One need only turn to the reforms of Agis and Cleomenes in the
third century to see how unequal it had become. Stephen Hodkinson has done excellent work on wealth
inequality within Sparta.
"Unity might come from personal relationships, trust, voting practices, or – as is more likely
in today's meritocratic era – homogeneity in culture and values from running in the same limited
circles." All of these features of elite unity are under girded by shared economic interests vis-a-vis
the masses.
Not true, the standards are high enough, it is the fact that kids from disfunctional families
and poverty cannot reach them. So the teachers just pass them on to the next grade anyway. You
end up with poorly educated adults who 'know' education is useless according to their experience
raising children who continue the cycle.
Since ownership conventionally involves the direct enactment of control and choice upon things
(at least according to the ethicist Daniel Sperling), might it not be an idea to examine the conventions
upon which property law is built in the West, since property law often is held as a model for
all other types?
Sperling suggests that ownership is not absolute but instead is inferred out of a confluence
of 'interests' that surround an object - I'd like to think that a cultural shift towards the recognition
of the interests , rather than the ownerships , that guide policy-making could indeed
challenge an oligarchy that views law-making essentially as the defence of property.
Even with a ban on money - or as you say a literally iron currency, still land accumulated
into ever fewer hands. This particular link is short enough to quote in full.
Spartan women, like men, could own land privately. Ordinary coined money was deliberately
banned to try to discourage the accumulation of material goods, but the ownership of land remained
extremely important in Spartan society. More and more land came into the hands of women in later
Spartan history because the male population declined through losses in war, especially during
the Classical Age. Moreover, Spartan women with property enjoyed special status as a result of
the Spartan law forbidding the division of the portion of land originally allotted to a family.
This law meant that, in a family with more than one son, all the land went to the eldest son.
Fathers with multiple sons therefore needed to seek out brides for their younger sons who had
inherited land and property from their fathers because they had no brother surviving. Otherwise,
younger sons, inheriting no land from their own family, might fall into dire poverty.
You have neglected to point out how oligarchs manage to convince ordinary people that their best
interests coincide. In the recent NZ election, the National party, representing farmers and businesspeople,
used the prospect of a tax giveaway to convince people they would be better off under National.
It worked because of the number of people who look no further than their own immediate interests
when voting. Who's to blame for that?
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because we work for them and buy their stuff. Then
someone remembers the other uses for pitchforks and torches....
The current delay is because
nobody lives on the land except corporate farmers, so the masses no longer have territory to defend
except in Faecesbook.
"while he recognizes that ancient oligarchies were always drawn from the wealthy, a limitation
of his work is that he focuses primarily on how oligarchs perpetuated their political power, not
their economic power."
I'm intrigued about how this might apply to Sparta which had legal limitations on wealth, an
iron currency and a tightly knit ruling class which eschewed wealth in pursuit of solidarity and
military discipline.
This article, which shows no interest in the historical specifics, fair enough seems to be
thinking of the oligarchic counter-currents within Athenian democracy eg the coup of 411, Plato's
Republic etc - both of which incidentally were influenced by admiration for Sparta's austere Lycurgan
constitution which banned wealth. After all, if you have democracy you give stupid people a vote
and this lead if you do not have checks and balances against cynical populists to terrible decisions
like the Sicilian Expedition, the executions in the wake of Arginusae ... contributory factors
in the unnecessary defeat of 404.
"As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth." -- Aristotle, Politics
"With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy.
To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend
their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers
and citizens from corporate wrongdoing."
Although the neoliberal turn since the coming of the Reagan exacerbated the trend towards an
oligarchic concentration of political/economic power, the seeds were planted from the very beginning.
The Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Compromise in the US Constitution are both examples
of democratic procedures designed to ensure the preservation of concentration of political power
in the hands of economic oligarchs, and to act as barriers to the dispersal and democratization
of political power. We have already seen the effect of this constitutional design twice in the
new century in the disparity between the outcome of the Electoral College and the popular vote
in 2000 and 2016.
"Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient
Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.' Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse,
as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break
down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people."
The dangers of the ever-increasing extreme inequality can also be viewed from the perspective
of its impact on the stability of the social formation. A decrease in stability manifests itself
through an increase in the brittleness of the socioeconomic system and a decrease in its ability
to respond to unforeseen shocks in a versatile manner. Although fortunately the adverse impact
of extreme inequality is at present only affecting the majority of the population in the US, the
effects will also be felt by the oligarchs in the long run, unless they manage to build an earth
orbiting Elysium before the
arrival of the long run. The dangers of extreme inequality and the instability it can cause are
explored by various scholars including
Acemoglu and
Turchin . The latter
models social instability as a time-dependent variable, and tracks its evolution over time. In
the language of mathematics, this is known as a dynamical system approach. The particular variable
the evolution of which he tracks is what he calls the political stress indicator, which combines
the effects of three other variables (mass mobilization, elite mobilization, and state fiscal
distress) and their nonlinear interaction through time. The dynamical behavior of each of these
factors measures the stability of the overall socioeconomic system, and acts as a warning signal
when regions of criticality and instability are breached. The formation of oligarchic interests
maps into a subset of the variable "elite mobilization" in Turchin's model. According to his analysis
we are at present on the cusp of a critical socioeconomic instability. The increasing instability
of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness
of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably.
According to Bill Bonner, author of Bill Bonner's Daily Reckoning, the Deep State of unelected
insiders, government cronies, generals and their industrial allies, assorted lobbyists and back
scratchers are the force that runs the government. Elections are theater. And the current performance
is a tragic-comedy
The US is NOT a democracy. It is a Republic. Let's start from a correct premise. The opening of
this article is political dross. Am I wasting my time if I read further? Come on, Guardian.
When your colleague says the US is a democracy, you should tell him that is not correct. Point
out to him that the person who finishes second in the vote count of our citizens wins the presidency
and that 12% of our population controls 50% of the votes in the Senate. Gerrymandering allows
a minority of votes to control the House. There is nothing democratic about the Federal Government,
you need to get down to the state level to find democracy.
Time to get creative. We have become so predictable, the wealthy can keep way ahead of us.
Fanning the flames of our asinine CULTURE WARS on effing FACEBOOK, was all the Russians needed
to do to drive our presidential in their direction. The little boys who run global-tech-empires
were no match for the Russians. Even now, when Trump is running the planet via TWITTER, our little
tech-boys can't figure out how they lost control of their own creations.
Asymmetric power might be the key. Right now, the wealthy own a piece of every country and
everyone on earth. We have been reduced to the size of an ant and we need to start thinking, and
acting like ants. Instead of feeding our money to the wealthy, we need to starve them out.
Create disruption. Stop doing anything you normally do.
For example, order take-out anywhere you please, but refuse to go inside restaurant chains
of any kind - diners, fast-food joints or upscale joints anywhere. Enter locally owned businesses
only.
Stop putting your money in banks, stocks, bonds and other capitalist owned systems. Remove
cold, hard cash from the system by putting your money in a safe deposit box at your local bank.
Force the wealthy out of the closet, to try and pass laws allowing them to open your safe deposit
bank.
Stop giving your old clothes and stuff to Goodwill, the Salvation Army or thrift shops. Stop
sorting your trash - plastic, glass, metal and put all of it in your trash. Create a mess so big,
so fast and so pervasive it becomes a crisis - for the wealthy trash hauler kings and their politicians.
Stay off facebook for one month. The next month, back on facebook, and out of Twitter.
Sign up for an email account anywhere but google and then use it for all of your on-line shopping
only.
Stop being so predictable by using the same corporate chain grocery store, gas station or clothes
store. Take your business to new places, try new things, get out more, mix it up, mix and match,
but stop being predictable.
Confuse and baffle. Sign on to new news sources. If you're a liberal, sign onto Brietbart.
If you're a conservative, sign onto Center for Progress. Use your new email to sign up for alerts
from a dozen different sources, including foreign ones.
Do not buy anything, but go on-line and shop for shit you hate. Shop until you see ads for
everything you hate, from music, to books, clothes and household stuff popping up on your computer
screen like crazy.
Lie like crazy. Go on comment boards and pretend you are an entirely different person. Pretend
you are a Russian, Canadian, or German, a conservative, a liberal, a Trump hater, a Trump lover.
Your task is to confuse by lying. If you are 65, post pictures of your new baby. If you are 20,
post pictures of you in nursing home bed. Get creative. Have fun. Lie like crazy.
"... Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their "vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes. ..."
"... The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds. ..."
"... We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US. ..."
"... They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread, semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in... ..."
"... There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We proles need to act together. ..."
"... Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. ..."
"... With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations. ..."
"... Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades has effectively put such policies out of bounds. ..."
"... The last one I recall was an article by Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers, doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these. ..."
"... Apparently we're so distracted that we're also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another conversation. ..."
"... If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves. ..."
"... Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. ..."
"... Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically meaningless and so explains nothing. ..."
"... As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical breach but also a breach of the principle. ..."
"... However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of the people is always needed. Always. ..."
Nothing new here, C Wright Mills, the US state as a plutocracy , government by the few , said
it all fifty years ago , especially the economic oligarchs
I would again point to Plato. Those whose affluence exceeds the critical threshold stagnate.
They have no need to work, no need to hold anything as valuable, they contribute nothing and
take everything.
What is the point in being so rich? There's nothing you can gain from it, other than bank
account pinball.
The purpose of being rich is to enable you. It is the only purpose. Once you are fully
enabled, money has no value.
Those who are poor can't afford the tools to work well, the education/training needed,
anything by which they could better themselves and be upwardly mobile.
There are some who are poor by choice. Voluntary hermits are common enough. They're not
included in here because they're self-sufficient and have the tools they need so fall out of
scope.
The middle band, where prone work the best, function the best, are mentally and physically
the best, is very very big. Nothing stops you cramming society into there because they've
plenty of room to stretch out.
But people always want to improve. No big. Make tax follow a curve, so that you always
improve but the game gets harder not easier. Would you play a computer game where level 100
was easier than level 1? No, you'd find it boring. As long as it's a single curve, nobody
gets penalized.
You now get to play forever, level billion is better than level million is better than
level thousand, but it's asymptotic so infinite improvement never breaks outside the
bounds.
"Asymptotic" is a word that meets your objection AND my rebuttal. You do not have to have
either a constant, infinity or hard ceilings. Leave straight lines to geometers and enter the
world of inflection points.
Elites exist the world over -- East, West, North and South. Question is how do we create a
world where power is shared -- Plato and his Guardians perhaps or are we doomed to be ruled by
elites until the end of time?
Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their
"vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes.
Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?
The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right
has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful
tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds.
Rapid is still quite right...
We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when
in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as
possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US.
jessthecrip's comment was clearly not calling for JRM to be imprisoned or in any way punished
for his views , but for his votes . Specifically his votes in the House of
commons to support benefit cuts for disability claimants. Admittedly that a pretty extreme
position from my point of view, but nonetheless you are misrepresentating what was said,
whether deliberately or because you genuinely have not understood only you can know
More people should simply look up from time to time and quit living in fantasy books.
The whole and real truth is not written in a book its all around you if you are willing to
except what you see.
Form a government in same way we select juries. No entrenchment of the same old guard, no
lobbyists,no elite, no vested interests.Just people like you,and you.People like your
children.People like your parents.People like your neighbors
Not really driven by the oligarch, more looted. And there's normally 1 greedy bugger, Sulla
or Pompey, who has to have it all and upsets the apple cart, and then you get Augustus.
The US and it being a democracy, the word that is no where mentioned in the Constitution is
one big hoax and the perpetuation of the same, where the missed people in this country are
further conned by the elite and the rich. Then on top of it all we f or sure not practice
what we preach. To that end our political system with two senators from each of 50 states m
irrespective to the population is lot to be desired in terms of any real democratic process,
let alone equality in representation. To add insult to injury, the US House of
Representatives where Congressional Districts are gerrymandered just about every two years,
is even worst. Just as the US Congress in which over 90% of the people have no confidence.
Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?
Liberal MSM has been emasculated. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't move any needles.
It just brays on in ineffective anti-Trump outrage and one identity politics issue after
another.
The House of Lords in the U.K. and the Senate in the US were originally there to prevent poor
people - always the majority - from voting to take away wealth and lands from the rich.
Basically, if such a vote was cast, the HoL and Senate - filled with the elites of society -
had the power to block it.
This is a fascinating dissection of how the "leftist/liberal" media was completely disrupted
by Trump. It is a long read and quite difficult (so not likely to appeal to most of the
knee-jerk commentators) but, whatever your politics it is well worth a look https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502
/
The human (and probably animal) world is made up of oligarchies that deal with each other.
History has shown that only lone soldiers can upset established orders: Alexander, Napoleon,
Lenin, Castro and Bin Laden come to mind.
I agree with the article's premise. We have allowed the oligarchs to consolidate power.
Why? Because Americans revere wealth and power. We have bought into the capitalist model
hook, line, and sinker. We willingly elect candidates and sign on to policies that allow
oligarchs to consolidate their power, increase their wealth and income inequality, pomote
greed and selfishness, and undermine democracy - the power of the people.
We have been busy electing agents of oligarchy to Congress since 1980. Buying ino the
"small government" con, the "taxes are theft" con, "the business is overregulated" con, the
"corporations are the job creators" con and its twin the "government never created jobs" con,
the anti-union con, etc, etc, etc.
Our political system would be a lot more representative of the people if the people would
get off their butts and start participating in it. Our electoral ststem is open to anyone who
wants to participate.
But who and how many participate any more?
When the people create a vacuum with their apathy and cynicism, the oligarchs fill it with
their greed.
Oligarchs will always be attracted to power, no matter what system is in place. What's
needed to minimize their ability to entrench themselves is vigilance in defending our
institutions against corruption.
And vigilance is something that the American people seem to have less and less of every
day.
Maximise aggregate happiness as John Nash suggested. Cooperation beats competition in
almost every sphere. Uniting the 99% will happen after the 1% have brought civilisation to a
standstill and a billion people starve.
Denial is a powerful mental mechanism, that and also people tend to associate oligarchy with
brutal, straight forwards autocratic rule.
US has a very sophisticated socio-political system that has isolated the elite and the common
man through many filters rather than one solid brick wall - so people dont see it. This
paired with large enough populations who are cretinous enough to actually vote for somebody
like Trump or give a second term to the likes of G.W Bush makes fooling extremely easy.
There is also the tendency of treating laws like dogma and the constitution like the bible. A
stark example of it is how they boast about freedom of speech. Everybody is keen to point out
that one can publicly criticize politicians without fear of prosecution but nobody seems to
notice how useless that speech is and how effectively the political elite shelters itself
from negative opinion and is able to proceed against the public will. I find it quite
fascinating.
ALL oligarchies are bad...they just function from a different starting point.
In the US, we have an oligarchy based on wealth,who then uses their money to buy the
political animals.
In Communist countries, you had a political oligarchy, who used their political powers to
corner the wealth.
And in religious oligarchies you have a few selected "high priests" using religious
fervor/special communication lines with whatever deity, to capture both wealth and politics.
None of these are preferable over the other as they all concentrate power into the hands
of the few (1-2%), against the interests of the many.
The fact is Western Democracy (democratic capitalism) is not and was never a true democracy.
Historians from at least 300 years from now, when studying our historical time, will state
our system was capitalism, whose political system was plutocracy -- the rule of the
capitalist class from behind the curtains, through puppet governors.
Sure, the same historians will, through archaeological evidence, state, correctly, that we
called and considered ourselves to live in a democracy. But they will also find evidence that
this claim was always contested by contemporaries. Emperor Augustus restored the
façade of the Republic and called himself princeps instead of king, and, officially,
Rome was still a Republic until the time of Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian (maybe the first
emperor to openly consider himself a monarch) -- it doesn't fool today's historians, and it
seems it didn't fool the Roman people also.
Oligarchy in USA is secure. For a generation, it has leveraged rightwing media to get
unquestioning support from white America based on aggrieved truculence toward the liberal,
the brown, and the black. And that was pre-Trump.
Now Trump rampages against the very symbol of the grievance: Obama.
It's midnight in the world's leading third world country
Anyone who's been accusing united states of being an oligarchy so far was branded as a
conspiracy nut. So does this article rehabilitates them and confirms their assertions?
In ancient Greece: "While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in
power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors." Today the
oligarchs aren't always united, because they see each other as rivals. But they have nothing
against dividing and weakening the people in order to prevent them from rising up to "their
oppressors."
Mass indoctrination is the answer. Oligarchs around the world seek to build up a media empire
to brainwash a gullible public and sow discord in the society. The most notorious members of
a civil oligarchy in the West are Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch. Like oligarchs in
ancient Greece, their modern counterparts need democratic support to legitimise their goals.
And they support candidates in elections who will do their bidding once in office.
Oligarchy and plutocracy will continue to rule America, because the worship of money is a
popular faith. As long as an individual is well off, he/she sees little incentive to help
improve social equality. A revolution will only be possible if a critical mass is behind it.
Sounds about right - a least some, a very small minority, realise they're being suckered -
the overwhelming majority die pig ignorant, whether they believe they've made it or live in a
trailer park.
it's very rare that an article in the Guardian doesn't have an obvious agenda. Simple click
bait stuff. This article is different, and worthwhile reading. Excellent.
I am only surprised that anyone would still be in the dark about whether or not the US is an
oligarchy. It's been obvious now for at least the past three-four decades.
Yep---for where very few have very much and most have nothing, you have a pressure-cooker.
The property-police must indeed grow in number and brutality.
And the other half of it is what Ben Franklin warned about, "the corruption of the people."
The gangsters really sense and know how to play people against themselves---arousing
appetites, appealing to short-term pleasure, to short-term feel-good thinking and acts, and
to greed and lust for seemingly easy power. When you realize you're had, it's too late: "In
every transaction, there's a sucker. If you're wondering who that is, it's you."
Yep sure. The 'big white kid' pritecting the brown kid does tend to be working class or
middle class Jewish, and indeed, more likely to be socialist than liberal (in my
experience).
I wouldn't limit credit for this kind of thing to any particular ethnicity. But I will say
that most major successful reform 'crusades' of modern Western history were inspired by
Christian ideals, and often led by Christian clergy, including the anti-slavery Abolition
movement in 19th-century America, the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and '60s, and the
anti-Communist revolutions in 1980's Eastern Central Europe. Even in the anti-Apartheid
movement, the churches played a leading role, personified, of course, by Bishop Tutu.
Correct, because that would be too easy . . . for 'Muricans, because Other people might
benefit, and because it is too, too logical a solution for the Turd World USA.
In the Oxford English Dictionary you find that "profit" and "advantage" are close cousins
etymologically. Makes sense, since "profit" (the word for value you did not put into an
exchange) creates "advantage"---and then you use advantages to give even less and take even
more profit. Round and round she goes, and there's no bottom. "Advantage" of course is also
inherently relative to somebody else's "DIS-advantage": hence our planet full of
"disadvantaged" working people.
No, I think the Democrats are the ones most successful at diverting the people from their own
power in favor of the banks. The Republicans are far less successful by their own control,
instead benefitting only from luck such as Wasserman-Schultz denying Elizabeth Warren from
her rightful place in the Oval Office. Sanders was the consolation candidate for Warren
voters. Warren would have beaten Trump 50-nil.
Correct. Two equal evils from the same nest-egg, a political party with two right-wings. At
the least, the public know why the First Nazi of Great America has an aura of flies.
a colleague of mine asked if America was really at risk of becoming an oligarchy. Our
political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy
elites, we can just vote them out.
Thanks for the cracking joke. That was hilariously funny.
full and transparent disclosure of all finical and gift transactions between elected official
and anyone not in govt.. this include "payments" to family, friends their charities.. etc..
if you cant see the lie no one fight to have the laws and rules changed... additionally
lobbyist must no longer be allowed to have the type of closed door access to our leaders..
all these conversations must be moderated or flat out banned and a new form of communication
is developed.... put it this way I have never been able to get a meeting with my leading
politician yet big business can at almost any time.. I'm glad this issues is being more
openly discussed.. we need more of the same
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto , indentified this in his concept, "False
Consciousness", and Orwell, taking Stalinism to exemplify it, points to the same in Animal
Farm , though I bet they weren't the first, and hope they won't be the last.
Machiavelli was right, when you need political favors to get to the top, then you will always
owe the favor-givers when you get there. Machiavelli also said this:
Sortition works!
When the most powerful person has literally zero interest in the outcome, they will defer
to moral utilitarianism every time. Ask Canada's John Ralton Saul "The Unconcious
Civilization" and Australia's Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party [seriously] who
scuppered Aussie right-wingers from bringing US-style education-loans to rent-seek our
economy to death.
The problem is that today's so-called "populists" have been so propagandized into despising
the liberalism that could fight the oligarchs, and buying into the very policies and
philosophies that allow the oligarchs to consolidate their power (endless tax cuts,
undermined government, deregulation, big money in politics, destruction of unions, etc, etc.)
that they play right into their hands.
They've mistaken a demagogue for a man of the people and continue to cheer on the
dismantling of the checks on oligarchy that our system provides.
This country is in a world of hurt and those who should be exercizing their democratic
power to diminish the power of the oligarchs are busy dismantling it, thanks to decades of
right wing media propaganda.
All I see is more oligarchy, more autoctacy, and less power to the people. We just keep
sticking it to ourselves.
When anyone could instantly become president, then everyone has to be
educated as much as possible. Right? Hey classical policy scholars, sortition worked in
Ancient Greece too! As well as everywhere else ever since. Ever heard of court juries?
Divide and rule - the oldest trick in the book, and incredibly easy, as long as people are
kept ignorant by propaganda (currently known as The Media) and education.
Hillary Clinton lost because the working class (correctly) perceived her to be a supporter of
oligarchy in the USA. Her ties to Wall Street, corporate power, and the upper class were too
obvious.
Yes, Trump fooled many voters into believing that he was populist, but their perception of
Clinton was still accurate.
If the Democratic party leaders had chosen Sanders as their candidate, they would have won
the election. But the "Democratic" party leaders (ironically) feared what he offered: real
democracy.
"The Bad Hayek emerged when he aimed to convert a wider public. Then, as often happens, he
tended to overreach, and to suggest more than he had legitimately argued. The Road to Serfdom
was a popular success but was not a good book. Leaving aside the irrelevant extremes, or even
including them, it would be perverse to read the history, as of 1944 or as of now, as
suggesting that the standard regulatory interventions in the economy have any inherent
tendency to snowball into "serfdom." The correlations often run the other way. Sixty-five
years later, Hayek's implicit prediction is a failure, rather like Marx's forecast of the
coming "immiserization of the working class.""
This of course is a simplified version and can't really touch on everything, however he
glaringly leaves out the deliberate human suffering results from the oligarchy protecting its
wealth and aggressively taking over ever more markets. Yes, of course, what today is called
"alignment of interests" among the oligarchy is necessary but that alone is not enough they
mus also be ruthless beyond that of others. Nothing stands in the way of profits nothing
stands in the way of ever greater control. The oligarchy has decided that nature itself is
just another obstacle profit making - there is no room for empathy in the world of the
oligarchy poverty suffering from curable disease mutilation from bombs are acceptable
external consequences to their obsessive accumulation of wealth.
The real reason the oligarchy wins is because they are willing to be ruthless in the
extreme and society rewards ruthlessness and ridicules the empathetic.
This may be true, they often seem so blinded by their raw greed that their powers of reason
become dysfunctional. I don't think, however, that the stupid things they do to slake their
greed means that they are stupid. When the chips are down, they are capable of bringing their
considerable powers of reason to bear.
However stupid or smart they might be, we surely must realize that they have been at least
smart enough to gain total ownership and control of all our mass media. They use this tool,
the most powerful tool of social control that has ever existed, with consummate skill in
pursuit of their agenda(s).
If you look at the overall content of our mass media, you can see an impressive level of
'mind' at work, 'behind the curtain'. This 'mind' is constantly manipulating our
consciousness, using very highly sophisticated, highly skilled techniques.Their understanding
of human psychology, and their ability to manipulate us using our most basic appetites and
desires, is characterized by true genius, even ig that genius is diabolical in its
designs.
'They' choose what movies get made. Which TV shows are produced. Which songs get airplay.
Which social and political issues are sensationalized and which are buried.
Most of the citizens of our ostensible 'democracy' have been 'trained', just as any
animals are trained to any behavior, to be 'consumers' rather than 'citizens'. We are well
trained by an omnipresent mass media that assaults us constantly. In any direction that we
turn our gaze, or our attention, 'they' are there, to direct our thoughts as they think
serves their purposes.
I sure wouldn't sell these people's intelligence short. They may often do stupid things to
serve their greed, but they did not acquire the power that they have through any lack of
intelligence.
what everyone seems to forget is that whilst ancient Greece was the cradle of democracy it
was not only a slave state (whose slaves had no rights to vote) but that only an elite
minority were eligible to vote themselves - power very much rested with the vested interests
of the few.
I agree that societies are a reflection of the 'will' of the people these days, even if
that will is ill informed, reactionary or, as seems to be the case, largely uninterested in
voting. You get the governments you deserve and people in the West have become lazy,
permanently distracted, often ignorant and usually in the grip of one addiction or another,
thus allowing 'democracy' to be subverted. The media have had their role in this by allowing
themselves to be manipulated and owned by vested interests, rarely reporting the truth and
doing as they are told by various govt offices and departments. Uninformed people make poor
decisions.
What the Black Lives Matter movement is telling us is that the Oligarch's enforce their rules
of 'law' precisely at the barrels of guns, and by the words of one man after one man, each
with a uniform on and a camera off.
Further, you stated above that you were "...responding to a poster who called for
imprisonment for those concerned", when in fact the quote shows they were complaining about
people calling for imprisonment, not calling for it.
That shows you are twisting what was said, it is incredibly disingenuous of you.
It's the divisions of the left that allow Tory and Republican minority rule to prevail. In
the US the divide is quite bitter between Hillary and Bernie wings of the Dems- at the moment
I don't really see where reconciliation can emerge. And of course in Great Britain you
actually have two major parties competing rather self-destructively for the available votes
on the left. (As well as the mighty Greens...). Divided and conquered, indeed. And such a
bloody cliche!
Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing
political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic
inequality
And yet Marx doesn't rate a single mention in the entire article...
No, even though you've quoted me you have misunderstood what was perfectly plain. I stated
'like everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits'. Perhaps the
OP was proposing prison for JRM for expressing a viewpoint, but that was not and is not where
I'm coming from.
At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political
purposes.
Here is the exact reason why the Democratic Party is lost now. The Clintons,
Wasserman-Schultz, and their new Goldman Sachs alumni hero in New Jersey, and now Kamala
Harris seeking the same money from the same bankers.
It's sort of worked against the right though. Take a look at the last election. Yes, the
Tories got most votes, but they've pretty much lost all ethnic minorities, including asian
professionals, hindus and sikhs. Why is this, especially when Labour moved to left and are
now more socialist than left liberal?
Purely because the right has been subsumed by angry grievance mentality, or aggreived
entitlement. The internet is awash by people who hate assertive blacks and asians, Dianne
Abbott received half of all abuse of female MPs. And so.. the Labour pick up votes that
Tories had gained under Cameron. If you are a prosperous hindu dentist or stockbroker, sure
you might have shrugged off your parents labour voting tendencies and might be Tory. But
also, you might be seeing this sort of stuff, the bile on the internet, the resentment
expressed behind internet anonymity. And you might be thinking that deep down underneath that
expensive suit of yours, you are your father and mother, a tentative, slightly frightened,
cheaply dressed immigrant who has arrived as an outsider and are visibly aware that half the
population likes you, but the other half doesn't.
And so you vote Labour.
Divisiveness actually divides the core group you are aiming to win. If you do white
chauvinism, well, you end up unite everyone who is not white. Black, brown, yellow, all
huddle together scared, back under the labour fold. And you end up dividing the whites into
the patriotic and the 'self hating libtard'.
"Just read the language of many in here...apparent JRM should be banished and locked away.
You don't need to look to far to find odeous beliefs."
Your reply to that:
"Not locked away. Prison is expensive for the taxpayer. Assets sequestered for the good of
the commons and put to work cleaning - streets, hospitals, care homes - on workfare. Like
everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits, causing what the UN
has described as a 'catastrophe' for disabled people in this country"
My reply to you:
"You are advocating confiscation of private property and forced physical labour for people
who hold different political views to you. Is Stalin a hero of yours?"
Yours is a call to punish people for holding different political views to you.
Yours is an extremist position and, like all extremists, you think it is justified.
e.g. Park Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as
slave labour, many were were tortured and executed.
Like I said, benignish. He took a third world basket case (which is what South Korea was up
until his seizure of power) and set it on the way to becoming a first world economy.
One of the most interesting mini-discourses I've read anywhere. I would only add that the
'mob' currently in charge of the polity of the House is actually a minority that has gamed
the system.
They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their
economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships
in their neighborhoods
"Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing
political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic
inequality."
No democrat with two working brain cells to rub together could honestly suppose that great
concentrations of wealth, which necessarily confer political power on the wealthy class, can
fail to undermine democracy. A capitalist democracy is an oxymoron and a delusion.
They admire the rich, and the lifestyles of the rich, although it is out of their reach.
They do not admire the wise, and the experienced.
They don't know who are their state and federal representatives.
They don't know the reason for the Civil War.
They don't know much about our history, our constitution, or anything about civics.
They don't know much about world history.
They don't read much, and are suspicious of education, and the properly educated.
They are easy marks for lies, and negative influence, because they never question.
They refuse to address, or even admit, their own irrational prejudices.
They don't vote, but they do plenty of complaining, and like to blame others for the problems
of our nation.
I do not think that benign or even benign(ish) suits the majority of the above e.g. Park
Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as slave labour,
many were were tortured and executed.
Not sure how Carl Mannerheim gets to be on your list? He was appointed Military chief
during the Finnish civil war and he was elected President of Finland
At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic
success. Instead of public works projects, dedicated in the name of the people, they relied
on what we can think of as philanthropy to sustain their power.
That was more because there was no income tax regime - something difficult to impose when
there was no centralized collection from a single consistent professional government. So if
the Athenian navy wanted a ship, it got a rich chap to pay for it. Rather than out of general
taxation.
Athens got rich on levies it imposed on its allies by way of protection money, which
eventually collapsed in acrimony, but that's a different story.
Owen Jones ? ......a man of high minded principle and unblemished
virtue . Don't think he would object to a spot of terror........in defence
of his liberal principles , of course..
I guess we are seeing some of oligarchy break down. Many oligarchs support many socialist
policies to avoid tension between classes. For eg: many rich support universal basic income
and some even support single payer healthcare.
You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid
development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.
All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.
All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.
All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the
oligarchy.
The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.
OK, I'll concede that. Which makes for an interesting perspective on things overall,
actually. One can see the advantage of an oligarchy - wealth and power is concentrated in few
enough hands to achieve great things, but not so few that, like in a monarchy or
dictatorship, the leader must spend most time and effort on keeping their power. Whereas a
more equal democracy lacks the capacity to make bold steps or drive through unpopular new
ideas. But this also means the oligarchs have the power to grind down those underneath them,
and therefore in order to enjoy the fruits of that development, the oligarchy needs to be
destroyed.
In other words, oligarchies deliver growth, democracies deliver prosperity. I would
certainly not like to live under an oligarchy (assuming I'm not an oligarch) but it would be
beneficial for a country to have had one in the past.
I have come to the conclusion that the oligarchy which rules the world are complete imbeciles
who haven't a clue that the whole Neoliberal system they built in the 1970's is collapsing
and they are clueless on how to handle it. Just because they are wealthy and greedy doesn't
mean they are intelligent.
In order to prevent the protests from going out over the airwaves Fox (sports) in all their
'logic' started excluding broadcast of the Anthem. Early on I said I would not watch any of
these sporting events with, as you say, these jingoistic displays going out and Fox has
obliged me but I wont say thanks.
Britain isn't different. Oligarchy is built into our system of governance, e.g. royals and
house of lords. We even have special oligarch schools where children are sent to be educated
for leadership
"An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy." - Thomas Jefferson
We have Americans who don't know when the Civil War was fought, or even who won, but
insist we must stand for the national anthem before a ballgame.
So much for 'the Land of the Free'.
And in the older grades, they prescribe (hand out) adderall, CSN stimulants, like chiclets to
help student study (cram) and with comprehensive test taking.
This is the rub.....and the mob does not value education while the rulers value propaganda.
Notice the close association between Autocratic and Oligarchic systems and religion,
historical mythology and hyper-patriotism!
Or that's the evil of it. Economic inequality rises until people die. Like homeless on the
streets, starving food banks, grenfell tower, waiting on hospital beds instead of famine and
pitchfork wars.
The idea is to progress and solve problems before they escalate to pitchfork wars. Praising
grotesque inequality is not part of the solution, it's the cause of the problems.
What emerges from Plutocracy is Oligarchy...what emerges from Oligarchy is Autocracy.
Autocracy is one form or another is the natural state of human society....all the others are
ephemeral systems...or systems that disguise the actual Oligarchy or Autocracy!
The biggest contributor to America's plutocracy is our abysmally uninformed electorate.
HL Mencken knew this nearly a century ago when he said:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will
reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Just exactly when was it that "democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece"?
What proportion of the population in Ancient Athens, for example, were actually
citizens...and what proportion of those actually held the franchise?...I believe that you
would find the numbers surprising!
Also ...when these (and other) writers speaks of Ancient Greece.....it is usually Athens that
they are mythologizing....most the Ancient Greek world had little by way of representative
government...let alone "Democracy"!
No I wasn't. I already responded to you regarding this. To remind you, I said
when people in positions of power take £28 billion (at least) off one of the most
powerless and already impoverished groups in our country (disabled people), resulting in
hundreds of suicides, enormous suffering, worsened isolation, serious lack of care support,
and thousands dying soon after being found 'fit to work' (a situation the UN has described
as a 'catastrophe') then I think it perfectly reasonable to favour some punishment for
those politicians who inflicted such suffering on their fellow citizens
I was not suggesting punishment for 'thought crime' or for expressing views, but
for actions seriously damaging to our citizens.
I have worked in several of the American rich's schools where they charge $30k per kid,
families have 3-5 kids there, plus they donate another $30k per kid per year. These schools
shame their $50k/year teachers into donating hundreds and thousands per year to their own
schools in order to prompt further donations from parents, who expect the poor teachers to
prove their fidelity to these rich kids by giving their own money to them. I have seen these
schools' principals fire teachers who teach "how to change things". I have seen them promote
teachers who teach absolutely nothing, because then the rich kids enjoy insulting and
demeaning those teachers' weaknesses. I have heard rich $chool principals tell Harvard
psychology lecturers that grade inflation is a marketplace necessity. I have seen rich
principals tell school inspectors that the curriculum presented for verification is supplied
by a currently-employed teacher (who was awfully bad at teaching) when in fact it was written
and prepared by a teacher who had just been fired "for methodology problems"...
American rich schools are the sickest schools on earth, even sicker than British boarders,
even sicker than other countries' orphanages.
Yes, but we now have the consummate...emphasis on "con"...bullshit artist in the White House
whose first order of business has been to discredit the media whenever it exposes him for
what he truly is. Trump has thousands of people believing that any media story about him
which is negative is "fake."
I consider populism an important part of the process as it creates a balance for
oligarchy.
I would consider that the greedy big picture thinking of oligarchy drives growth while the
greedy small picture thinking of the plebs (of which I am one) tries to get that growth more
equally distributed.
It is perhaps unlikely that a radical Athenian democrat from ancient Greece would recognise
any current form of government as genuinely democratic.
The cleverest way to maintain a long term oligarchy in these enlightened times might be to
have an elective one, only dressed up as something like say a 'parliamentary democracy'.
Luckily no-one has come up with this idea yet.
Exactly that is going on now - we have 'workers' and 'benefit scroungers', British against
'immigrants' who exactly are not immigrants as having legal rights to live in the UK (EU
citizens), 'deserving' poor and 'undeserving' poor.
Divide and rule.
Without knowing the past, it is impossible to understand the true meaning of the present and
the goals of the future.
It's so annoying that is has been so easy to manipulate with our society - Tories and UKIP
say 'hate!' and people do as if they are trained animals - hate people on benefits, EU
citizens, immigrants, asylum seekers, a conflict between Brexiters/Remainers...
Benign(ish) dictators of the 20th Century:-
Tito (Yugoslavia)
Carl Mannerheim (Finland)
Kemal Ataturk (Turkey)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Nasser (Egypt)
Park Chung-hee (South Korea)
Like I said, benign(ish). Each one the subject for a debate within themselves.
There is always winners and losers but the worst loser in modern British society had a better
standard of living than a winner of a century ago.
The key to human development is driving sustainable progress not worrying about who losses
out today.
Of course there must be balance because morally we must consider who loses our today. The
question is how much do we hamstring the children of tomorrow to help the losers of
today.
The super rich conservative oligarchy, currently running the UK, get away with it because
enough of the British people vote against their own economic interest.
Parents, for example, effectively vote for the food to be taken from their children's
mouths, converted to cash and given in tax cuts to the super rich conservative elite so they
can send their children to £30k a year private schools.
Political economy and political science should be compulsory in primary and secondary
school so that the ripping-off of the British people is made obvious through education and
ended through democratic revolution.
.. it's scary though.. automation will eliminate the economic support line for many, while
companies like Google have eyes and ears in every household.
Definition of democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible
members of a state, typically through elected representatives." You are presenting an
anti-Democratic party talking point, not an enlightened understanding of subtle political
differences. Of course, the intention was a democracy in the USA, as compromised as it was
and is. What we are not, and never have been, is an absolute direct democracy -- a form of
governance appropriate only to small communities.
Considering that "the people" are not that much more enlightened than they were in ancient
Greece, yes it is the will of the people that allowed the US to become an oligarchy.
Considering the voting turnout around 56%, that means that 44% decided that they didn't
care whether or not their leader would be a good or a bad one.
That's more than 1 in 3 people who couldn't care less about the outcome of the
elections.
Excerpt from the above link: the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares
that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their
private backers
And I'm also reminded of Attlee's great words about the attitudes of oligarchs in
general:
Excerpt from the above link: Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay
his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim. - Attlee
I know that it's just geography but it appears that the 'left coast (west coast) teams
(players))' are taking a leadership role in this struggle. Unlike other professional sports
systems, the NFL players are at a disadvantage in terms of career length and working
conditions (eg, head injuries). I believe they're going to need some outside help (in
whatever form) to be successful which doesn't give me hope. There are a bunch of chicken
s____ outfits and power players out there at present that, as an example, allowed
(contributed) the Executive Branch takeover by a Russian backed interloper.
You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid
development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.
All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.
All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.
All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the
oligarchy.
The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.
I recognise that it takes a plebeian revolt now and again to get the wealth shared out
fairly but the engine that drives the wealth so it can be shared often seem to be
oligarchy.
how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government? ...consequence of a lap dog
media who lick the ass rather than expose and speak the truth to power elites.
The captured author/minions have obviously not had full access to the reading room
*And the secret writings of
Part of a small cache of loose leaf scrolls smuggled out of Alexandria before the fire
Last entrusted to a small elite 13th century band of chainsaw wielding warrior...
Comedy writing nuns
Is about education, oligarchy wins to ignorant people. In order to have a healthy democracy
the people must be informed and educated other wise oligarchies groups will inundate
everything with cheap adds, will manipulate and will win control, methinks
And all brought down when the elites forgot that they were only the top of a pyramid and that
they ultimately relied on those below. We at the foot of the monolith can see that the
oligarchs serve only themselves so no longer buy into their project. We see that it is one
big club and we - unlike our political masters - ain't in it. So empires fall.
The author demonstrates his ignorance of the American system of government. He uses the word
"democracy" no less than 8 times, yet American is not a democracy and never has been a
democracy. You will find no form of the word "democracy" in any of the founding documents.
The Founding Fathers knew very well the dangers of democracies, and so they created the
American government as a constitutional republic. Not once does the author mention that; I
doubt he even knows what it means, let alone the difference.
If you're complaining because prices are (inevitably) regressive on the "poor" (however
defined), what do you say to the obvious retort that this is indeed the main difference
between being "poor", being comfortable, being affluent and being rich?
What is the point of working and earning if it isn't aimed at making oneself less "poor"
or more affluent?
Or as Mayer Amschel Rothschild correctly summed up the situation in 1790 - "Let me issue
and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws"
What this article fails to draw our attention to , and they never do, is that private
banks CREATE 97% of our entire money supply (look up "fractional reserve banking"). Whilst
that remains the case the "oligarchy" will always have firm control over the rest of us.
There was a time when the deadliest military weapon was the longbow. It could only be handled
by men who had been trained up since infancy.
It enabled the English to rout a numerically superior French force at Agincourt, 1415.
The notion that the early 15th century was a period of democratic government is an
interesting reading of history.
imo
In the US today, the oligarchy cannot win without an assist from a significant segment -- not
necessarily a majority -- of the overall population.
9/11 taught us that many people are willing to give up freedoms for the myth of security.
The Trump presidency is teaching us that many people are willing to give up their voice --
democracy -- for the myth of returning to a perceived better way of life (group superiority
over racial, gender, religious, etc equality) from some bygone era.
imo
We are currently experiencing a destabalisation of our nation and fellow Western Nations by
the dominant Western Nation to try to halt the failure of this vastly endebted bigger
brother......how do we stop this?
On this NFL Sunday it is not hard to imagine the secret meetings that owners and/or their
representatives had to coalesce against Kaepernick's 'taking a knee' to stop this form of
protest in its tracks as a oligarchical institution. On Tuesday, when Dallas Cowboys owner,
Jerry Jones declared that any player taking a knee would not play today, the circle of the
objective to chill dissent was complete.
Democracy was always like this. What is that famous quote, by Earl Grey or Sandwich or
someone, in Parliament, about allowing peasants to have the vote? "I do this, not to weaken
our power, but to preserve it"
Democracy in the UK and the US has always been a forum for the oligarchy to resolve their
own disputes rather than rule for the people by the people. Brexit is an example, a
referendum held essentially because of the split in conservative party.
And conservatives are going to save us all from done minded feel good policies of the left,
is that it?
Since the 80's American politics had swing do far to the right liberals are capitalists
monied elites, but the right had an army of simple minded uneducated lemmings on thier side,
people that will be against thier own personal interests because of 12th century religious
horse spit or group think. Thier are more Right winners in State houses, leadership positions
then ever before, they control the Congress, the courts, the Presidency and yet dolts like
you still say the country is going in the wrong directions and listen to son misters tell you
its the fault of the left. Somewhere in your reptilian brain you know this makes no sense,
but you lack of depth, you inability to comprehend what you read or to shake free from the
group think or right wing ideology will never let you understand that the bet people you vote
in time after time are the very ones whom have sold your job to the Chinese, profited from
your child's illnesses, war, chaos in some far off land.
Keeping voting Republicans, it's working out so well for you tailer, Nascar types...
The article obfuscates a distinction laid out by Aristotle, in The Politics: aristocracy -
rule by the few, focused on the common good; and oligarchy - rule by the few (wealthy),
focused on their selfish good. He argues that aristocracy, rule by the best, inevitably turns
into oligarchy, rule by the wealthy. In Aristotle's three forms of government - rule by one,
by few, by many - the three legitimate forms (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) degenerate into
their evils twins (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). For Aristotle, Democracy was not a
legitimate form of government, but a corrupted form: mob rule, we might call it. The US
Constitution deliberately set out to create a mixed form of government: monarchy (president);
aristocracy (Senate and Supreme Court); polity (House of Reps.). From the beginning,
Americans have focused on the potential for our "monarch" (president) to turn into a tyrant:
Trump is the poster child for a single executive ruling on his own, selfish behalf. We have
been less aware of the fact that the Senate has become a simple oligarchy, while the House
has degenerated into a bastion of deputies chosen by what Aristotle would have called
democracy, that is, a corrupted form of rule by the many. Aristotle's citizens - those who
rule and are ruled in turn - can constitute about 10% of the population; in today's US that
would mean 20+ million people actively and continuously involved in politics (i.e., not
simply showing up every four years to mark a ballot). Millions of Americans have long done
such things, and political life remains active at the local level in many areas. On the
national level, the Tea Party has shown how this level of enhanced involvement can transform
politics, and has further shown that a coherent, organized minority can demolish what we
think of as democratic norms. They are about to elect a Senator in Alabama who has twice been
removed as a judge on the state's Supreme Court (an elective body), for violations of
judicial norms. Here in the US, all three forms of our original government - monarchy,
aristocracy, polity - have degenerated into their evil twins. Yes, the wealthy 1% will always
game the system in their favor, but until we restore each of the parts of our forma mixta, we
can never reduce their advantages to a level consonant with a decent form of society. Under W
Bush, the oligarchs got the tax rates (above all on capital gains) reduced to their 1929
levels. That legislation had a time limit, and Obama chose not to continue it: indeed, he
raised capital gains rates a further 3.8% [making the rate 23.8% as against the 15% of Bush].
Now, the two greatest goals of the oligarchs are a return to the 15% rate and the abolition
of the estate tax, so all of the fantastically rich Baby Boomers (say, Sec'y of Commerce
Ross, net worth $2.5 billion) can leave their wealth unencumbered to their heirs, solidifying
the oligarchy's control. The Tea Party, through all the yahoos now in the House, can focus on
creationism, climate change denial, immigration, etc., while the oligarchs quietly change the
tax system to perpetuate their dominance. Over here, we are already in fiscal year 2018
(started on Oct 1), so tax changes would really go into effect in 2019, that is, after the
mid-term election. If Mnuchen and Co. get their changes to capital gains rates and other
technical loopholes aimed at the 0.1% [sic], and eliminate the estate tax, we'll know that
the oligarchs have eliminated any barriers to their collective dictatorship.
What's new is, like this article, we have the vocabulary to frame both the problem and the
solution. Oligarchy is no longer inevitable and whilst the means of control are greater, the
means for derogation are too and there are fewer oligarchs than plebs.
Its now easier to spot bad behaviour and harder to keep secrets. Oligarchs have to use
force more often to hold into power and that tips their hand.
This article has left me (an avowed pessimist) feeling rather more optimistic.
They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up
against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and
mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread,
semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and
follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in...
There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is
also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that
consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may
fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in
the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We
proles need to act together.
Democracy is not enough and besides democracy we also need reason, facts,and fighting spirit.
Sparta was more than just militarism, and slavery was also practised in Athens, as well as in
Rome and quite much everywhere else in the ancient world.
Sparta did something that today's democracies have forgotten: it cared about protection of
its citizens. That's the most elementary reason why a State exists, not to provide health or
education.
Now, regarding a replacement, epistocracy has yet to be tried. And the same democracy, but
with census suffrage, or via election of electors, who in turn elect the ones who will hold
office, have worked quite well in many places, producing better politicians, less inclined to
populism (take the Venetian Republic, for example).
Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan.
Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done.
Start with capping wealth accumulation.
One must have already broken, or at least sufficiently loosened, the oligarchic grip on
politics to institute such a policy.
Here in the UK, things are the darkest they have been in my lifetime, including the
Thatcher years, but we are in a moment of possibilities that can lead in opposite
directions.
The author is surely right when he says
With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is
one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been
in generations.
Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades
has effectively put such policies out of bounds.
We had a Labour government that won convincingly under Blair while declaring itself
relaxed about the accumulation of great wealth.
Greece had a long period of decline at the hands of democracy.
Plato wrote his Republic as a protest, and to put forward an alternative.
Eventually the romans took control.
There are indeed parallels with today but given the external challenges I for one believe
that western society will be overtaken by q new set of rules.
Very good, interesting article. You know, every now & then this paper, for all it's
faults, serves up an article that is quite enlightened/ing.
The last one I recall was an article by
Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by
profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that
group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who
go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers,
doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these.
And revolving door arrangements is one of the ways this pool retains a certain cohesion,
or as in the article "homogeneity in culture and values".
As for division, how many times have I read, "oh, we are so divided .. blah, blah", as
though some journalists have an almost unconscious need to promote it.
Bit too late, really. Not to mention it's super easy to take what they want while we're all
so distracted by arguing about who is the most racist misogynist, defending ourselves from
the accusations or applauding comic book movies. Apparently we're so distracted that we're
also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual
harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another
conversation.
If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I
use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the
oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves.
Maybe if we didn't bicker like kids we'd beat them.
Either you've not read the article attentively enough or your bias is irremediable. Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. The
genetic impulse you mention is a spurious concept in itself. If there were such a genetic
impulse we would not have seen such a change as the major advances of women in the last half
century. Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically
meaningless and so explains nothing.
As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and
break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation
with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share
towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical
breach but also a breach of the principle.
However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of
the people is always needed. Always.
Lastly private schooling needs to be looked at. I mean FFS Eton has charitable status!
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Like Obama before him Trump proved to be a very talented "bat and switcher".
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump's presidential campaign took this cynical strategy farther than any of his Republican predecessors, openly reaching out to alienated working-class voters, the backbone of so many left-wing protest movements. ..."
"... Trump told us he was going to do something about Nafta, a left-wing bête noir since the 1990s. He promised to revive Glass Steagall. He claimed to care so very, very much about the people of the deindustrialized zones whose sufferings have been so thoroughly documented by left-wing authors. ..."
"... When Sanders decided to support HRC, I figured nothing will ever change. He built up a lot of hope (as did Obama), only to pull the rug out at the eleventh hour. ..."
"... Moving to the far towards the "progressive" left, the Democratic party abandoned the working and middle classes in favor of the coastal well to do city dwellers while trying to appeal to the "oppressed identity" single issue "groups". ..."
"... People got tired of losing their jobs to "globalization", with the government deciding what they can do with policies of "diversity", which is essentially a quota system, and with having ideologues and bureaucrats decide what is good or bad for them. ..."
"... If we lost the base of the Democratic party it wasn't because it was stolen from us. It was because it was given away. We started giving it away when we learned the wrong lesson after Ronald Reagan and thought that we had to move to the right with Bill Clinton to win the presidency. ..."
"... Clinton is the ultimate Swamp Creature,and large reason for her loss is that she spent more time with her high dollar donors then in swing states. How do you think the "Clinton Foundation" got so big? ..."
"... So the Democrats embraced the moneyed establishment because they felt they had to to win, while the Republicans denounced that same establishment but only as part of a bait-and-switch strategy. Meanwhile the establishment hedges their bets and wins no matter what the election outcome. ..."
"... I agree, the New Deal was quite leftist, in the sense that it acknowledged the crisis which had struck the working class. It's atypical in the history of the Democratic Party, which has been devoted to advancing the interests of U.S. corporations and since the Clinton years, those of multinational business consortia. But even the New Deal was a far cry from a revolutionary call to arms. In fact, it was meant to curtail such agitation. Roosevelt said as much. ..."
"... There is no left movement in Washington. Each is going after money from lobbyists. I just see the USA rapidly consuming itself and fragmenting. It has poor social, medical, policing programs. And it continues to digest itself in petty hate between the Democrats and Republicans. It really has no serious governance and worse its flagship superior court is now being sold to capitalism ..."
"... Identity politics is what the oligarchy is using to divide us. I just think it is counterproductive to battle each other when the upward mobility is being taken from us. I wish others could see it. ..."
"... Immigration restrictionists in the US have for decades fought the corporate establishment. In fact, we have fought what are probably the most powerful coalitions of special interests in human history, coalitions of corporate predators, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big Media, and Big Government. ..."
"... There are plenty of populists in the Republican Party, but the governing portion of the party is solidly neocon. Hence the battle between President Trump and the "17 intelligence agencies," and the remarkable undermining of Trump's foreign policy proposals by his own cabinet. ..."
"... Just as the progressive base of the Democratic Party is suppressed by the corporatists at the DNC and other centralized party organs, the Republican base is a captive to its Washington elite power brokers. ..."
"... Apparently 'isolationism' now means simply advocating for some restraint on endless global US military interventionism, hundreds and hundreds of bases in 80+ countries, and trillion dollar 'defence' budgets. ..."
"... I'll take an isolationist over a neo-con any day. ..."
"... The "traditional base" of the Democratic Party was destroyed long ago by de-industrialisation, hollowing of labor law, and now by opioids of the masses. The present day DNC is run by and for their army of contractors, lobbyists, bunglers, and wreckers. ..."
"... I hate to say it to you, but Trump voters who live in Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa weren't looking for upscale living and calling for lower corporate taxes etc. One out of four WV residents are living under economic distress. They just want decent jobs and a government that represents working people, not the wealthy. ..."
here's was a moment in Steve Bannon's recent
60 Minutes interview when the former presidential advisor was asked what he's done to
drain "the swamp," the Trumpists' favorite metaphor for everything they hate about Washington DC.
Here was Bannon's reply: "The swamp is 50 years in the making. Let's talk about the swamp. The swamp
is a business model. It's a successful business model. It's a donor, consultant, K Street lobbyist,
politician ... 7 of the 9 wealthiest counties in America ring Washington, DC."
With a shock of recognition I knew immediately what Bannon meant, because what he was talking
about was the subject matter of my 2008 book, The Wrecking Crew – the interconnected eco-system of
corruption that makes Washington, DC so rich.
The first chapter of my book had been a description of those wealthy counties that ring Washington,
DC: the fine cars, the billowing homes, the expense-account restaurants. The rest of the book was
my attempt to explain the system that made possible the earthly paradise of Washington and – just
like Steve Bannon
– I did it by referring to a business model: the political donors and the K Street lobbyists, who
act in combination with politicians of the Tom DeLay variety.
My critique of Washington was distinctly from the left, and it astonished me to hear something
very close to my argument coming from the mouth of one of the nation's most prominent conservatives.
But in fact, Bannon has a long history of reaching out to the left – you might say, of swiping its
populist language and hijacking its causes.
In this space back in February, for example,
I described Bannon's bizarre 2010 pseudo-documentary about the financial crisis, which superficially
resembles actual documentaries, but which swerves to blame this failure of the deregulated financial
system on the counterculture of the 1960s.
Bannon's once-famous denunciation of Wall Street banks for their role in the financial crisis
is another example. His fondness for the author
Christopher Lasch is also revealing. As was his
admiring phone call
with Robert Kuttner, a well-known liberal editor, which happened just before Bannon left his high-ranking
White House job in August.
Mimicry is supposed to be a form of flattery, right
Dig a little deeper, and it sometimes seems like the history of the populist right – with its
calls to "organize discontent" and its endless war against "the establishment" and the "elites" –
is nothing but a history of reformatting left-wing ideas to fit the needs of the billionaire class.
Think of Ronald Reagan's (and Mike Pence's) deliberate reprise of Franklin Roosevelt. Or the constant
echoes of Depression-era themes and imagery that one heard from the Tea Party movement.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign took this cynical strategy farther than any of his Republican
predecessors, openly reaching out to alienated working-class voters, the backbone of so many left-wing
protest movements.
Trump told us he was going to do something about Nafta, a left-wing bête noir since the 1990s.
He promised to revive Glass Steagall. He claimed to care so very, very much about the people of the
deindustrialized zones whose sufferings have been so thoroughly documented by left-wing authors.
So many fine, militant words. So many clarion calls rousing the people against corrupt elites.
And now comes Steve Bannon, the terror of the Republican establishment, hectoring us about "the swamp"
with ideas so strikingly similar to my own.
Look at deeds rather than words, however, and it seems as though Trump and his gang have been
using The Wrecking Crew more as a how-to guide than anything else. In that book, for example, I pointed out that one of the hallmarks of modern conservative governance
is the placement of people who are hostile to the mission of federal agencies in positions of authority
in those very agencies.
This is an essential component of the Washington corruption Bannon loves to deplore – and yet
this is precisely what Bannon's man Trump has done. Betsy DeVos, a foe of public schools, is running
the Department of Education. Scott Pruitt, a veteran antagonist of the EPA, has been put in charge
of the EPA. Rick Perry now runs the Department of Energy, an agency he once proposed to abolish.
Another characteristic of the DC wrecking crew is a war on competence within the Federal bureaucracy
– and that, too, is back on, courtesy of the folks who rallied you against corruption so movingly
last year.
Lobbying ? The industry
appears to be gearing up for a return of its Reagan-era golden age. In the early days of the administration,
lobbyists were appointed en masse to team Trump and a brigade of brash new K Street personalities
is rising up to replace the old guard.
Privatization? The people in DC are trying it again, and this time on a gigantic scale. Trump's
ultra-populist infrastructure promise now seems to be little more than a vast scheme for encouraging
investment firms to take over the country's highways and bridges. Even the
dreams of privatized war are back, brought to you courtesy of the enterprising Erik Prince, a
familiar face from the worst days of the Iraq war.
Above it all towers the traditional Republican ideal of business-in-government. "The government
should be run like a great American company," is how Jared Kushner puts it this time around; and
with his private-jet-set cabinet Donald Trump is going to show the nation exactly what that philosophy
looks like.
All the elements are here. The conclusion is unquestionable. The wrecking crew is back.
And why is it back? Because, among other things,
Republicans are better
at fulminating against the wrecking crew than are Democrats. Maybe that's because Democratic leaders
feel it's inappropriate to use such blunt and crude language.
Maybe that's because, for 40 years or so, the leadership faction of the Democratic Party has been
at war with its own left wing, defining us out of the conversation, turning a deaf ear to our demands,
denouncing populism even as the right grabbed for it with both hands. Either way, the
Democrats seem to have
no intention of changing their approach now.
Maybe we on the left should take consolation in the things Steve Bannon says. Our own team may
not listen to us, but at least there's someone out there in a position of power who apparently does.
And mimicry is supposed to be a form of flattery, right?
No. All this is happening for one reason only: to steal the traditional base of the Democratic
Party out from under us. That it will also enrich countless contractors and lobbyists and bunglers
and wreckers is just a bonus.
On running the government like a business: That is exactly what the Trump regime is doing. Their
business model is the mob. And to be fair, the idea of running government like a business makes
precisely as much sense as running a business like a government.
Steve Bannon is part of the plan to de-democratize the USA and Republicans can only do that by
lying on an industrial scale, which they do very efficiently and effectively. Why the need? Because
although they are good at destruction, they are no good at all at building the nation or government.
The First Rule of Marketing says that if you give people what they want, they will give you
dollars. The billionaires who fund the Republicans again and again do so not because they believe
in good government, or have the slightest concern for the wealth, health and defense of the nation,
but because they get what they want. It's a purchasing contract.
"....to steal the traditional base of the Democratic Party out from under us"
They aren't your servants to do your bidding and wait your table. Nor your political property.
There is no more similarity of average working blokes to self-infatuated intellectuals of "the
left" than a potato to a hubcap.
Working people left the party because they plainly are no longer welcome except during the
brief hours when the polls are open.
I haven't the vaguest idea. When Sanders decided to support HRC, I figured nothing will ever
change. He built up a lot of hope (as did Obama), only to pull the rug out at the eleventh hour.
Moving to the far towards the "progressive" left, the Democratic party abandoned the working and
middle classes in favor of the coastal well to do city dwellers while trying to appeal to the
"oppressed identity" single issue "groups". The only answer it presented to all problems was more
government control over the economy and over all aspects of people's life. People got tired of
losing their jobs to "globalization", with the government deciding what they can do with policies
of "diversity", which is essentially a quota system, and with having ideologues and bureaucrats
decide what is good or bad for them.
TPP was a secret deal, which had written into it, its own right to trump the legal systems of
signatory countries with TPP-sponsored arbitration and even mediation judgments. Trump saw that
off on his first day.
If we lost the base of the Democratic party it wasn't because it was stolen from us. It was because
it was given away. We started giving it away when we learned the wrong lesson after Ronald Reagan
and thought that we had to move to the right with Bill Clinton to win the presidency.
It was later given away when we didn't accomplish much when we had the majorities in the House,
Senate and Presidency back in 2008. If Trump picked up our message it was because he took it,
it was because it was just sitting there waiting to be picked up.
Nonsense. Clinton is the ultimate Swamp Creature,and large reason for her loss is that she spent
more time with her high dollar donors then in swing states. How do you think the "Clinton Foundation"
got so big?
So the Democrats embraced the moneyed establishment because they felt they had to to win, while
the Republicans denounced that same establishment but only as part of a bait-and-switch strategy.
Meanwhile the establishment hedges their bets and wins no matter what the election outcome.
That is a good message. I'll be more supportive of the conservatives when they actually practice
what they preach. But please don't get me wrong. Not all conservatives are into white supremacy.
The problem I see is that if one is a white supremacist, the conservatives don't publicly denounce
that position. It makes many people of color feel alienated by conservatism. At least the left
openly denounces white supremacy. The right praises MLK but doesn't condemn those in Charlotteville.
They had a right to protest and the left shouldn't have tried to silence them. However it was
identity politics. They wouldn't be protecting the open display of the confederacy if they weren't
into identity politics. That message seems to get lost as conservatism frowns on identity politics.
I don't know what that refers to.
NAFTA passed under Clinton , but more importantly, so did the Uruguay Round of GATT. When the
Senate passed that (the House passed it to but technically the House doesn't ratify treaties),
it severely curtailed the USA's ability to negotiate our own trade deals. All members of the WTO
are vulnerable to financial penalties if any member nation tries to override the rulings set by
the WTO. Not only did Ralph Nader recognize this as a problem and try to run for president because
of it, so did Pat Buchanan. Buchanan saw this as lost sovereignty (in his words). Both Nader and
Buchanan were of course unsuccessful because we vote in an FPTP voting system which tends to eliminate
third parties form being successful.
The point is that Clinton forced Congress to pass the legislation just like Paulson forced
Congress to approve a bailout of the banks during the financial crisis. It wasn't really all the
republicans fault, but the oligarchy would have taken down the global economy if it didn't get
bailed out. Anyway the WTO has a policy on dumping:
both dems and reps rant and rave about China dumping steel but nothing ever gets done to stop
it because the WTO is there protecting China (or american companies making steel in China). Either
way the american steel worker gets screwed in the process and that is why populists hate globalism.
The American worker knows he's getting screwed but he may not be aware of the mechanism by which
he is getting screwed. The media rarely talks about the WTO because if the American worker knew
how he was getting screwed, he'd be screaming to get out of the WTO. Typically he only knows his
jobs are gone and where they are. However it was Clinton who did this and the idea that anybody
would even think of putting HRC back in the white house while she is still married to that dude
is due to utter ignorance of the fact of what he did when he was there the first time.
I think both Clinton and W should be in jail, but this isn't about W.
I agree, the New Deal was quite leftist, in the sense that it acknowledged the crisis which had
struck the working class. It's atypical in the history of the Democratic Party, which has been
devoted to advancing the interests of U.S. corporations and since the Clinton years, those of
multinational business consortia. But even the New Deal was a far cry from a revolutionary call
to arms. In fact, it was meant to curtail such agitation. Roosevelt said as much.
There is no left movement in Washington. Each is going after money from lobbyists. I just see
the USA rapidly consuming itself and fragmenting. It has poor social, medical, policing programs.
And it continues to digest itself in petty hate between the Democrats and Republicans. It really
has no serious governance and worse its flagship superior court is now being sold to capitalism.
Capitalism will fail as predicted by Marx and those who really know about it. It is our children
who will pick up the tab if they can survive.
> Identity politics is what the oligarchy is using to divide us.
Conservatives argue against identity politics. I don't know what the oligarchy is supposed to
be, in the context of the US. People in power often came from varied backgrounds, not usually
all that rich backgrounds.
> upward mobility is being taken from us
Upward from what? If you are poor, there's a lot of upward that might be possible, but if you
are middle class, whatever that means, you can't have everyone moving up or the definition of
middle class would change to them.
> The worst thing that happened to us, happened under Clinton
I don't know what that refers to. Welfare reform? Various changes to banking regulations? Allowing
bin Laden to hit us again and again but instead of doing what needed to be done, frolicking with
a young frisky intern in the Oval Office? I doubt Bush Sr would've done that.
> However if you stand up for the rights of one group and ignore the rights of another today some people still don't "get it".
They don't get what? When someone protests in the street, whether they are sweetness and light
or racist or whatever, they have the right to protest. Plenty of people would argue that "hate
speech" should be banned, them defining what "hate speech" means, of course. These people are
arguing against settled constitutional law.
> I tend to think the US citizen should be protected by the bill of rights and not necessarily those here illegally.
Yet not protecting everyone with due process, for example, is a violation of constitutional law.
I consider myself a populist. Not exactly from the left but certainly more left that right. Identity
politics is what the oligarchy is using to divide us. I just think it is counterproductive to
battle each other when the upward mobility is being taken from us. I wish others could see it.
The worst thing that happened to us, happened under Clinton, but rest assured; HW Bush would have
done it had he won the election in 92.
My point was that calling the Democratic Party a leftist party requires a notion of that term
drained of real meaning. The Democratic Party has always upheld the supremacy of capital and the
necessity of forestalling a revolution. I realize that in the United States plenty of people regard
President Obama and Hillary Clinton as communists, but that's simply a measure of how far to the
right political discourse stands there. The American left was eliminated from public life in the
1940s and 1950s with the suppression of the Communist Party, the purging of the unions and professions,
and strict mass indoctrination of the citizenry. And whenever new manifestations of leftist energy
have appeared, they have been met with unremitting hostility from liberal and conservative centers
of power.
Finally, the Democratic Party is a party not just of capital, but of empire. This was never
more true than in last year's election, in which Donald Trump was able to appeal to marginal voters
on the ambiguous claim that he was less warlike than Secretary Clinton. No, there's nothing in
the two party set-up which expresses the basic demands of the modern left- an end to imperialism,
nationalization of key industries, and so on. And when people restrict their political thinking
to the narrow range offered by a business oligopoly, they're going to be misreading their own
reality.
The Republican Party has a big problem in that its agenda has at best a small grassroots following
of perhaps 10% of the populace.
Meantime, populist-nationalism is in sync with the views of I would estimate at least 50% of
the US citizenry and perhaps as much as 60%. (the other 30% of the public are "progressives")
The establishment has maintained power by default. When our political system offers only a
choice between a "progressive" Democrat and an establishment Repubilcan, many voters choose the
latter as the lesser evil.
If and when voters actually are offered a genuine choice at the ballot box, watch out. I think
you will start seeing this played out on a grand scale in the 2018 and 2020 Republican primaries.
Fighting the corporate establishment has never been the exclusive province of the left.
Immigration restrictionists in the US have for decades fought the corporate establishment.
In fact, we have fought what are probably the most powerful coalitions of special interests in
human history, coalitions of corporate predators, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big Media, and Big
Government.
This movement is one of the grassroots pillars fueling Bannonism.
There are plenty of populists in the Republican Party, but the governing portion of the party
is solidly neocon. Hence the battle between President Trump and the "17 intelligence agencies,"
and the remarkable undermining of Trump's foreign policy proposals by his own cabinet.
Just as the progressive base of the Democratic Party is suppressed by the corporatists at the
DNC and other centralized party organs, the Republican base is a captive to its Washington elite
power brokers.
Thomas Frank's interesting and thoughtful pieces on the failure- or refusal- of the Democratic
Party to come to terms with the depths of voter disaffection form an interesting contrast with
the Guardian's DNC-supplied outlook. I suppose that's why he's been hired, to take up all that
slack as the paper trudges ever rightward. Here's a link to an extended recent interview he gave
with Paul Jay at The Real News.
Populist movements typically tend to involve more focus on complaining and raging about problems
than coming up with any real solutions for them, so it doesn't really matter whether members self-identify
as coming from the left or right. Given the Trump campaign was all about manipulation anyway,
with Trump just a puppet to distract the public from seeing the corprate take-over of the state,
it's not surprising they used a populist rhetoric, as seen in shock doctrine, that inherent rage
blinds them from seeing they are being manipulated.
The last time the Democrats actually offered something to the American people was the War on Poverty
and Civil Rights legislation by President Johnson in the 1960s. Other than the Democrats have
been acting like an extended PR arm of corporate America by performing sideshows on social issues
while failing to address the needs of working families. I clearly don't buy into the notion that
the Democrats are a tad better than the Republicans. No, the Democrats need to be radically to
the left like Bernie Sanders, not moderate Republican lite such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
This country simply cannot continue electing conservative governments all the time in Washington
DC.
Apparently 'isolationism' now means simply advocating for some restraint on endless global US
military interventionism, hundreds and hundreds of bases in 80+ countries, and trillion dollar
'defence' budgets.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, Republican isolationists are the only ones in their
primarily interventionist party to ever make a principled critique of endless U.S. wars abroad.
Sadly, the Democrats are, with some honorable exceptions like Dennis Kucinich, as committed to
these endless wars as their partners across the aisle. This is one of the many reasons why Hillary
Clinton lost. However, Buchanan's xenophobia makes his brand of anti-imperialism shallow--he still
thinks "Western civilization" is superior to other cultures, and has denied the genocide against
Native Americans. His views about Jews are also rather creepy. That said, I'll take an isolationist
over a neo-con any day.
There is divisive manipulation on the left and the right, the pundits blame each other to keep
America divided. The right stereotypes the left while the left stereotypes the right . The working
class crazy white guy is oppressing the hispanic and blacks while the blacks and hispanic oppress
the working class white. The left pundits make fun of the working class while the right pundits
make fun of the left pundits. Both sides are entralled by business interests aka socoio-political
interests. Afterall, this is a business world where ppl have to put food on the table.America
is on the verge of becoming as divided as america was prior to the civil war. What am i supposed
to do? Join the resistence of division taking place on the left and the right? Protest against
another american at a divided left vs. right rally? Resistence is futile because resistence leads
to more division.
Excuse my unedites grammar semtence structure lack of sense and not serious online comment
Trump can't stop calling others
names - with the absurd stance
that he must bully people to create a sense of self respect.
Those who support Trump or Bannon generally have in common a refusal to see any viewpoint other
than their own.
They'll find a way to make most any belief, policy or decision which T&B uphold, look justified
or non-offensive in motives.
Trump runs every which way, so, there are bound to be a few things one finds agreeable (even from
the left). Bannon thinks democracy does not work. He'd like to see the federal government crash.
In fact, The USA has no true democracy. Like many developed
nations we are under the total
rule of organized business. Profit
is superior and normalized whereas basic human needs are
for the highest bid competition.
Greed older than Methuselah's
first breakfast. Bannon doesn't
have a vision for the betterment and uplift of society any more than anyone else. Who cannot can
see corporate greed has its tentacles around us? The common person on the street
knows the scheme. What to do about it finds us in the land of inertia. Next crash (it is coming)
the panicked cry for bailouts will
be near impossible to put-up with. With billions on the planet
we are in new territory, as to
resources and competition. A system which cannot survive with its hand in our pocket while claiming
free market enterprise
will even out the system on balance - meaning for investors, and head in sand more of the same.
The "base" of the Democratic party is now the same get rich ideologues of Clinton-ism who are
happy to lobby and privatise with as much enthusiasm as any right wing Republican/Conservative/Tea
Party ideologue. Every administration, Republican or Democratic, from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama,
has held to the same policies of the Reagan administration. The "traditional base" of the Democratic
Party was destroyed long ago by de-industrialisation, hollowing of labor law, and now by opioids
of the masses. The present day DNC is run by and for their army of contractors, lobbyists, bunglers,
and wreckers.
Yep - the big mistake with critters like Bannon is to ignore or dismiss everything they say and
fail to detect what resonance they are striking with what audience.
But it's awkward when you just read them and recognise grains of truthiness - they see the
same problems it's just their solutions are all wrong. But they are actually cutting the left's
grass - pinching the alienation and discontent that rightly belongs to progress, no? Now the NRA
have got 'em - not even the GOP.
Be yer unfinished civil war this... grinding away slowly ... so now the whole place is riven
by fear and suspicion - of race, wealth, cities, the guvvermint, of anything and everything really.
A deeply traumatised culture you've got sitting down there - victims real and imagined wandering
about and none of it getting fixed at all..
Not everyone or everywhere - but the most fearful and angry cluster are centred on the underlying
issues of the era of Lincoln. Trump is speaking for and to them. There can be no more nonsense
about lone gunmen - this is now part of US culture - systemic and systematic.
Yer 500 kiddies are just the price of open-carry freedoms according to the Vegas mayor. All
the same old folk-wisdoms: can't have laws that stop bad people being bad?... why should the 1%
of evildoers dictate our liberties?
But of course they do. That is how all laws work, whether murder or shoplifting - everyone
shows their bags. In fact they are arguing for lawlessness - vigilantism and John Wayne cowboy
myths. That's the Trump/Bannon audience ... National Enquirer readers packing heat .
#TheHouseAlwaysWins The author gets so close to putting his finger on the problem and then at
the last moment swerves off into partisan rhetoric. Wake up dude! Both of the things you think are opposite sides are out to get us.
The list below delineates the policies and initiatives that Hillary Clinton supported over course
of her political career (including as a loyal First Lady to Bill Clinton). They help explain the
depressed voter enthusiasm and turnout for the Dems among many of the groups to whom you say Frank,
as a "well-to-do white man" pining for "white working class revolution," owes an apology:
--Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of Glass--Steagall)
--Deregulation of the telecommunications industry
--Deregulation of derivatives
--The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme poverty to double
since its passage)
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (increased the prison population massively)
--NAFTA
--The sanctions regime against Iraq of the 1990s that killed 500,000 Iraqi children ("it was worth
it," said her friend Madeline Albright)
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--CAFTA (granted stealthy support)
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The private prison industry
--The Patriot Act
--The Iraq War
--The bombing of Libya
--Military intervention in Syria
--Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
--The right-wing coup in Honduras
--Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
--A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
--The recently announced 20 year, $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) upgrade of the US's nuclear arsenal
--Historically-high numbers of deportations under the Obama Adm.
--Oil drilling in the Arctic
--The fight against free public university tuition
--The fight against single-payer health care
--Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
--Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
--The bail-out of Wall Street
If you think America is bad, then try living in the UK.
The UK is a hotbed of religious nutters. Just look at Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, David
Cameron, and Theresa May.
The UK still has a "state-established" church (the Church of England). The UK's national anthem
' God Save the Queen ' mentions 'God' over 30 different times. And most British schools
are still faith-based and funded by the church. Also, abortion and gay marriage are still banned
in some parts of the UK, such as Northern Ireland.
Forget Donald Trump.... the UK is far more religious & dangerous.
Lol, yeah it's only the Rs that do bad stuff in DC. HRC was the Queen of the system described
above. An article designed to confuse those without eyes to see.
The interesting thing for me is the hate levels on the left which appear to be almost off the
scale at the moment. Identity politics seems to have a deep hold on your hearts.
The U.S. is more liberal & secular than ever. The election of Trump doesn't change that. According to a
2011 Pew Report , the U.S. now has the 3rd largest atheist population in the
world -- after China & Japan. On top of that, a
2015 Gallup Poll found that 60% of Americans would vote for an atheist President
-- a record number that continues to grow every year.
Additionally, gay marriage is legal in all
50 U.S. states. Marijuana is legal & taxed in
8 U.S. states. Euthanasia (assisted suicide) is legal in
6 U.S states -- including California (the largest state in America with over 40 million
people). Even prostitution is legal & regulated in some U.S. states, such as Nevada!
*Sign into Youtube to watch this video about legal
American brothels.
The U.S. constitution guarantees separation of Church & State -- unlike the UK, which still
has a "state-established" church (the Church of England).
Not really. They will be defeated in the next election and they are already facing charges and
prison time. This will not end with a bang, but with a whimper and whining like you've never heard.
There are many more in the one percent and the top 10% who are already disgusted with Mercer,
Koch, Trump and the whole Putin cabal. Evil is evil and splashing some fake christianity on their
hitler speeches is not fooling anyone but the already fooled; and they are a small lot getting
smaller every single day.
Most of Bannon's story about dear old dad is pure crap. He was already a right wing film-maker
before the 2008 meltdown, and dear old dad would still have his money if he had listened to his
two financier sons instead of the cable TV idiot Cramer. AT&T, in case you haven't heard, came
through the crash intact.
15 billion dollars worth of missiles being sold to Saudi Arabia ........ while a few days ago
Saudi Arabia goes to Moscow and talks to putin which is the first tie ever.......... so we sold
them weapons to what , aim at us........
So, do you preferred two thirds of the American population to live on welfare aid like Medicaid
which doesn't even covered dental and eye exams? As much you don't like the GOP approach to healthcare
reform, the Democrats would rather bailed out the insurance industry by making consumers to buy
unaffordable coverage and public assistance programs and refused to embraced Bernie Sanders approach
to universal healthcare. The Democratic Party simply has no ideas, just empty tough talk against
the President.
I hate to say it to you, but Trump voters who live in Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Iowa weren't looking for upscale living and calling for lower corporate taxes
etc. One out of four WV residents are living under economic distress. They just want decent jobs
and a government that represents working people, not the wealthy.
So, you're suggesting that Frank's political instincts are all wrong when he first wrote his
book thesis on "What's the matter with Kansas," which lays out the scanting indictment of the
pro-corporate wing of the Democratic Party and their wealthy supporters. Here's the reality
that you Clinton bots don't understand: the rest of the country is like Kansas, not glamour
LA or Wall Street NYC. People work in blue collar and grey collar professions, have modest
wealth, and some are involved in trade unions. Many don't have a college degree; many also
have no desires to go to a liberal arts school or state public university. Nearly eighty
percent of middle America have a high school diploma. Only thirty percent have a college BA
degree, and less than five percent have a advanced degree in Law or PH'D. Those numbers
haven't changed since the 1960s. And yet, the corporate ruling class which showers money to
both political parties have been selling the public a bill of false promises and lies about
the necessary of getting a college degree in order to find gainful employment with living
wages. Sorry, there isn't no living wage jobs. Our industrialized state has been devalued by
NAFTA, a pro-corporate trade deal signed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s, had destroyed the
fabric of mostly blue collar communities in middle America. Both Democrats and Republicans
all conspired to gut the entire working classes out of the middle class status and into the
underclass welfare state as a whole---first with welfare reform in the 1990s, followed by
Bush era tax cuts, getting rid of Glass-Stegeall, awarding companies with job outsourcing,
failure to provide affordable housing to the needy while selling risky sub-prime mortgages,
making our higher educational system as a luxury commodity, destroying our pension system and
replacing it with an inadequate 401K retirement package, allowing the one percent to hide
their money overseas in tax haven accounts, subsidizing the rich, and control the media
through corporate consolidation. We no longer have the ability to innovate, produce, or
create a thriving working class middle. Instead, corporate dominance in our politics and our
legal system makes it almost impossible to generate a fair, diverse, and expanding
opportunities economy on the basis of progressive regulations that is desperately needed.
What Frank had in mind is what the donor class within the Democratic Party is scared
about. That is, working people are being shoved aside due to the power of money in
government, and yet the Democratic Party has to changed its tune in order to regain the
working class voters in middle America.
Well, Bannon is partly right given the fact that our government has been at the wheel of
powerful lobbyists and wealthy donors for so long. However, given the dysfunctional and
unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Trump Administration in DC, the Democrats seem to
appear as aloof and tone deaf with the American people----a state of utter denial regarding a
major political party that just lost the Presidential election to a dingbat D list reality tv
star and real estate tycoon who has the mindset of a spoiled child.
The true reason behind Bannon's conquest for political votes is that the working class
here in the US have been totally neglected and left behind by eight years of Obama and the
last two terms of Bush Jr from the previous decade. Working people want actual middle class
jobs and a shot of a decent life in retirement, not welfare checks from the government.
The Left in English-speaking countries has been overtaken by upper-middle class people who
are obsessed with sexual identity and race. They are snobby towards working class people and
will abuse them as racist when they talk about problems with immigration or other social
groups with different coloured skin. I moved from the first group into the second, and I know
working class people are no more prejudiced than upper-middle class, but they don't have the
vocabulary to express it in a way that "educated" people will recognise.
This snobbery towards possible complexities in the life of working class people is damning
leftwing parties to continual oblivion.
(Working class people use blunt language, but they apply it to themselves equally. Those
higher up the social ladder are not used to hearing that type of language.)
Did anything I say indicate I support Trump? I described his administration as an
economically centrist "kleptocracy". Trump Jr. taking thinly veiled payoffs on the
speaking/grift circuit is par for the course.
In fact, Breitbart gets criticism on the right for being too gung ho in embracing Israel.
Steve Bannon quotes that give some of his supporters pause are things like "no media outlet
is more pro-Israel than Breitbart". I guess politics is a factor but most of us don't like
all the money we give them and how a major reason that the Muslim world is so angry at the
Western one is it's unflinching backing of Israel, no matter how much of the West Bank they
encroach upon, among other things.
The idea that Breitbart is anti-Semitic is an absurd Media Matters talking point going
back to an article calling Bill Kristol a "Renegade Jew". The article was, obviously, written
by a Jew. And the thrust of the article was that Bill Kristol (and others) making attempts to
steal the Republican nomination from Trump (as the Dems had from Bernie Sanders) would
ultimately harm Israel. So it was a Jew calling a Jew a Renegade Jew for making a decision he
believed was bad for the Jewish homeland.
I know it's all very confusing but hopefully that's cleared up now.
"I did it by referring to a business model: the political donors and the K Street lobbyists,
who act in combination with politicians of the Tom DeLay variety."
There are almost no members of Congress who are of any other sort than the "Tom Delay"
variety you refer to. Very nearly every single member is corrupt. The game is ruined. Perhaps
an end to gerrymandering (if we shoudl be so fortunate) will allow some mechanism for
changing the guard in Congress. We need to remove them all. They sold us out and we need to
exile them for life.
Don't think your rep is any better. This keeps us stuck.
I don't JUST yell Hillary. I also mentioned Obama and the rest of the criminals who make up
the Democratic Party. Whose list of proven criminality is simply staggering enough before you
get in to the mountains of very damning circumstantial stuff that begs investigation.
And when I mention the Democrats, you act as if it's some irrelevent non sequitur. IT IS
NOT. Please remember that the choice was Trump OR Hillary. So whenever people lament how
apparently terrible the President who has brought us 3.1% GDP growth for the first time in
years and well over a million new jobs along with finally insisting that the law needs to be
enforced for the first time in 8 years, the issue of the alternative to this IS of course
relevant.
As I said: Clinton is a part of the establishment. A real swamp monster. One of the really
big stinking ones, with huge wads of cash stuck to her blood soaked claws. Trump is not. And
by the very low bar set by the past few Presidents, just not being more of the same is an
improvement.
And by the way, Hillary Clinton did commit multiple felonies. The private server = felony
(whether "intent" was there or not, that was an irrelevant muddying of the waters). The
storing and forwarding of classified info on this server = felony (whether or not she, after
decades in government understood that (C) meant classified as it always had all along).
You seem to be taking Clinton Cash as evidence of something, but that is just a piece of
propaganda meant to sway the election. Where are your reputable sources?
There are some great videos on Youtube where he talks about economics.
HAHA yes where he deliberately lies about the cause of 2008.
Where he is now silent on cohn who is now in charge of economic policy.
So, while Cohn was overseeing one team inside Goldman Sachs preoccupied with
implementing the big short, he was in regular contact with others scrambling to offload its
subprime inventory. One Goldman trader described the mortgage-backed securities they were
selling as "shitty." Another complained in an email that they were being asked to "distribute
junk that nobody was dumb enough to take first time around." A December 28 email from Fabrice
"Fabulous Fab" Tourre, a Goldman vice president later convicted of fraud, instructed traders
to focus on less astute, "buy and hold" investors rather than "sophisticated hedge funds"
that "will be on the same side of the trade as we will." https://theintercept.com/2017/09/17/goldman-sachs-gary-cohn-donald-trump-administration
/
Then there is Mnuchin( Treasury secretary) the foreclosure king, who made a fortune on
taking peoples home, some for $1 mistake.
Why did republicans mot make up some laws to put them into prison. Why are they silent now
when trump is deregulating by executive order.
Talk about fake outrage putting in the people who caused the problems as the
solutions.
Spoken from someone who has obviously never listened to what Steve Bannon said or his
message.
You obviously don't know, for example, that his Dad - a union guy - lost half of his life
savings in the crash of 2008.
And you do not have a single quote where you can attribute "master race" stuff to Bannon.
That's literally a smear based on nothing, created by the Clinton people as revenge for his
role in the absolutely devastating expose Clinton Cash.
Those of us paying attention understand what he is: an unbelievably bright guy who was the
first man who successfully harnessed the informed outrage of the alternative media to have an
impact in national politics. He and Trump beat the rigging and achieved for the socially
conservative anti-deepstate people what Bernie Sanders was unable to achieve on the Left...
if he ever really had the stomach for the fight in the first place.
"That it will also enrich countless contractors and lobbyists and bunglers and wreckers is
just a bonus." Mmmm, maybe not a bonus so much as the objective, perhaps? As an aside, the
method of installing nomenclature to control agencies, such as the agency responsible for
granting broadcast licences, was described, if I recall correctly, in Josef Korbel's 1959
"The Communist Subversion of Czechoslovakia, 1938-1948". For a funny take on the
privatisation of perpetual military conflict, Christopher Buckley's "They Eat Puppies, Don't
They?" might provide a laugh, if you don't think about how closely it matches reality.
The proletariat, or at least the opioid threatened, white and marginalized cadre on show in
the Rust belt states, probably thought they had their man in DJT because he said what it took
to get himself elected in the vernacular they prefer, feeling its authenticity made them look
honest.. Ha! But look! They are no different from other vulnerables after all, and they will
be and are, being screwed over accordingly. Turkeys and Christmas, Foxes and henhouses, its
all been said and now its being done: educate yourselves, folks.. before its too late.
Yep, judge em solely on their actions. Trump is about entrenching the corporate coup d'etat.
Expanding the swamp, not draining it. The question is now, after Citizens United and with a
conservative SCOTUS in perpetuity, whether it's too wide and deep ever to be drained.
"... There is a big difference between shills for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation. ..."
"... The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics. ..."
DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?
CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced
identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than
nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going
around to collect his fees for selling us out.
My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with
others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in
Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly
angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there
was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first."
Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills
for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals
like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or
people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.
It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that
have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The
old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering
oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew
that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new
form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO
or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits
that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose
to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate
and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people
challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for
US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US
effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.
Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing
to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have
the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass
destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress
members in an October 2, 2002
report showing "there was no cause for war."
Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed
an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion
of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.
Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US
government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium,
this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with
"over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we
ignore our own problems here at home."
Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on
these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich
asks. He answers as follows:
This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts
to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention
abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the
military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on
a path toward destruction.
Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans
both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global
cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate
and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people
challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for
US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US
effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.
Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing
to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have
the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass
destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress
members in an October 2, 2002
report showing "there was no cause for war."
Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed
an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion
of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.
Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US
government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium,
this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with
"over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we
ignore our own problems here at home."
Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on
these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich
asks. He answers as follows:
This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts
to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention
abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the
military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on
a path toward destruction.
Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans
both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global
cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans
& Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all
are -- "Neocons."
Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration
that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's
going to end up making the way for them during his four years.
I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.
It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans
& Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all
are -- "Neocons."
Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration
that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's
going to end up making the way for them during his four years.
I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.
It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
"We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.
All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German
Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had
the courage to recognize their own motives.
They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for
a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would
be free and equal.
We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of
relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship
in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the
dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The
object of power is power."
The Curley Effect Versus the Kennedy Effect
[...] We call this strategy -- increasing the relative size of one's political base through
distortionary, wealth-reducing policies -- the Curley effect. But it is hardly unique to
Curley. Other American mayors, but also politicians around the world, have pursued policies
that encouraged emigration of their political enemies, raising poverty but gaining political
advantage.
The "Latino" Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is short-sighted and
profit oriented. The "Latino" Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is
short-sighted and profit oriented. Their alliance with the Church has put in place a system
that pays no heed to genetic inheritance.
He makes an interesting point that the drug war has pushed down labor costs in Mexico and
that that is, crazily enough, a good thing from an economic/libertarian/oligarch point of
view
Here an excerpt from another comment, that is still in the moderation stage, so the link
will not lead to anywhere at the moment; it might or might not get approved later on though. I
tried to keep the comment as uncontroversial and as short as possible: http://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-the-mess-before-maria/#comment-2031723
Puerto Rican origin population growth has been powered mainly by an increase in those
born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, rather than by the increasing influx of
migrants from the island.
"... Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. ..."
"... Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion. ..."
"... Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires ..."
"... First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations ..."
"... As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class ..."
"... The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect. ..."
"... In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation. ..."
"... However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the 'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. ..."
"... The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite. ..."
Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying
poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in
profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal
assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and
food stamps. Amazon plutocrat Jeff Bezos exploits workers by paying $12.50 an hour while he has
accumulated over $80 billion dollars in profits. UPS CEO David Albany takes $11 million a year
by exploiting workers at $11 an hour. Federal Express CEO, Fred Smith gets $16 million and pays
workers $11 an hour.
Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the
ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and
journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits,
financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion.
The ruling class has mastered the 'technology' of exploiting the state, through its pillage of
the treasury, and the working class. Capitalist exploitation of low paid production workers
provides additional billions for the 'philanthropic' billionaire family foundations to polish
their public image – using another tax avoidance gimmick – self-glorifying
'donations'.
Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and
subsidies for billionaires.
Billionaires in the arms industry and security/mercenary conglomerates receive over $700
billion dollars from the federal budget, while over 100 million US workers lack adequate health
care and their children are warehoused in deteriorating schools.
Workers and Bosses: Mortality Rates
Billionaires and multi-millionaires and their families enjoy longer and healthier lives than
their workers. They have no need for health insurance policies or public hospitals. CEO's live
on average ten years longer than a worker and enjoy twenty years more of healthy and pain-free
lives.
Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe
and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and
healthier lives. The quality of their medical care and the qualifications of their medical
providers present a stark contrast to the health care apartheid that characterizes the rest of
the United States.
Workers are treated and mistreated by the health system: They have inadequate and often
incompetent medical treatment, cursory examinations by inexperienced medical assistants and end
up victims of the widespread over-prescription of highly addictive narcotics and other
medications. Over-prescription of narcotics by incompetent 'providers' has significantly
contributed to the rise in premature deaths among workers, spiraling cases of opiate overdose,
disability due to addiction and descent into poverty and homelessness. These irresponsible
practices have made additional billions of dollars in profits for the insurance corporate
elite, who can cut their pensions and health care liabilities as injured, disabled and addicted
workers drop out of the system or die.
The shortened life expectancy for workers and their family members is celebrated on Wall
Street and in the financial press. Over 560,000 workers were killed by opioids between
1999-2015 contributing to the decline in life expectancy for working age wage and salary
earners and reduced pension liabilities for Wall Street and the Social Security
Administration.
Inequalities are cumulative, inter-generational and multi-sectorial.
Billionaire families, their children and grandchildren, inherit and invest billions. They
have privileged access to the most prestigious schools and medical facilities, and conveniently
fall in love to equally privileged, well-connected mates to join their fortunes and form even
greater financial empires. Their wealth buys favorable, even fawning, mass media coverage and
the services of the most influential lawyers and accountants to cover their swindles and tax
evasion.
Billionaires hire innovators and sweat shop MBA managers to devise more ways to slash wages,
increase productivity and ensure that inequalities widen even further. Billionaires do not have
to be the brightest or most innovative people: Such individuals can simply be bought or
imported on the 'free market' and discarded at will.
Billionaires have bought out or formed joint ventures with each other, creating interlocking
directorates. Banks, IT, factories, warehouses, food and appliance, pharmaceuticals and
hospitals are linked directly to political elites who slither through doors of rotating
appointments within the IMF, the World Bank, Treasury, Wall Street banks and prestigious law
firms.
Consequences of Inequalities
First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates
dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring
that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and
weaken the political power of popular organizations .
Secondly, the burden of the economic crisis is shifted on to the workers who are fired and
later re-hired as part-time, contingent labor. Public bailouts, provided by the taxpayer, are
channeled to the billionaires under the doctrine that Wall Street banks are too big to fail and
workers are too weak to defend their wages, jobs and living standards.
Billionaires buy political elites, who appoint the World Bank and IMF officials tasked with
instituting policies to freeze or reduce wages, slash corporate and public health care
obligations and increase profits by privatizing public enterprises and facilitating corporate
relocation to low wage, low tax countries.
As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work
longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and
mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and
poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class . Even
their addiction and deaths provide opportunities for huge profit – as the Sackler Family,
manufacturers of Oxycontin, can attest.
The billionaires and their political acolytes argue that deeper regressive taxation would
increase investments and jobs. The data speaks otherwise. The bulk of repatriated profits
are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in
the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs
and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the
headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power –
both cause and effect.
Corporate elites, the billionaires in the Silicon Valley-Wall Street global complex are
relatively satisfied that their cherished inequalities are guaranteed and expanding under the
Demo-Republican Presidents- as the 'good times' roll on.
Away from the 'billionaire elite', the 'outsiders' – domestic capitalists –
clamor for greater public investment in infrastructure to expand the domestic economy, lower
taxes to increase profits, and state subsidies to increase the training of the labor force
while reducing funds for health care and public education. They are oblivious to the
contradiction.
In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the
same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the
profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political
and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and
political representation. They understand, or at least experience, how the class system works. Most workers know about
the injustice of the fake 'free trade' agreements and regressive tax regime, which weighs heavy
on the majority of wage and salary earners.
However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the
'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise
of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has
served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in
technology, construction or production. Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose
immigration under the guise of 'law and order' and to lower social expenditures – despite
that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service
their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.
The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and
social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance
with the political elite.
In order to reverse the regressive tax practices and tax evasion, the low wage cycle and the
spiraling death rates resulting from narcotics and other preventable causes, which profit
insurance companies and pharmaceutical billionaires, class alliances need to be forged linking
workers, consumers, pensioners, students, the disabled, the foreclosed homeowners, evicted
tenants, debtors, the under-employed and immigrants as a unified political force.
Sooner said than done, but never tried! Everything and everyone is at stake: life, health
and happiness.
Ronald Reagan can be blamed for the excess of billionaires we now have. His lauding of the
entrepreneurial spirit and how we are all brave individual risk takers makes it seem you are
an envious chickensh$t if you advocate against unlimited assets.
But even Warren Buffet has come out for the estate tax saying something like now the
Forbes 400 now possesses total assets of 2.5 trillion in a 20 trillion economy when 40 years
ago they totaled in the millions. The legal rule against perpetuities generally used to limit
trusts to a lifetime of 100 years, now some states offer 1000 year trusts which will only
concretize an outlandishly high Gini coefficient(a measure of income inequality).
The rationale for lowering taxes and the untouchable rich is usually the trickle down theory
but, as one of these billionaires said, "How many pairs of pants can I buy?" It takes 274
years spending 10,000 a day to spend a billion dollars.
Better Henry Ford's virtuous circle than Ronald Reagan's entrepreneur.
Ban all billionaires. Bring back the union label. Otherwise .. what do we have to lose?
@Wally
"According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458
billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every
two years by this conservative estimate."
No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.
https://www.ronpaul.com/taxes/
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its
implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the
citizens it is supposed to represent.
Tellingly, "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is Plank #2 of the Communist
Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in
1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes,
non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending
"We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same
level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don't need to "replace" the income tax
at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and
I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not
my goal. We can do better."
https://youtu.be/qI5lC4Z_T80
No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.
There was a time that I would have agreed with that, and technically still get the point,
but what it really means is that the government merely allows the corporations which they
favor, subsidize, and bail out to keep the chump change they've stolen from the workers,
besides that which the government steals from the workers and hands to the corporations.
Corporations and government work hand in hand to fleece the herd and most of the herd
apparently think it's just fine.
Never forget that thanks to government, corporations socialize risk while privatizing
profit. They are partners in gangsterism.
Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and
safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer
and healthier lives.
Sorry, I don't buy the notion that billionaires have access to some super-healthcare that
the rest of us don't know about. In the real world rich people notoriously waste a lot of
money on quackery, like the current fad of receiving plasma transfusions from young people as
a phony "anti-aging" treatment.
More likely the kinds of men who become billionaires just enjoy better health and
longevity for genetic reasons. They tend to have higher IQ's, for example, and some
scientists think that IQ correlates with "system integrity" in their bodies which just make
higher IQ people more resilient. Look up the growing body of research on cognitive
epidemiology.
I'm disappointed there was no mention of the "Billionaires" use of social media. They've
always controlled the press of course: startin' wars, hatin' on those guys, gettin' the blood
up, jailin' the 'bad guys', preaching an empty delusion of social justice propaganda, payin'
Ken Burns to propagandize and put a new coat of paint on the industrial scale killing of
Vietnam. Probably just in time for more violence.
Let's face it, many of the workin' stiff will blow a hedge fund manager and kneel before
the so-called free market corpse of Sam Walton but most importantly they'll grab their guns
outa' patriotic fervor and social media will be right there with 'em. "I love Elon Musk!"
It's a great thing we're watched and datamined for our own good – information is how
billionaires became billionaires along with a lot of help from the Government they usually
encourage you to dislike. Keep posting!
Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of 'law and
order' and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported
nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can
always be deported when convenient.
BZZZZ – wrong. Rich conservative support massive immigration so they can get cheap
labor while simutaneously virtue signaling. I thought you just got done sayiong they don't
pay for the costs of the working poor? The middle class is who is against immigratioin. They
bear the burden and pay the taxes that support it.
Inverted totalitarism is very far from democracy. It just pretends being democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump won the election by attracting working-class 'rust belt' voters away from the Democrats and for offering the prospect of an end to a 'liberal interventionist' foreign policy. Yet just nine months into his Presidency the belief that Trump would mark a 'clean break' with what had gone before is in tatters. National conservative members of his team have been purged, while Trump has proved himself as much of a war hawk as his predecessors. Rather than 'draining the swamp,' The Donald has waded right into it. ..."
"... The events of 2017 plainly prove as I argued here that the US is a regime and not a genuine democracy, and that whoever gets to the White House - sooner or later - will be forced to toe the War Party/Wall Street/Deep State line, regardless of what they promise on the election trail. ..."
If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it. That might sound a bit glib but consider
these recent events.
In January 2015, the Greek people, sick and tired of austerity and rapidly plummeting living
standards, voted for Syriza, a radical anti-austerity party. The Coalition of the Left, which
had only been formed eleven years earlier, won 36.3 percent of the vote and 149 out of the
Hellenic Parliament's 300 seats. The Greek people had reasonable hopes their austerity
nightmare would end. The victory of Syriza was hailed by progressives across Europe.
Pressure was applied on Greece by 'The Troika' to accept onerous terms for a new bailout.
Syriza went to the people in June 2015 to ask them directly in a national referendum if they
should accept the terms.
"On Sunday, we are not simply deciding to remain in Europe, we are deciding to live with
dignity in Europe," Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, declared. The Greek people duly gave
Tsipras the mandate he asked for, and rejected the bailout terms with 61.3 percent voting
'No.'
Yet, just over two weeks after the referendum, Syriza accepted a bailout package that
contained larger cuts in pensions and higher tax increases than the one on offer earlier.
The Greek people may as well have stayed at home on 27th June for all the difference their vote
made.
Many supporters of Donald Trump in the US are no doubt thinking the same.
Trump won the election by attracting working-class 'rust belt' voters away from the Democrats
and for offering the prospect of an end to a 'liberal interventionist' foreign policy. Yet just
nine months into his Presidency the belief that Trump would mark a 'clean break' with what had
gone before is in tatters. National conservative members of his team have been purged, while
Trump has proved himself as much of a war hawk as his predecessors. Rather than 'draining the
swamp,' The Donald has waded right into it.
The events of 2017 plainly prove as I argued here that the US is a regime and not a genuine
democracy, and that whoever gets to the White House - sooner or later - will be forced to toe
the War Party/Wall Street/Deep State line, regardless of what they promise on the election
trail.
... ... ... ...
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many
newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star,
Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The
Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also
appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder
of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at
www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs
@NeilClark66
The race for governor of New Jersey is the most important election of 2017. With so much at
stake you might think the people would have a real choice, and they do, its just not the
choices presented by the Democrats and Republicans.
When it comes down to what really matters -- power and money -- New Jersey is run by machine
politics and the insiders know how to wheel and deal.
Power in the Garden State is managed by a shifting alliance of political machines, ready to
cut deals, share power and scratch each others back. At least that is how its been since Chris
Christie came to rule the roost.
Christie owes his rise to some of the most toxic forces in his state -- powerful bosses
who ensure that his vow to clean up New Jersey will never come to pass. He has allowed them
to escape scrutiny, rewarded them for their support, and punished their enemies. All along,
even as it looked like Christie was attacking the machine, he was really just mastering
it.
MacGillis continues to describe the gears and wheels:
In most of the United States, the big political machines have been broken, or reduced to
wheezing versions of their former selves. In New Jersey, though, they've endured like nowhere
else. The state has retained its excessively local distribution of power -- 566
municipalities, 21 counties, and innumerable commissions and authorities, all of them
generous repositories of contracts and jobs. The place still has bona fide bosses -- perhaps
not as colorful as the old ones, but about as powerful. The bosses drum up campaign cash from
people and firms seeking public jobs and contracts, and direct it to candidates, who take
care of the bosses and the contributors -- a self-perpetuating cycle
The relationship between Democratic machine bosses and Christie was so cozy that in the 2013
gubernatorial race the Democratic Party failed to support its own candidate, Barbara Buono.
"withstood the onslaught of Betrayal from our own party .The Democratic political bosses,
some elected, some not made a deal with this governor .They did not do it for the State they
did it out of a desire to help themselves."
The machines effectively deprive the voters of New Jersey of a free, fair and competitive
election.
This time around it's Christie that "
kicks sand " in the face of the Republican candidate even thought his very own Lt.
Governor. Guadagno is way down in the polls and millions short.
After Christie's gross absenteeism during his vain run for the Presidency, Bridgegate,
Beachgate, plundering of the treasury with
record giveaways to favored corporations , the
protection and rescue of Exxon and the unprecedented low approval ratings to show for it,
there is nothing Christie can or will do to help.
Referring to his miserable poll ratings
Christie said , "Poll numbers matter when you're running for something .And I don't care."
He used New Jersey for his personal gain and trashed the Republican Party, but no worries, now
its the Democrats turn.
A Republican politician, Chris Brown, is quoted in
PoliticoNewJersey as saying:
I can only speak for myself and say that I believe there has been an unholy alliance
between Governor Christie and Senator Sweeney, which I don't believe is in the best interest
of the people I represent in Atlantic County or this state ."
Where are the lesser of two evils in New Jersey?
When it came time to attack workers they were one big happy family.
As reported in The Nation:
[W]hen Christie launched an aggressive assault on the pensions and health-care benefits of
state employees in 2011, he did so with the support of Norcross, DiVincenzo, and other
Democratic bosses, whose allies in the Assembly joined the Republican governor to give him
the margin he needed to pass the changes despite massive protests outside the State House by
the NJEA, the CWA, and other unions.In June of that year, Wisniewski
appeared on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, where he joined her in bemoaning the state of the
Democratic Party and added, in regard to the pension-"reform" fiasco: "We fought real hard,
but unfortunately there were some Democrats who chose to side with the Republicans on this
bill."
Some Democrats? Just the most powerful Democrats in the state.
George Norcross lives a life of luxury greasing Christie's wheels and
hanging out at Trump's Mar-a-Lago where he can easily toss the $200,000 a year membership
fee to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful. Camden gets poverty, crime, violence and
silence. Norcross gets caviar, cash and Trump's company.
The machine bosses decided their narrow interest was far more important than giving the
people of New Jersey a real choice. And so we got Chris Christie delivered on a platter by the
Democrats themselves. Now its the Democrat's turn.
Any complaints from supposed Republican Chris Christie for lining the pockets of the leading
Democrat? None. One hand washes the other and the people of New Jersey get the shaft. And the
shaft is coming.
According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,
New Jersey is ranked 50th , among US states for its fiscal health. Will Murphy repeat
Corzine by making fine sounding promises followed by austerity?
There is only one reason that New Jersey -- one of the riches states in the richest country
in the history of the world -- has budget problems and that, in the end, is the machine.
And Phil "Goldman-Sachs" Murphy has signaled his acceptance and alliance with the machine by
appointing tried and true team player Shelia Oliver as his running mate.
Murphy does not have to run hard. The fix is in and he is way ahead on money and polls. Why
have a ground game when the real game is to marry New Jersey's old-school machine with the most
greedy, ruthless
players on Wall Street and on
Trump's cabinet: Goldman Sachs.
Machine meets machine, falls in love and we live unhappily ever after.
But, what is broken in Jersey can be fixed in Jersey if we have the courage and vision to
restore competition, democracy and basic honestly to politics. This election we are lucky to
have a real alternative with the Green Party candidates for governor Seth-Kaper Dale and Lisa Durden.
It's time to stop voting for the bosses unless we want to be political prisoners for the
rest of our lives.
What emerges from his meticulous and merciless chronicle at last is a picture of Uncle
Sam with a ring in his nose, and a thousand cords flowing from it, and a hearty band of
swindlers yanking every cord It reduces democracy, not only to absurdity, but also to
obscenity.
-H.L. Mencken, Hornswoggling the Rabble, review of Behind the Scenes in Politics, by
Anonymous
The American Mercury, October 1924, p. 252
Inverted totalitarism is very far from democracy. It just pretends being democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump won the election by attracting working-class 'rust belt' voters away from the Democrats and for offering the prospect of an end to a 'liberal interventionist' foreign policy. Yet just nine months into his Presidency the belief that Trump would mark a 'clean break' with what had gone before is in tatters. National conservative members of his team have been purged, while Trump has proved himself as much of a war hawk as his predecessors. Rather than 'draining the swamp,' The Donald has waded right into it. ..."
"... The events of 2017 plainly prove as I argued here that the US is a regime and not a genuine democracy, and that whoever gets to the White House - sooner or later - will be forced to toe the War Party/Wall Street/Deep State line, regardless of what they promise on the election trail. ..."
If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it. That might sound a bit glib but consider
these recent events.
In January 2015, the Greek people, sick and tired of austerity and rapidly plummeting living
standards, voted for Syriza, a radical anti-austerity party. The Coalition of the Left, which
had only been formed eleven years earlier, won 36.3 percent of the vote and 149 out of the
Hellenic Parliament's 300 seats. The Greek people had reasonable hopes their austerity
nightmare would end. The victory of Syriza was hailed by progressives across Europe.
Pressure was applied on Greece by 'The Troika' to accept onerous terms for a new bailout.
Syriza went to the people in June 2015 to ask them directly in a national referendum if they
should accept the terms.
"On Sunday, we are not simply deciding to remain in Europe, we are deciding to live with
dignity in Europe," Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, declared. The Greek people duly gave
Tsipras the mandate he asked for, and rejected the bailout terms with 61.3 percent voting
'No.'
Yet, just over two weeks after the referendum, Syriza accepted a bailout package that
contained larger cuts in pensions and higher tax increases than the one on offer earlier.
The Greek people may as well have stayed at home on 27th June for all the difference their vote
made.
Many supporters of Donald Trump in the US are no doubt thinking the same.
Trump won the election by attracting working-class 'rust belt' voters away from the Democrats
and for offering the prospect of an end to a 'liberal interventionist' foreign policy. Yet just
nine months into his Presidency the belief that Trump would mark a 'clean break' with what had
gone before is in tatters. National conservative members of his team have been purged, while
Trump has proved himself as much of a war hawk as his predecessors. Rather than 'draining the
swamp,' The Donald has waded right into it.
The events of 2017 plainly prove as I argued here that the US is a regime and not a genuine
democracy, and that whoever gets to the White House - sooner or later - will be forced to toe
the War Party/Wall Street/Deep State line, regardless of what they promise on the election
trail.
... ... ... ...
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many
newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star,
Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The
Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also
appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder
of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at
www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs
@NeilClark66
The race for governor of New Jersey is the most important election of 2017. With so much at
stake you might think the people would have a real choice, and they do, its just not the
choices presented by the Democrats and Republicans.
When it comes down to what really matters -- power and money -- New Jersey is run by machine
politics and the insiders know how to wheel and deal.
Power in the Garden State is managed by a shifting alliance of political machines, ready to
cut deals, share power and scratch each others back. At least that is how its been since Chris
Christie came to rule the roost.
Christie owes his rise to some of the most toxic forces in his state -- powerful bosses
who ensure that his vow to clean up New Jersey will never come to pass. He has allowed them
to escape scrutiny, rewarded them for their support, and punished their enemies. All along,
even as it looked like Christie was attacking the machine, he was really just mastering
it.
MacGillis continues to describe the gears and wheels:
In most of the United States, the big political machines have been broken, or reduced to
wheezing versions of their former selves. In New Jersey, though, they've endured like nowhere
else. The state has retained its excessively local distribution of power -- 566
municipalities, 21 counties, and innumerable commissions and authorities, all of them
generous repositories of contracts and jobs. The place still has bona fide bosses -- perhaps
not as colorful as the old ones, but about as powerful. The bosses drum up campaign cash from
people and firms seeking public jobs and contracts, and direct it to candidates, who take
care of the bosses and the contributors -- a self-perpetuating cycle
The relationship between Democratic machine bosses and Christie was so cozy that in the 2013
gubernatorial race the Democratic Party failed to support its own candidate, Barbara Buono.
"withstood the onslaught of Betrayal from our own party .The Democratic political bosses,
some elected, some not made a deal with this governor .They did not do it for the State they
did it out of a desire to help themselves."
The machines effectively deprive the voters of New Jersey of a free, fair and competitive
election.
This time around it's Christie that "
kicks sand " in the face of the Republican candidate even thought his very own Lt.
Governor. Guadagno is way down in the polls and millions short.
After Christie's gross absenteeism during his vain run for the Presidency, Bridgegate,
Beachgate, plundering of the treasury with
record giveaways to favored corporations , the
protection and rescue of Exxon and the unprecedented low approval ratings to show for it,
there is nothing Christie can or will do to help.
Referring to his miserable poll ratings
Christie said , "Poll numbers matter when you're running for something .And I don't care."
He used New Jersey for his personal gain and trashed the Republican Party, but no worries, now
its the Democrats turn.
A Republican politician, Chris Brown, is quoted in
PoliticoNewJersey as saying:
I can only speak for myself and say that I believe there has been an unholy alliance
between Governor Christie and Senator Sweeney, which I don't believe is in the best interest
of the people I represent in Atlantic County or this state ."
Where are the lesser of two evils in New Jersey?
When it came time to attack workers they were one big happy family.
As reported in The Nation:
[W]hen Christie launched an aggressive assault on the pensions and health-care benefits of
state employees in 2011, he did so with the support of Norcross, DiVincenzo, and other
Democratic bosses, whose allies in the Assembly joined the Republican governor to give him
the margin he needed to pass the changes despite massive protests outside the State House by
the NJEA, the CWA, and other unions.In June of that year, Wisniewski
appeared on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, where he joined her in bemoaning the state of the
Democratic Party and added, in regard to the pension-"reform" fiasco: "We fought real hard,
but unfortunately there were some Democrats who chose to side with the Republicans on this
bill."
Some Democrats? Just the most powerful Democrats in the state.
George Norcross lives a life of luxury greasing Christie's wheels and
hanging out at Trump's Mar-a-Lago where he can easily toss the $200,000 a year membership
fee to rub shoulders with the rich and powerful. Camden gets poverty, crime, violence and
silence. Norcross gets caviar, cash and Trump's company.
The machine bosses decided their narrow interest was far more important than giving the
people of New Jersey a real choice. And so we got Chris Christie delivered on a platter by the
Democrats themselves. Now its the Democrat's turn.
Any complaints from supposed Republican Chris Christie for lining the pockets of the leading
Democrat? None. One hand washes the other and the people of New Jersey get the shaft. And the
shaft is coming.
According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,
New Jersey is ranked 50th , among US states for its fiscal health. Will Murphy repeat
Corzine by making fine sounding promises followed by austerity?
There is only one reason that New Jersey -- one of the riches states in the richest country
in the history of the world -- has budget problems and that, in the end, is the machine.
And Phil "Goldman-Sachs" Murphy has signaled his acceptance and alliance with the machine by
appointing tried and true team player Shelia Oliver as his running mate.
Murphy does not have to run hard. The fix is in and he is way ahead on money and polls. Why
have a ground game when the real game is to marry New Jersey's old-school machine with the most
greedy, ruthless
players on Wall Street and on
Trump's cabinet: Goldman Sachs.
Machine meets machine, falls in love and we live unhappily ever after.
But, what is broken in Jersey can be fixed in Jersey if we have the courage and vision to
restore competition, democracy and basic honestly to politics. This election we are lucky to
have a real alternative with the Green Party candidates for governor Seth-Kaper Dale and Lisa Durden.
It's time to stop voting for the bosses unless we want to be political prisoners for the
rest of our lives.
What emerges from his meticulous and merciless chronicle at last is a picture of Uncle
Sam with a ring in his nose, and a thousand cords flowing from it, and a hearty band of
swindlers yanking every cord It reduces democracy, not only to absurdity, but also to
obscenity.
-H.L. Mencken, Hornswoggling the Rabble, review of Behind the Scenes in Politics, by
Anonymous
The American Mercury, October 1924, p. 252
"... majority of the electorate -- those lower on the income scale -- are effectively disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences. ..."
Barsamian: Do you see any encouraging activity on the Democrats' side? Or is it time
to begin thinking about a third party?
Chomsky: There is a lot to think about. The most remarkable feature of the 2016
election was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which broke the pattern set by over a century of U.S.
political history. A substantial body of political science research convincingly establishes
that elections are pretty much bought; campaign funding alone is a remarkably good predictor of
electability, for Congress as well as for the presidency.
It also predicts the decisions of elected officials. Correspondingly, a considerable
majority of the electorate -- those lower on the income scale -- are effectively
disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences.
"... majority of the electorate -- those lower on the income scale -- are effectively disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences. ..."
Barsamian: Do you see any encouraging activity on the Democrats' side? Or is it time
to begin thinking about a third party?
Chomsky: There is a lot to think about. The most remarkable feature of the 2016
election was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which broke the pattern set by over a century of U.S.
political history. A substantial body of political science research convincingly establishes
that elections are pretty much bought; campaign funding alone is a remarkably good predictor of
electability, for Congress as well as for the presidency.
It also predicts the decisions of elected officials. Correspondingly, a considerable
majority of the electorate -- those lower on the income scale -- are effectively
disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences.
In 1970th the new neoliberal "capitalists of all countries, unite !" slogan displaced the old one:
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" Since the late 70th, the leading capitalist states
in North America and Western Europe have pursued neoliberal policies and institutional changes. The
peripheral and semi peripheral states in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, under the
pressure of the leading capitalist states (primarily the United States) and international monetary institutions
(IMF and the World Bank), were forced to adopt "structural adjustments," "shock therapies," or "economic
reforms," to open their economies to transactionals and to restructure them in accordance with the requirements
of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
The regime enforced in countries of the global neoliberal empire typically includes monetarist policies
to lower inflation and maintain fiscal balance (often achieved by reducing public expenditures and raising
the interest rate), "flexible" labor markets (meaning removing labor market regulations, cutting social
welfare and facilitating legal and illegal immigration from poor countries to drive wages down), trade
and financial liberalization, and privatization. These policies were an attack by the global finance
capital on the working people of the world. Under neoliberal capitalism, decades of social progress
and developmental efforts have been reversed. Global inequality in income and wealth has reached unprecedented
levels sometimes exceeding the level reached in 1920th. In much of the world, working people have suffered
pauperization. Entire countries have been reduced to misery.
Notable quotes:
"... What's missing here is the way in which the capitalist class orchestrated its efforts during the 1970s and early 1980s. I think it would be fair to say that at that time - in the English-speaking world anyway - the corporate capitalist class became pretty unified. ..."
"... For example, you see reforms of campaign finance that treated contributions to campaigns as a form of free speech . There's a long tradition in the United States of corporate capitalists buying elections but now it was legalized rather than being under the table as corruption. ..."
"... Overall I think this period was defined by a broad movement across many fronts, ideological and political. And the only way you can explain that broad movement is by recognizing the relatively high degree of solidarity in the corporate capitalist class. ..."
What's missing here is the way in which the capitalist class orchestrated its efforts during
the 1970s and early 1980s. I think it would be fair to say that at that time - in the English-speaking
world anyway - the corporate capitalist class became pretty unified.
They agreed on a lot
of things, like the need for a political force to really represent them. So you get the capture of
the Republican Party, and an attempt to undermine, to some degree, the Democratic Party.
From the 1970s the Supreme Court made a bunch of decisions that allowed the corporate capitalist
class to buy elections more easily than it could in the past.
For example, you see reforms of campaign finance that treated contributions to campaigns as
a
form of free speech. There's a long tradition in the United States of corporate capitalists buying
elections but now it was legalized rather than being under the table as corruption.
Overall I think this period was defined by a broad movement across many fronts, ideological
and political. And the only way you can explain that broad movement is by recognizing the relatively
high degree of solidarity in the corporate capitalist class.
Capital reorganized its power in a desperate attempt to recover its economic wealth and its influence,
which had been seriously eroded from the end of the 1960s into the 1970s.
It is impossible to understand the current wave of the US militarism without understanding
neoliberalism and, especially, neoconservatism -- the dominant force in the US foreign policy since
Reagan.
Many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, here in the Senate, for example, disparage the United
Nations, he says, sitting across the table from me, in front of a wall of Vermont tourism posters.
While clearly the United Nations could be more effective, it is imperative that we strengthen international
institutions, because at the end of the day, while it may not be sexy, it may not be glamorous, it
may not allow for great soundbites, simply the idea of people coming together and talking and arguing
is a lot better than countries going to war.
... ... ...
The senator makes clear that unilateralism, the belief that we can simply overthrow governments
that we dont want, that has got to be re-examined. After referencing the Iraq War -- one of the great
foreign policy blunders in the history of this country -- the senator touches on another historic
blunder which, to his credit, few of his fellow senators would be willing to discuss, let alone critique.
In 1953, the United States, with the British, overthrew [Mohammed] Mossadegh, the prime minister
of Iran – and this was to benefit British oil interests, he reminds me. The result was the shah came
into power, who was a very ruthless man, and the result of that was that we had the Iranian Revolution,
which takes us to where we are right now.
...So far this year, Sanders has hired
Matt Duss , a respected foreign affairs analyst and former president of the Foundation for Middle
East Peace (FMEP), as his foreign policy adviser, and has given speeches at the liberal Jewish lobbying
group, J Street, where he condemned
Israels continued occupation of Palestinian territories as being contrary to fundamental American
values, and at the centrist Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, where he
rebuked Russian President
Vladimir Putin for trying to weaken the transatlantic alliance.
Last week, my colleague Glenn Greenwald penned a column in The Intercept headlined,
The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result.
Greenwald argued that Clintons advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions pushed some swing
voters into the arms of both Donald Trump and third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein. I ask Sanders
whether he agrees with this analysis.
I mean, thats a whole other issue. And I dont know the answer to that. I persist. Surely hed concede
that foreign policy was a factor in Clintons defeat? He doesnt budge. I want to talk about
my speech, not about Hillary Clinton. So foreign policy plays no role in elections?
... ... ...
The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East
sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together,
not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the
United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand
that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.
He then, finally, answers my question: So the answer is yes.
It is -- by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics -- a remarkable and, dare I
say it, radical response from Sanders. Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has
been sacrosanct, the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, and no president has seriously proposed cutting
it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.
"... What it's called is "freedom," but "freedom" means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That's what it means. The institutions of governance -- or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making -- those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism about "there is no society, only individuals." ..."
"... Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. ..."
"... She was actually, unconsciously no doubt, paraphrasing Marx, who in his condemnation of the repression in France said, "The repression is turning society into a sack of potatoes, just individuals, an amorphous mass can't act together." ..."
"... For Thatcher, it's an ideal!and that's neoliberalism. We destroy or at least undermine the governing mechanisms by which people at least in principle can participate to the extent that society's democratic. So weaken them, undermine unions, other forms of association, leave a sack of potatoes and meanwhile transfer decisions to unaccountable private power all in the rhetoric of freedom. ..."
"... when you impose socioeconomic policies that lead to stagnation or decline for the majority of the population, undermine democracy, remove decision-making out of popular hands, you're going to get anger, discontent, fear take all kinds of forms. And that's the phenomenon that's misleadingly called "populism." ..."
"... I don't know what you think of Pankaj Mishra, but I enjoy his book Age of Anger ..."
"... What was the wondrous economy that was then being praised? It was one in which the wages, the real wages of American workers, were actually lower than they were in 1979 when the neoliberal period began. That's historically unprecedented except for trauma or war or something like that. Here is a long period in which real wages had literally declined, while there was some wealth created but in very few pockets. It was also a period in which new institutions developed, financial institutions. You go back to the '50s and '60s, a so-called Golden Age, banks were connected to the real economy. That was their function. There were also no crashes because there were New Deal regulations. ..."
"... In Europe the way democracy is undermined is very direct1. Decisions are placed in the hands of an unelected troika: the European Commission, which is unelected; the IMF, of course unelected; and the European Central Bank. They make the decisions. So people are very angry, they're losing control of their lives. The economic policies are mostly harming them, and the result is anger, disillusion, and so on. ..."
"... I think the fate of the species depends on it because, remember, it's not just inequality, stagnation. It's terminal disaster. We have constructed a perfect storm. That should be the screaming headlines every day. Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. That's our pincers. That's what we face, and if that problem isn't solved, we're done with. ..."
"... It's not the Age of Anger. It's the Age of Resentment against socioeconomic policies which have harmed the majority of the population for a generation and have consciously and in principle undermined democratic participation. ..."
"... Go back to the 1970s. Across the spectrum, elite spectrum, there was deep concern about the activism of the '60s. It's called the "time of troubles." It civilized the country, which is dangerous. What happened is that large parts of the population -- which had been passive, apathetic, obedient -- tried to enter the political arena in one or another way to press their interests and concerns. They're called "special interests." That means minorities, young people, old people, farmers, workers, women. In other words, the population. The population are special interests, and their task is to just watch quietly. And that was explicit. ..."
"... That is the more interesting one [ The Crisis of Democracy ..."
"... But in the '60s they all agreed it became problematic because the special interests started trying to get into the act, and that causes too much pressure and the state can't handle that. ..."
"... Listen to the full conversation with Noam Chomsky on Radio Open Source. ..."
NC: Social democracy, yeah. That's sometimes called "the golden age of modern capitalism." That
changed in the '70s with the onset of the neoliberal era that we've been living in since. And if
you ask yourself what this era is, its crucial principle is undermining mechanisms of social solidarity
and mutual support and popular engagement in determining policy.
It's not called that. What it's called is "freedom," but "freedom" means a subordination to
the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That's what it means. The institutions
of governance -- or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision
making -- those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism
about "there is no society, only individuals."
Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since
the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them.
She was actually, unconsciously no doubt, paraphrasing Marx, who in his condemnation of the
repression in France said, "The repression is turning society into a sack of potatoes, just individuals,
an amorphous mass can't act together." That was a condemnation. For Thatcher, it's an ideal!and
that's neoliberalism. We destroy or at least undermine the governing mechanisms by which people at
least in principle can participate to the extent that society's democratic. So weaken them, undermine
unions, other forms of association, leave a sack of potatoes and meanwhile transfer decisions to
unaccountable private power all in the rhetoric of freedom.
Well, what does that do? The one barrier to the threat of destruction is an engaged public, an
informed, engaged public acting together to develop means to confront the threat and respond to it.
That's been systematically weakened, consciously. I mean, back to the 1970s we've probably talked
about this. There was a lot of elite discussion across the spectrum about the danger of too much
democracy and the need to have what was called more "moderation" in democracy, for people to become
more passive and apathetic and not to disturb things too much, and that's what the neoliberal programs
do. So put it all together and what do you have? A perfect storm.
CL: What everybody notices is all the headline things, including Brexit and Donald Trump and Hindu
nationalism and nationalism everywhere and Le Pen all kicking in more or less together and suggesting
some real world phenomenon.
NC: it's very clear, and it was predictable. You didn't know exactly when, but when you impose
socioeconomic policies that lead to stagnation or decline for the majority of the population, undermine
democracy, remove decision-making out of popular hands, you're going to get anger, discontent, fear
take all kinds of forms. And that's the phenomenon that's misleadingly called "populism."
CL: I don't know what you think of Pankaj Mishra, but I enjoy his book Age of Anger
, and he begins with an anonymous letter to a newspaper from somebody who says, "We should admit
that we are not only horrified but baffled. Nothing since the triumph of Vandals in Rome and North
Africa has seemed so suddenly incomprehensible and difficult to reverse."
NC: Well, that's the fault of the information system, because it's very comprehensible and very
obvious and very simple. Take, say the United States, which actually suffered less from these policies
than many other countries. Take the year 2007, a crucial year right before the crash.
What was the wondrous economy that was then being praised? It was one in which the wages, the
real wages of American workers, were actually lower than they were in 1979 when the neoliberal period
began. That's historically unprecedented except for trauma or war or something like that. Here is
a long period in which real wages had literally declined, while there was some wealth created but
in very few pockets. It was also a period in which new institutions developed, financial institutions.
You go back to the '50s and '60s, a so-called Golden Age, banks were connected to the real economy.
That was their function. There were also no crashes because there were New Deal regulations.
Starting in the early '70s there was a sharp change. First of all, financial institutions exploded
in scale. By 2007 they actually had 40 percent of corporate profits. Furthermore, they weren't connected
to the real economy anymore.
In Europe the way democracy is undermined is very direct1. Decisions are placed in the hands
of an unelected troika: the European Commission, which is unelected; the IMF, of course unelected;
and the European Central Bank. They make the decisions. So people are very angry, they're losing
control of their lives. The economic policies are mostly harming them, and the result is anger, disillusion,
and so on.
... ... ...
NC: I think the fate of the species depends on it because, remember, it's not just inequality,
stagnation. It's terminal disaster. We have constructed a perfect storm. That should be the screaming
headlines every day. Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since
the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. That's our pincers. That's what
we face, and if that problem isn't solved, we're done with.
CL: I want to go back Pankaj Mishra and the Age of Anger for a moment!
NC: It's not the Age of Anger. It's the Age of Resentment against socioeconomic policies which
have harmed the majority of the population for a generation and have consciously and in principle
undermined democratic participation. Why shouldn't there be anger?
CL: Pankaj Mishra calls it -- it's a Nietzschean word -- "ressentiment," meaning this kind of explosive
rage. But he says, "It's the defining feature of a world where the modern promise of equality collides
with massive disparities of power, education, status and!
NC: Which was designed that way, which was designed that way. Go back to the 1970s. Across the
spectrum, elite spectrum, there was deep concern about the activism of the '60s. It's called the
"time of troubles." It civilized the country, which is dangerous. What happened is that large parts
of the population -- which had been passive, apathetic, obedient -- tried to enter the political arena
in one or another way to press their interests and concerns. They're called "special interests."
That means minorities, young people, old people, farmers, workers, women. In other words, the population.
The population are special interests, and their task is to just watch quietly. And that was explicit.
Two documents came out right in the mid-'70s, which are quite important. They came from opposite
ends of the political spectrum, both influential, and both reached the same conclusions. One of them,
at the left end, was by the Trilateral Commission -- liberal internationalists, three major industrial
countries, basically the Carter administration, that's where they come from. That is the more interesting
one [ The Crisis of Democracy , a Trilateral Commission report]. The American rapporteur
Samuel Huntington of Harvard, he looked back with nostalgia to the days when, as he put it, Truman
was able to run the country with the cooperation of a few Wall Street lawyers and executives. Then
everything was fine. Democracy was perfect.
But in the '60s they all agreed it became problematic because the special interests started trying
to get into the act, and that causes too much pressure and the state can't handle that.
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
"... Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House. ..."
Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of
the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 - and even sought information in the
days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced
in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days
of the Obama White House.
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
"... The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports. ..."
"... this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of democracy. ..."
"... In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama portrayed the US bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges. ..."
"... Democracy promotion gives US policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy , created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama , Costa Rica , Ukraine , Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia , Poland , Haiti and many other nations. The State Department has a long list of similar pratfalls, including pouring vast amounts of money in vain efforts to beget democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan . ..."
"... Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying. ..."
"... Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary work during his reign. ..."
The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose
cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case
with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is revising the State Department mission statement to focus on
promoting "the
security, prosperity and interests of the American people globally." Washington pundits are aghast
that "democracy promotion" is no longer trumpeted as a top US foreign policy goal. Elliott Abrams,
George W. Bush's "democracy czar," complained, "We used to want a just and democratic world, and
now apparently we don't the message being sent will be a great comfort to every dictator in the
world."
But this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool
of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of
democracy.
The US has periodically pledged to spread democracy ever since President Woodrow Wilson announced
in 1913: "I am going to
teach the
South American republics to elect good men!" Democracy is so important that the US government
refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Since 1946, the US has intervened -- usually
covertly -- in
more than 80 foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party.
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and
support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the
ultimate goal of
ending tyranny
in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention
to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror.
President Barack Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of US foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed
the US
bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was
killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to
determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But
violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four
Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials
invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a
conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.
But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede
business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist
that nation "pursue a credible
transition to a democracy ." But the US government disapproved of that nation's first elected
leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in
2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt's generals for "
restoring democracy ." Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country
in 2015 and praised its regime as "
democratically elected " -- despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists,
bloggers and other critics.
Democracy at its best is a wonderful form of government but many so-called democracies
nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who
gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable
from looting.
In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified
by the Philippines, where the government has
killed 7,000
suspected drug users and dealers , including
several mayors . After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared that he would be "
happy to slaughter " three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript,
said, "I just
wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you're doing] on the
drug problem." Similarly, Trump
congratulated Turkish president Recep Erdogan after he won a referendum that awarded him quasi-dictatorial
powers.
It is time to admit that America lacks a Midas touch for spreading democracy. Freedom House reported
that, even prior to Trump's election, more than 100 nations have seen
declines in democracy since 2005.
Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace
a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would
cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged
elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms
in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances
that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying.
Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault
carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional
house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people
who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary
work during his reign.
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York,
2013.)
(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):
In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he
tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an
audiotape, declaring:
"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides
to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue
State."
Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower, in which he had mused:
"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently.
I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured,
and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that
America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no
longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what
I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read
his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has
collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not
only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling
Age.
America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something
to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and
sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian
question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"
Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!"
concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting
communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach
out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic
and emetic!
Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ...
is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War
world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not
moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of
higher understanding.
Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:
Why they hate us;
America means well;
We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the
world;
We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture
and war--to achieve the above idea.
Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells
us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service
Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and
editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."
In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?"
He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the
world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy
which puts people before profits."
America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably
cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought,
Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as
America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to
assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:
"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers,
"Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow
produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media
have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it
be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a
foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.
"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market
economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."
Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone
calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed
to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one
has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and
dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with
a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash
somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'
Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them
out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"
Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure
of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values
with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty
picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics,
junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying
layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy
and moral rectitude.
Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and
websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch,
Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and
a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he
has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and
prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came
quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or
it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving
our entire planet.
As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism.
Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist
bigots as terrorists.
By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world
abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of
extremism.
German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire.
The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always
promoted themselves as 'democracies'.
And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist
Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments
and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the
name of freedom.
An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some,
and plundering others, or both.
The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God.
It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy
and rebuild as it wishes.
This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless
but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of
people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.
This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot
be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity
that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.
This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes
in its original, Greek, language.
***
In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented
on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:
"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry
and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are
trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine
markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its
basic workings are invisible."
But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this
pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives
(not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.
Democracy!
All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that
North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.
"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on
the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular
explosions.
"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and
women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States
of America.
"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their
'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese
people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa
and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).
So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered
face – the lady whose name is Democracy?
***
It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule
of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia),
that means "rule of an elite".
'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.
People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist
government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.
Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful,
that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean
Europe.
That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America
that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet.
It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity"
government kicked out of power.
Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade,
made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American
stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist
due to the irresponsibility of its people."
And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought
to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely
tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.
But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing
more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and
preferably never criticized.
Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most
brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because
here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted
in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because
it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.
There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people'
in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the
border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.
After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene
and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and
South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.
There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked
on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and
predictability.
The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954),
or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments.
Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore
freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.
From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves'
through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly
pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial
executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and
therefore unacceptable.
While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political
correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques
of the societies that were forced into submission.
In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored
coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly',
bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party
anywhere in the world, to power.
The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint
efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural
resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism
and imperialism openly and passionately.
East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence
from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate
another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and
Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian
military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.
The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest
and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve
their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western
powers – a crime punishable by death.
The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil
industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from
1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown
in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the
murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia,
instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and
fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?
There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the
West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary
of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship.
The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party
to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.
On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically
elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with
decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!
Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against
their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites
that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending
the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those
companies?
***
Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some
mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for
protection?
Unthinkable!
A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no
other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.
The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.
It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor
of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.
The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved
in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities
and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the
training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow
Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called
for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained.
The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.
It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country
voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but
whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista
government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.
This is how 'democracy' works.
I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them,
that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening
to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.
The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is
unity and determination to fight, if necessary.
***
While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all
over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of
democracy'.
In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature,
some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to
cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.
This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror
against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices
only when the result serves the interests of the regime.
Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:
Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet
used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one
can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when
low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both
elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of
power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.
She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions,
against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.
Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were
clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible
behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort
to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive
movements and parties.
These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some
carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold
teeth.
Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the
capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.
Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically
supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was
a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele,
the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during
the WWII.
So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire),
many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what
they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American
men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their
home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision
of the United States and Europe.
As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:
"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operaçăo Condor) was a campaign of political
repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially
implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program
was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential
opposition movements against the participating governments."
In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating
and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They
also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during
the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger
and his clique.
But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil
war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.
In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win
democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup,
which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.
What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country
could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of
those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime
and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.
But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst
informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.
Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more
money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six
years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world,
to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.
It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision
at the worst.
***
As Noam Chomsky pointed out:
Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political
arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign
is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's
politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous
amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation
in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations
show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole
where it belongs.
Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"
The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What
happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What
happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now
that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted
imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to
reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?
***
After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the
planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent,
on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one
of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.
Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.
There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European
Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian
mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your
legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And
we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."
Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media
and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries
like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily
indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins
of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.
Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn
how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own
country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better
than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).
Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is
the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the
professorial staff:
"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being
trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand
and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your
country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save
your nation?"
Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that
the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that
I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.
***
As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent:
the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work
And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing"
people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media
is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.
As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France
and other colonial powers.
Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.
Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII.
So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.
Democracy! People's power!
If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII,
the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would
have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted
with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.
But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement,
was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated
on, and then thrown into gutter.
But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move
on!
The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has
been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured
simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United
States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them
than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.
Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick
in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy?
It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda
Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed,
intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.
Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.
Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first.
Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some
vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.
Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people
can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear
of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words
grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant
union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All
this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to
their nation.
Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can
call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of
ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called
'democracy'!
Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered
wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky
On Western Terrorism
is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel
Point
of No Return is now re-edited and available.
Oceania
is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto
Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda
Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin
America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached
through his website or his
Twitter.
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away
The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country.
It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late
last year.
Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such
critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.
That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic
warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of
targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.
This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around
their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed
necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country,
don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.
Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking
on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan."
Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable
"guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on?
Don't you know we're under siege?"
Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles
away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This
is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades
and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.
Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially
terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure
them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support
for the regime.
The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue
state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be
no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian
hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists
(as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.
The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign
threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing
their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford
to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments
to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.
Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam,
both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the
ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.
Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued
without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their
propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.
Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had
installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from
the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.
All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond.
Disastrously, it is being unheeded.
Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war
with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular
than ever.
And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security
threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend
for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:
"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to
fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor,
the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.
A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions
and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
"... And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted, this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best technique is based on so-called wedge issues. ..."
"... A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center", mostly clueless undecided voters. ..."
"... Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless in your direction. Wash, repeat. ..."
"Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his
third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first
place and how to address the root despair of the western working class." VietnamVet
I do not know how highly rated the staff was, but it was sufficiently high. If the opponent
has fourth-rate staff, it would be wasteful to use anything better than third-rate. Figuring what
gave rise to the deplorable is a wasted effort, sociologist differ, and in politics the "root
causes" matter only a little.
And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted,
this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best
technique is based on so-called wedge issues.
A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center",
mostly clueless undecided voters.
Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the
adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless
in your direction. Wash, repeat.
(Never mind that if Thomas Frank is correct, and the Democrats are the party of the professional
classes, the Democrats cannot possibly be the party of "marginalized" people.) Being the sort of
person I am, my first thought was to ask myself what the heck Reid could mean by "tribe," and how
a "tribe" can act as a political entity.[1] Naturally, I looked to the Internet and did a cursory
search; and it turns out that, at least at the scholarly level, the very notion of "tribe" is both
contested and a product of colonialism.
David
Wiley, Department of Sociology and African Studies, Michigan State University, 2013
Tribe, a concept that has endeared itself to Western scholars, journalists, and the public
for a century, is primarily a means to reduce for readers the complexity of the non-Western societies
of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the American plains. It is no accident that the contemporary
uses of the term tribe were developed during the 19th-century rise of evolutionary and racist
theories to designate alien non-white peoples as inferior or less civilized and as having not
yet evolved from a simpler, primal state. The uses and definitions of 'tribe' in the sociological
and anthropological literature are varied and conflicting. Some authors appear to define tribe
as common language, others as common culture, some as ancestral lineages, and others as common
government or rulers. As anthropologist Michael Olen notes, "The term tribe has never satisfied
anthropologists, because of its many uses and connotations. Societies that are classified as tribal
seem to be very diverse in their organization, having little in common." Morton H. Fried and this
author contend that "the term is so ambiguous and confusing that it should be abandoned by social
scientists."
Even more striking is the invention of ethnic (labeled tribal) identities and their varied
and plastic salience across the African continent. In some cases, "tribal identifies" have been
invented in order to unite colonial and post-colonial clerical workers or other occupational and
social groups to serve the interests of the members even though they were not bound together by
language or lineage.
In the United States, where similar derogatory language of tribe has been used to characterize
and stereotype Native American or First Nations peoples, the identity has been reified in federal
legislation that requires "tribes," formerly under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to accept that
formal tribal identification in order to access the hunting, fishing, farming, and casino rights
of reservations. Almost humorously, the Menominee peoples of Wisconsin decided to decline that
nomenclature because many members lived in Milwaukee and other non-reservation sites; however,
they then learned they must reverse that vote and re-declare themselves as "a tribe" in order
to regain their reservation rights.
So, from the 30,000 foot level, it seems unlikely that what scholars mean (or do not mean) by
"tribe" is the same as what Reid means, simply because there is no coherent meaning to be had.[2]
My second thought was to try to fit "tribe" into the framework of identity politics, where tribes
would be identities, or possibly bundles of allied[3] identities. Here's a handy chart showing the
various ways that identity can be conceptualized, from
Jessica A. Clarke*, "Identity and Form," California Law Review , 2015:
(Clarke gives definitions of ascriptive, elective, and formal identity --
for Adolph Reed on ascriptive identity, see here -- but I think the definitions are clear enough
for our purposes from the examples in the table.) However, if we look back to Reid's quote, we see
that she conflates ascriptive identity ("black or brown") with elective identity ("the sort of Pabst
Blue Ribbon voter, the kind of Coors Lite-drinking voter")[4], and also conflates both of those with
formal identity (if one's ethnicity be defined by one's own citizenship papers, or those of one's
parents, or a changed surname; one thinks of Asian cultures putting the family name last in American
culture, for example). So there is no coherence to be found here, either.
Let's return then to Reid's words, and look to her operational definition:
which party goes out and find more people who are like them
JANELLE MONÁE: Hi, sweetie. You know I love, love, love you. First: pronouns! I want to make
sure that I'm being respectful of how I'm referring to you. I know that the way we view ourselves
and how we want to be addressed can change depending on where we are in life.
AS: I love that you asked me! Thank you. I have felt at times that she/her pronouns weren't
entirely fitting, but I've never felt uncomfortable with them. It's more important for me to open
up that conversation around pronouns and how gender itself is a construct that doesn't make much
sense in our society.
JM: Got it. I remember seeing you for the first time in Colombiana, and then, like many people,
I was drawn to your character in The Hunger Games as Rue. I'm a huge sci-fi nerd, so just seeing
this little black girl in a dystopian world being a hero for an oppressed community, I was intrigued!
The way you embodied this character felt like you were mature enough to understand how important
she was to the movie but also how important the Rues all over the world are to our society.
AS: That's one of the best compliments that I've received! I remember we saw each other at
the Tyler, the Creator show; we took a picture with Solange. You were wearing a jacket that said
"black girl magic" on it, and I flipped out.
JM: Me, too! I was like, I am right between you and Solange, two people who are the epitome
of black girl magic! I saw you later on, and you had just shot Everything, Everything, which,
by the way, you are incredible in. The original story was written by a black woman [NicolaYoon],
and your director [Stella Meghie] is also a black woman. What was going through your mind as you
were considering the role?
AS: I kind of wrote it off initially because I figured it was one of those instances where
I was receiving a script for a YA romance project that was intended for a white actress. I thought
maybe they'd float the idea of casting it in a more diverse manner but that ultimately it wouldn't
end up going that direction, because that's happened to me a lot. Then I realized that this project
was based on a book written by a black woman and that the casting was intentionally diverse. I'd
never seen a story like this made for an interracial couple. I'm not someone who generally has
a pop or mainstream sensibility, but I see the incredible power of infiltrating these larger movies
that show a lot of people who we are and how diverse and beautiful our community is. I thought
it would be really powerful to see a black girl [lead] character like Maddy who is joyous and
creative and dimensional specifically marketed to teenagers and young adults. We don't always
get to see black women carrying that energy. That's one of the reasons why I respect and love
you so much!because I feel like you perpetuate such whimsy and joy!
JM: Aw! Well, whenever I see you doing your thing, I feel like we're from the same tribe
because I take a similar approach when I'm choosing projects. With the roles of Teresa in
Moonlight and Ms. Mary Jackson in Hidden Figures , they're two women of color
from totally different backgrounds and eras!from the hood to NASA, these black women were the
backbones of their communities. I thought it was so important to let the rest of the world know
that we're not monolithic. And with Hidden Figures in particular, I was so proud to be a part
of exposing that if it were not for these women, we would not have gone to space. That's American
history! Black history is part of American history, and it should be treated as such.
(Note in passing that I loathe the phrase "open up," which I define as "carefully engineered for
a celebrity by public relations professionals." ) Of course, both actors are -- and rightly --
proud of their work, but note the carefully calibrated ways they establish that they are (as
Joy Reid says) "like" each other. Oh, and do note the caption: "Miu Miu dress, price upon request."
Class snuck in there, didn't it? In fact, we might go so far as to formalize Reid's definition of
"tribe" as follows:
Tribes are people who are "like" each other when class is not taken into account
With that, let's take an alternative approach to conceptualizing tribes and tribalism, one that
incorporates class. From former Arab Spring
activist Iyad El-Baghdadi , I present the following charts, taken from
the Twittter . (I'll present each
chart, then comment briefly on it.) There are five:
Figure 1: Tribal Divisions
Comment: I'm taking El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe"; the verticality
is clearly the same.)
Figure 2: Class Divisions
Comment: El-Baghdadi's representation of class divisions is fine as a visual shorthand, but I
don't think it's an accurate representation. I picture the class structure of the United States not
as a "normal distribution" with a fat "middle class" (I don't even accept
"middle class" as a category) but as a power curve with a very few people at the head of the
curve (
the "1%," more like the 0.01% ), followed by a steep shoulder of
the 10% (white collar professionals, from Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal ), and trailed
by a long tail of wage workers (and unwaged workers, as I suppose we might call the disemployed,
unpaid caregivers,
System D
people like loosie-selling Eric Garner, and so on). If you want to find who hasn't had a raise
in forty years, look to the long tail, which I would call l "working class," rather than "lower class."
Figure 3: Privilege Divisions
Comment: Taking once again El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe,"
and conceptualizing WASPs as a tribe, it's clear to me, if I look at my own history, that I'm
more likely ti have good luck than some other tribes. I'm more likely to have intergenerational
wealth in the form of a house, or even financial assets, more likely to be highly educated, more
likely to have the markers and locutions that enable me to interact successfully with bureaucratic
functionaries, etc. I didn't earn any of those advantages; I would have had to have chosen to be
born to different parents to avoid them. I think we can agree that if we were looking for an operational
definition of justice, this wouldn't be it.
Figure 4: Punching Sideways
Comment: Classically, we have owners following Gould's maxim by bringing in (mostly black) scabs
to break
the Homestead Strike in 1892, with a resulting "tribal" conflict -- although those scabs might
protest -- and rightly -- that (a) they were only trying to provide for their families and
(b) that the Jim Crow system
had denied them the "good jobs" that in justice would have given them (leaving aside the question
of who implemented Jim Crow, and for what material benefits). In modern times we have "tribes" (white,
black, Asian, at the least) battling on the field of "affirmative action" having weaponized their
ascriptive identities. Here again, representatives of some "tribes" would protest -- and
rightly -- that systems like "legacy admissions" give some "tribes" unjust advantage over others, but
the hidden assumption is one of resource constraint; given a pie of fixed size, if Tribe A is to
have more, Tribe B must have less. Note that programs like "tuition-free college" tend to eliminate
the resource constraint, but are "politically feasible" only if Tribes A and B solve their collective
action problem, which is unlikely to be done based on tribalism.
Figure 5: Punching Up
Comment: This diagram implies that the only "legitimate" form of seeking justice is vertical,
"punching up." This eliminates clear cases where justice is needed within and not between classes,
like auto collisions, for example, or the household division of labor. More centrally, the nice thing
about thinking vertically is that it eliminates obvious absurdities like "Justice for black people
means making the CEO of a major bank black (ignoring the injustices perpetrated using class-based
tools disproportionately against black people in, say, the foreclosure crisis, where
a generation's-worth of black household wealth was wiped out under America's first black President).
Or obvious absurdities where justice is conceived of as a woman, instead of a man, using the power
of office to kill thousands of black and brown people, many of them women, to further America's imperial
mission.
* * *
Concluding a discussion on politics and power that has barely begun -- and is of great importance
if you believe, as I do, that we're on the midst of and ongoing and highly volatile legitimacy crisis
that involves the break-up and/or realignment of both major parties -- it seems to me that El-Baghdadi
visual representation, which fits tribalism into a class-driven framework, is both analytically coherent
(as Reid's usage of "tribe" is not) and points to a way forward from our current political arrangements
(as Reid's strategy of bundling "punching sideways" tribes into parties while ignoring class does
not).
More to come .
Posted by BeauHD
on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the
DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment
could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has
decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election
due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was
announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially
recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen)
voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password,
Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use
in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to
the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail
posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader
notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of
doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't
replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
Posted by BeauHD
on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the
DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment
could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has
decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election
due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was
announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially
recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen)
voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password,
Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use
in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to
the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail
posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader
notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of
doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't
replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
"... Now however that very same technological advancement is hollowing out blue collar jobs and even white collar jobs. ..."
"... I suspect the rich will depend more and more on robots plus a few servants to serve their needs, hence the masses of workers and consumers will no longer be needed. ..."
"... The coup that transformed the relationship between British politics and journalism began at a quiet Sunday lunch at Chequers, the official country retreat of the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. She was trailing in the polls, caught in a recession she had inherited, eager for an assured cheerleader at a difficult time. Her guest had an agenda too. He was Rupert Murdoch, eager to secure her help in acquiring control of nearly 40% of the British press. ..."
"... the unregulated nature of neo liberalism and unrestrained greed bordering on psychopathy that rules the corporate world inexorably led to a system that is rigged and corrupt to the core. ..."
"... Politicians and the media are owned by the same corporations that set the narrative and bend the rules. How else would it be possible, in the era of ultimate access to information, in two of the most advanced countries in the world, to have election results that favor the exact parties who had no arguments and no facts on their side? ..."
"... There is no center left in the US and the UK, as far as I can tell. There hasn't been for decades. You cannot give all the tools of power (politicians that make the legislation, and media to promote the narrative) to a very tiny minority and be anything other than center right at least. Take Obama, for example, which is painted as center left, or liberal, by the US mainstream media, which is just laughable. Even if he promoted his "socialist" Obamacare (which is way less progressive than what Nixon had in mind), he's been actively promoting the same rigged system where lobbyists and corporations for big pharma can force the politicians, through the legal bribery that is the current electoral process, to ignore the will of the majority of people and abolish the ACA, as if it were never in place. Same with gun control - 90% of Americans are in favour of some sort of background checks? Eff them, the NRA lobbyists, their money and propaganda tools are easily making sure that whatever the will of the majority is, it will never get into any piece of legislation. ..."
"... Hayek was woefully ignorant to human nature. He didn't account for inherited wealth or class systems. Until these things are dismantled, it's impossible to have a genuinely free market with a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse or neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying on others is deemed deeply shameful ..."
"... For a long time, people on the (real?) left who were denouncing the effects of ultra liberalism were seen as dangerous idealists, plain commies or immature kids. The tide seems to be slowly shifting but it will probably get worse before it gets better. ..."
"... An interesting point of view but probably too late. Trump will never dismantle neoliberalism. His rhetoric is hot air and he has no answers to the complex problems of the 21st century. ..."
"... No Trump does not have the answers that are needed to address neoliberalism. A sharp short economic collapse will not change the pathway we are all on. If we look back to the Great Depression, Hoover followed by Roosevelt shows us what is likely to transpire, there would have to be something else in the mix to bring about real change. ..."
"... In anycase Hayek's philosophies are really just an extension of what was going on during the Great Depression, the pathway to neoliberalism had it's seeds going back before this period. ..."
"... neoliberal innovation generally its also about disempowerment and ultimately rent capitalism based neo-feudal enslavement. ..."
"... Those of is who've been warning of the failure of neoliberalism in both economic and civic terms don't need convincing, and it's increasingly obvious that by defensively ignoring dissenting voices the political consensus was sowing the seeds of its own demise. Now, instead of having to work with social democrats to reinvest, to responsibly regulate, to strengthen social bonds, they have to pander to a brew breed of fascists, who they have created. ..."
"... It's not one or the other. Both globalisation and automation have taken jobs away. We exported a large amount of our manufacturing to where labour was cheaper ( far east , china etc). ..."
"... To describe Clinton as liberal, in the American tradition, is realistic, but to describe her as 'left', apart from as an opposite to far-right, makes as much sense as calling John Major or Ted Heath Marxists. ..."
Neo-liberalism has had the advantage that technological advancements have lifted the standard
of living for all up to this point. They can claim that as their win since capitalism and competition
have driven at least the retail products, distribution and take up.
Now however that very same technological advancement is hollowing out blue collar jobs
and even white collar jobs.
What to do with all those people who aren't PhD material and don't have employment and a resulting
claim of the wealth? What will be the result if there is no social democratic solution to the
dilemma?
I suspect the rich will depend more and more on robots plus a few servants to serve their
needs, hence the masses of workers and consumers will no longer be needed. Wars and famines
will be useful in reducing the population but the ruling class may have to resort to death camps
to eliminate the surplus. Violent revolution could be a response.
"We found out last Tuesday." A result more like chopping off one's collective nose to spite your
face? The difference is between looking into a sewer and out of rage jumping into it.
The coup that transformed the relationship between British politics and journalism began
at a quiet Sunday lunch at Chequers, the official country retreat of the prime minister, Margaret
Thatcher. She was trailing in the polls, caught in a recession she had inherited, eager for an
assured cheerleader at a difficult time. Her guest had an agenda too. He was Rupert Murdoch, eager
to secure her help in acquiring control of nearly 40% of the British press.
The usual tiresome drivel where anyone you disagree with is a neoliberal. Just with monbiot it's
dressed up better because he's a good writer. Just a couple of the obvious flaws:
Hayek is summarised briefly and painted as bad, so clearly everything he believed in must be
bad. There's no attempt to justify why say, free trade is bad. It's just taken as a given
Despite this, the us election was the most protectionist since the war. Clinton is owing to
populism when she knows trade is good, but trump was just a straightforward appeal to populist
anger. What this has to do with neoliberalism is anyone's guess
The climate change bit is just hilarious. Having painted the entire Clinton and Blair legacy
as neo liberal, he then claims it is neo liberals who will assault all that is decent starting
with climate change. The fact that they have constantly accepted climate change and supported
all the efforts to curb it (including Paris) is just ignored
In summary, this is the same kind of boring assault on anyone who disagrees with the article
self appointed progressive left that led to 'red tories' and other lazy labels. Trump and brexit
are populist in nature, propelled by ignorance. It doesn't make the centre left neo liberal just
because they accept the basic premise of a free market
"Hayek is summarised briefly and painted as bad, so clearly everything he believed in must
be bad. "
Must've missed that in the article. Anyway, I agree with Monbiot in what I think is the core
of the article: the unregulated nature of neo liberalism and unrestrained greed bordering
on psychopathy that rules the corporate world inexorably led to a system that is rigged and corrupt
to the core.
Politicians and the media are owned by the same corporations that set the narrative and
bend the rules. How else would it be possible, in the era of ultimate access to information, in
two of the most advanced countries in the world, to have election results that favor the exact
parties who had no arguments and no facts on their side?
How is it possible that a lot, if not a majority of Americans, think that universal healthcare
and education are bad things? How on Earth can people living in countries where the system is
so skewed that the people responsible for the 2008 depression never spent a day in jail, think
that the root of all their ills are a Mexican and a Polish chaps? How can one complain about poor
people or immigrants taking advantage of the public funding, their "hard earned money", and being
proud to support someone who admits publicly of not paying taxes for years?
How can so many people be capable of this type of mental gymnastics if the winners of this
greed contest wouldn't have twisted the system and imposed the narrative for many years?
"It doesn't make the centre left neo liberal just because they accept the basic premise of
a free market"
There is no center left in the US and the UK, as far as I can tell. There hasn't been for
decades. You cannot give all the tools of power (politicians that make the legislation, and media
to promote the narrative) to a very tiny minority and be anything other than center right at least.
Take Obama, for example, which is painted as center left, or liberal, by the US mainstream media,
which is just laughable. Even if he promoted his "socialist" Obamacare (which is way less progressive
than what Nixon had in mind), he's been actively promoting the same rigged system where lobbyists
and corporations for big pharma can force the politicians, through the legal bribery that is the
current electoral process, to ignore the will of the majority of people and abolish the ACA, as
if it were never in place. Same with gun control - 90% of Americans are in favour of some sort
of background checks? Eff them, the NRA lobbyists, their money and propaganda tools are easily
making sure that whatever the will of the majority is, it will never get into any piece of legislation.
In a summary of my own: yes, if you put in place the tools that allow a bunch of plutocrats
to corrupt a system so it always works in their favour, and most of the times against the popular
will, you ARE a red tory or a DINO.
George, Margaret Thatcher was one of your lot, wasn't she? She was one of the world's first national
leaders to stress the need for action on climate change and fight the war on coal. Here are some
extracts from her speech to the UN delivered in November 1989. It reads a lot like some of your
articles. You didn't ghost write it, did you? If not, clearly, you and Maggie drew your inspiration
from some of the same sources.
We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere.
The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial
Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale
of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed.
At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests
in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3]
The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix
more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.
We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production
of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually
stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation
of greenhouse gases.
It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It
gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect!but
only in the right proportions.
More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and
the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some
2 billion people. My [ Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion
people.
Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people,
and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down
and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the
seas they pollute.....
Let me quote from a letter I received only two weeks ago, from a British scientist on
board a ship in the Antarctic Ocean: he wrote, "In the Polar Regions today, we are seeing what
may be early signs of man-induced climatic change. Data coming in from Halley Bay and from
instruments aboard the ship on which I am sailing show that we are entering a Spring Ozone
depletion which is as deep as, if not deeper, than the depletion in the worst year to date.
It completely reverses the recovery observed in 1988. The lowest recording aboard this ship
is only 150 Dobson units for Ozone total content during September, compared with 300 for the
same season in a normal year." That of course is a very severe depletion.
He also reports on a significant thinning of the sea ice, and he writes that, in the
Antarctic, "Our data confirm that the first-year ice, which forms the bulk of sea ice cover,
is remarkably thin and so is probably unable to sustain significant atmospheric warming without
melting. Sea ice, separates the ocean from the atmosphere over an area of more than 30 million
square kilometres. It reflects most of the solar radiation falling on it, helping to cool the
earth's surface. If this area were reduced, the warming of earth would be accelerated due to
the extra absorption of radiation by the ocean."
"The lesson of these Polar processes," he goes on, "is that an environmental or climatic
change produced by man may take on a self-sustaining or 'runaway' quality ... and may be irreversible."
That is from the scientists who are doing work on the ship that is presently considering these
matters.
These are sobering indications of what may happen and they led my correspondent to put
forward the interesting idea of a World Polar Watch, amongst other initiatives, which will
observe the world's climate system and allow us to understand how it works.
Brilliant comment Tamlin thanks for posting. I didn't realise the 'blonde beast' had such solid
environmental insights. You only have to peep over the channel to France to see Hayek and Thatcher
were on the mark, whilst Mitterrand and other statist socialists were so horribly wrong. If only
there were more politicians today that were as committed, hard working and wise as Thatcher.
Current ideas put human self-interest at dead centre but neglected to take into account how all
systems are rigged to benefit those that put them in place.
Loading the dice:
1) Capitalism. The Aristocracy were there during the transition from Feudalism
to Capitalism and barely noticed the difference as their life of luxury and leisure continued
as before. Capitalism contains a welfare state for the idle rich.
2) The monetary system. Banks create money out of nothing for loans and collect interest
on this money they magic out of thin air. Governments borrow money off private banks and taxation
has to be used to pay back the interest. The monetary system is a levy on all taxpayers.
3) The legal system. Expensive barristers provide the mechanism for the rich to increase
their chance of winning the case.
4) The education system. A two tier, private and state, education system ensures the
wealthy can give their children a better start in life.
The system is fully loaded. If we tell them it's a meritocracy and it is the best that get
to the top hopefully they will believe it. What would a meritocracy really look like?
1) In a meritocracy everyone succeeds on their own merit. This is obvious, but to succeed
on your own merit, we need to do away the traditional mechanisms that socially stratify society
due to wealth flowing down the generations. Anything that comes from your parents has nothing
to do with your own effort.
2) There is no un-earned wealth or power, e.g inheritance, trust funds, hereditary titles
In a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for all. We can't have the current two tier education
system with its fast track of private schools for people with wealthy parents.
3) There is a uniform schools system for everyone with no private schools. As
the children of the wealthy wouldn't be able to succeed on a level playing field we can't have
one.
Even when the system was fully loaded already the wealthy work tirelessly and relentlessly
to bias the system even more, they couldn't believe their luck when the ideas of neoliberalism
appeared.
The system is now so biased the IMF is worried about global aggregate demand as the global
consumer has been impoverished. The debt that papered over the cracks is maxing out and the system
is collapsing.
Any system will be biased by those that put it in place.
Left to their own devices they will carry on biasing the system until it eventually fails.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters
pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues
wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destruction"
Seconded as a good post But I don't like the, "in a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for
all" as it too strongly suggests direct assistance and so implies idleness or entitlement. I would
prefer that: in a meritocracy no one is actively suppressed, that is everyone is given the opportunity
to try to succeed without discrimination, prejudice, funny handshakes, unmerited (not means tested)
backhanders/benefits.
Hayek was woefully ignorant to human nature. He didn't account for inherited wealth or class
systems. Until these things are dismantled, it's impossible to have a genuinely free market with
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers.
"The key task now is to tell a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century."
People's despair has been hijacked by demagogues and they elected the gravedigger to get them
out of a pit. As it happened so often in history. Both here and in the US, and the picture of
the unelected, private, political non-entity Farage to stage a grin-fest with Trump is unbearable.
We need to learn that we are part of something bigger which is worth preserving and we have
to come together to do this. We have to establish a circular economy where ideologies such as
captalism have no place. This goes past politics and left-right. Otherwise we have to learn this
the hard way. Our planet will force us. When the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground,
when all the water has been polluted, when the number of wild species is reduced to rats, cockroaches,
ants and humans, when the heat is unbearable and the oceans are full of acid: Then we will learn
how to work together to preserve our species.
If we haven't blown each other up in the meantime in a fight for resources .
I worry for our children.
My sister is a generous donor to the Catholic Church. She prays for me constantly, not least because
of my libertarian leanings -- and because I am as gay as a goose, queer as an ... um, er ... Canadian
goose. Now my sister is very defensive about the Jesuit pope, who shuns Trump but embraces Castro
and Maduro. Because of culture, the words of the Ave Maria and the Credo come to me in Latin.
Hayek makes sense, but mostly because of his interplay with Keynes.
Hayek obviously made sense to Margaret Thatcher too, daughter of a shop keeper and raised a Methodist.
She was once interviewed for a job as a chemist with the company I used to work for but was rejected,
rumour had it for not being assertive enough. A talented girl with a good upbringing who became
a prisoner and ultimately victim of the establishment.
Simple dichotomies never make sense.. The oversimplification of complex issues is typical of the
self-interested media manipulation resulting from a neoliberal and uncontrolled gutter press.
Hence "Brexonomics" - a creed fueled by irrationality.
Really sorry but disagree that humans are remarkably unselfish. There are many decent , caring,
striving to help individuals. But they are vastly out numbered by those who are otherwise. Every
time somebody buys a motor vehicle they are being selfish. Almost nowhere do they need it. They
want for convenience, laziness, self- grandisemnet, something to spend their money on. But they
do not need and yet its existence and use despoils and degrades.
Every time they buy cheap fashion with clothers made essentially to be thrown away they are
selfish. Every time they copulate, without using contraception and without wanting the resulting
baby they are selfsih. Even if they want the baby, after the first two, why? They are being selfish.
Every time they invade somewhere, for oil or to impose an ideology whether capitalism or religion,
they are selfish.
That is not to say that Hayek, and acolytes Reagan, Thatcher and the endlessly greedy "people"
who propagate variations of their ideas should not have been burned at the stake. The problem
is those who are greedy and selfish are almost always more ruthless than those who are not.
I see your point and agree with it. Why should one person drastically reduce their enjoyment of
life to try to reduce global warming when their actions will have, essentially, no impact on total
CO2 emissions. But here's what can be done. Collective action where everyone agrees to limit
fossil fuel emissions. That's what national governments are for and that is what the UN was created
for - to find solutions for world wide problems.
Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse
or neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to
everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying
on others is deemed deeply shameful
I am no psychologist, but it must be evident to most that, at the micro level, childhood trauma
and mental, physical and sexual abuse experienced at a young age within the family unit can lead
to the child intending to rebalance and repay the power imbalance in adult life, with invariably
adverse consequences for their environment and those around them.
Looking at the world today it is not hard to see the culmination of the sins of the father
over the centuries in the form of decent, hard-working people with no power struggles to redress
being subjected to endless and downright cruel, even vindictive actions and policies enshrined
into law and played out across the world stage by those who have abused power to make it to the
top.
And it is the socially disadvantaged and most vulnerable in society who have invariably suffered
the most, hence the vast inequality in wealth distribution which has gathered momentum in recent
years.
Brexit and Trump are a symptom, a reaction and a backlash to the traumatized child reclaiming
and abusing their power on a macro level.
Dogs are very social animals........and there are examples of unselfish behaviour in the dog world
with the likes of Greyfriars Bobby, Lassie etc etc....my little dog would defend me to the death
!.....rats of course are very different !!...
Kind of counter to sort of arguments I'd want to make on the subject but Grey Friars Bobby kept
visiting that graveyard because they didn't bury the paupers all that deep and the hungry wee
dog could get hold of a lot of juicy bones. Which I suppose is neo-liberalism summed up: the poorest
left so hungry they'll end up competing over the bones of the dead. Hopefully that last sentence
is metaphorical.
For a long time, people on the (real?) left who were denouncing the effects of ultra liberalism
were seen as dangerous idealists, plain commies or immature kids. The tide seems to be slowly
shifting but it will probably get worse before it gets better.
An interesting point of view but probably too late. Trump will never dismantle neoliberalism.
His rhetoric is hot air and he has no answers to the complex problems of the 21st century.
The only thing that will save us will be a short sharp economic collapse. It was narrowly
avoided in 2008 but all the seeds for another are there. If it happens on Trump or Mays watch
new voices can be heard and social democracy can regain the ascendency it had after 1945. There
needs to be pain before that and it wont be long before it arrives.
I suspect you're right. People are talking about Trump as thought this is endgame, we've hit the
bottom of the barrel and it can't get much worse. I think there's still a ways to go though before
people stop accepting that a change of management isn't enough anymore, and an economic crisis
worse than anything in living memory will most likely be the catalyst for change.
Sadly history tells us that as the political class gets more desperate, they'll start pointing
fingers of blame at just about everyone before they accept any responsibility, which means a lot
of unhappiness misdirected at a handful of tiny groups of people who are totally unconnected to
anything that they're being accused of.
No Trump does not have the answers that are needed to address neoliberalism. A sharp short
economic collapse will not change the pathway we are all on. If we look back to the Great Depression,
Hoover followed by Roosevelt shows us what is likely to transpire, there would have to be something
else in the mix to bring about real change.
In anycase Hayek's philosophies are really just an extension of what was going on during
the Great Depression, the pathway to neoliberalism had it's seeds going back before this period.
The most likely game changer at present is more than likely global warming, I see nothing else
on the horizon.
If you want to see a nefarious extension of neoliberal rentier debt economics George can I suggest
you have a close look at a new emerging threat in sheets clothing - the Circular Economy. This
isnt just about cuddly saving the planet. Like neoliberal innovation generally its also about
disempowerment and ultimately rent capitalism based neo-feudal enslavement.
The issue is how the political class which is currently being unseated can respond to this new
reality, how they are able to change or if they are able to. And subsequent to that, whether the
public will allow them to play any part. This is a non trivial issue: most politicians have grown
up with a dogmatic belief in this failed system, and our electorate are not in a forgiving mood.
Those of is who've been warning of the failure of neoliberalism in both economic and civic
terms don't need convincing, and it's increasingly obvious that by defensively ignoring dissenting
voices the political consensus was sowing the seeds of its own demise. Now, instead of having
to work with social democrats to reinvest, to responsibly regulate, to strengthen social bonds,
they have to pander to a brew breed of fascists, who they have created.
The political class is not being unseated though, is it? Its becoming more entrenched and with
a lot more power. There will be no checks and balances on "the God Emperor" Trump (as the American
Nazis are calling him).
Trump is not from the political class. He is from something much worse - the class of extreme
narcissist, hugely wealthy populists - but has minimal connections with the machinery of government.
For me the core problem, as ever, is that the messengers (the corporate owned media) tell the
majority that neoliberalism is just fine and the problem is with anyone who challenges this narrative.
This is why the anger gets twisted around with the masses voting for Brexit or Trump.
Globalisation resulted in the loss of jobs for many of the 99% and today May promises that
as a result of Brexit we will be going even more for globilisation. Things can only get worse
as the minority who understand the issue will be too few to overturn a Tory majority in a FPTP
system with opposition divided.
It is not globalisation that takes away the jobs but automation. Many of the jobs lost from America's
rust belt moved to other more highly automated factories in other States.
It's not one or the other. Both globalisation and automation have taken jobs away. We exported
a large amount of our manufacturing to where labour was cheaper ( far east , china etc).
Honestly, we are a few more elections away before the punters realize that no peaceful political
solutions are possible; expect armed insurrection in the USA by 2030 at most......
Trump insulted his opponents into defeat and humiliation. This is him from day one and his TV
series. At 70 dont expect this dog to learn new tricks. In fact he's proved time and again his
inability to learn.
No, fancy theories about neo-liberalism will not help us understand or predict his behaviour...
all we need to know is the pattern of the psychology of bullying and intimidation. One can only
hope he will drown in his own virulence
I think you are focusing on the wrong candidate. Clinton lost because we are fed up with the patronising
liberal left, who do not actually care about the people they purport to represent.
Granted, but the alternative we got is not the solution... its only a wild gamble with the Tarot
cards of Armageddon. Oh well, ours is not to reason why.. etc
To describe Clinton as liberal, in the American tradition, is realistic, but to describe her
as 'left', apart from as an opposite to far-right, makes as much sense as calling John Major or
Ted Heath Marxists.
Good article, and goes some way to explaining the economics but it doesn't quite explain the huge
ideological shift of the traditional working classes away from the political Left. I'm afraid
Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens as well as mainstream media, particularly Ch 4 and the BBC, suppressed
any criticism of multi-culturalism and immigration while blatantly ignoring, disregarding and,
far worse, actually disparaging the "white working classes." If you went into any school in this
country, the walls were/ are covered with positive images of black, Asian and ethnic minorities
and lessons encourage "sharing" and positive imagery of those cultures' faiths, food, celebrations,
all good stuff!!
Except that white working class culture has been too often excluded or portrayed
super negatively and stereotypically as fish and chip eating, white van driving, boxing, football,
racist epsilons... is it a surprise that white working class kids are now performing worse than
any other? And look at any Ch 4 programme about this cohort of society: "Benefits Street"... or
news items about Brexit supporters full of imagery of toothless people, many with obvious addiction
problems and/ or special needs and mobility scooters... I remember black people used to be horrifically
subjected to the same stereotypes. So here we have the root of the problem, which is a complete
imbalance in terms of who is officially approved and encouraged in this country and who is excluded
and degraded. The "divisiveness" is owned by the Left. The lid is now off the pot but the Left
can only blame themselves!!
The thing is that the so called "white working class" is as diverse, if not more diverse ethnically
and culturally, than any other!!
It is however, portrayed as an homogenous lump (my mum is white
working class and my dad Punjabi Muslim and most where I come from highly diverse and mixed communities)
by the political class and media to feed and agenda, which is about blaming. The "white working
class" is blamed for every perceived threat ideologically and economically - they are branded
on the one hand as inherently racist, intolerant and blaming immigrants for everything; on the
other, for being inherently lazy, uneducated and low skilled and so this narrative justifies importing
300, 000 annually from overseas... people held up against the latter "highly educated and skilled"
and "hardworking"!!
Both perspectives are in fact highly propagandist and play to stereotypes- the heroic immigrant
labourer upholding our NHS and economy vs. the lazy, stupid Brit (always white and working class)
who would prevent our country and economy progressing.
"... The Clinton and Remain campaigns shared an approach of trying to convince people ahead of time that what they need is not necessarily what they want. Both campaigns lost ..."
"... Ryan now leads the neoliberal cause in the party and a lot of what Trump wants to do (borrow and spend on public projects or limit free trade for example) will not sit well with them. ..."
"... George has highlighted the key battle - can the 'swarm that is now surrounding Trump, fill this empty vessel' and bend him to their ideology or will he prove true to his campaign promises. As each of his promises is one by one 'modified' the danger increases that those who voted for him realise that they have been shafted once again. I suspect though, that they may never come to realise who is doing this to them. ..."
"... This is the most enlightening article I have read in the Guardian. It goes a long way to explaining the root of Thatcherism, and why she behaved as she did, towards so many organisations, she saw as the enemy of her chosen path! I have wondered why she is remembered with such fondness by many, and her legacy revered, when it left so many problems for the future. Sure, the rich got richer, our manufacturing base was decimated, and those unholy bankers, stockbrokers, arms dealers and the like, revelled in her folly! ..."
"... Trump offered change, Hillary Clinton was the status quo. The establishment couldn't accept their neoliberal ideas had failed and the people had to push them out. The status quo has failed – wake up – this is the new reality. ..."
"... We need to recognise that we have been through many versions of Capitalism and they all fail as this version is failing now. ..."
"... Unfettered Capitalism has a catastrophic failure mode and dressing it up in the Emperor's New Clothes of supply side economics didn't make a blind bit of difference. We've done Neo-Keynesian stimulus. After eight years of pumping trillions into the top of the economic pyramid, banks, and waiting for it to trickle down. It didn't work, hardly anything trickled down. ..."
"... Your examples of "failures" actually demonstrate exactly the opposite: that capitalism is resilient. It survived 2 world wars, the 1930's depression, withdrawal of the gold standard (which had far-reaching effects on the "establishment"), the 2008 crash, the oil crises of the 1970s (that caused your "stagflation") and pretty much everything else that has been thrown at the financial world in the past 100 years. ..."
I don't necessarily disagree with much of this piece but I can't help feeling that the hints given by Monbiot about some
new thinking to combat neoliberalism being developed is more about hope than expectation.
I am rather more cynical. The Clinton and Remain campaigns shared an approach of trying to convince people ahead of
time that what they need is not necessarily what they want. Both campaigns lost and the fall-out has included lots of
cries that people are fed up with being told what to think and do by the "liberal elite". Fine, so now they believe they
can think and do more themselves.
It may be better to sit back for a while to let people rejoice in getting what they want in order that they can self-educate
through grim reality that what they thought they wanted was a fiction. Sometimes people have to find out for themselves
that they have made a terrible mistake.
Given that on both sides of the Atlantic, the majority of people oppose the shift to the right, surely all that is needed
is some decent organization against them and leadership capable of galvanizing the repulsion of this year's events. My
fingers are firmly crossed, but I cannot see anything on the horizon at the moment.
"Sometimes people have to find out for themselves that they have made a terrible mistake" - shame that in the meantime,
that "terrible mistake" is pounced upon as democratic justification for the entry of economic elites waiting in the wings.
Do you really think people's "mistakes" (a) are random, and/or (b) will be allowed to lead to the general good without
being hijacked?
It is not clear how Trump's election is going to be handled by the GOP. Ryan now leads the neoliberal cause in the party
and a lot of what Trump wants to do (borrow and spend on public projects or limit free trade for example) will not sit
well with them.
George has highlighted the key battle - can the 'swarm that is now surrounding Trump, fill this empty vessel' and
bend him to their ideology or will he prove true to his campaign promises. As each of his promises is one by one 'modified'
the danger increases that those who voted for him realise that they have been shafted once again. I suspect though, that
they may never come to realise who is doing this to them.
Trump has said that he wants to continue holding rallies, something political pundits put down to his overwhelming ego.
He might want an army of the dedicated behind him to convince the power structure that it would be in their own best
interests to give him what he wants. It's telling that he chose Priebus, a member of the power structure, to be chief
of staff and Bannon to be his chief strategist.
This is the most enlightening article I have read in the Guardian.
It goes a long way to explaining the root of Thatcherism, and why she behaved as she did, towards so many organisations,
she saw as the enemy of her chosen path!
I have wondered why she is remembered with such fondness by many, and her legacy revered, when it left so many problems
for the future.
Sure, the rich got richer, our manufacturing base was decimated, and those unholy bankers, stockbrokers, arms dealers
and the like, revelled in her folly!
Multi National companies thrived, setting up bases all over the World to avoid tax, whilst the ordinary folk were hounded
by Inland Revenue, for all that was due.
I trust Mrs May will not exemplify her, and make sure the Country is a fairer place for all, as she said in her statement
in front of No 10!
I have to say, Trump has not looked to me like any kind of very happy bunny since he got elected. He looks pretty
worried and overwhelmed. I wonder whether he can stay the course?
I noticed this too. He looked very subdued - miserable, even - in that meeting with Obama. His conciliatory victory speech
sounded nothing like his rallies.
Perhaps this is why every supposed saviour turns out to be a complete fraud. They're all being taken out the back,
shot, and replaced with doubles by the Illuminati as soon as they win. I think it's more likely Trump simply has no appetite for the job and no real convictions, yet lots of people to please.
Trump offered change, Hillary Clinton was the status quo. The establishment couldn't accept their neoliberal ideas had failed and the people had to push them out. The status quo has failed – wake up – this is the new reality.
Capitalism gets itself into dead ends - 1930s, 1970s, today's secular stagnation and new normal. Let's keep lowering interest rates and adding more QE forever, it hasn't worked for eight years maybe in a hundred
years time it will start to work or perhaps it won't. Show me a version of Capitalism that hasn't failed.
We need to recognise that we have been through many versions of Capitalism and they all fail as this version is failing
now.
As John Kenneth Galbraith points out in "The Affluent Society" there is always a desperate attempt to hold onto the
"conventional wisdom" that those at the top have invested so much time and effort in. The death throes of each system are maintained for as long as feasible until it is almost impossible for anyone to
believe that the current system can work. A new system comes along with promises that everything will be much better, and it is, for a decade or two.
Capitalism mark 1 – Unfettered Capitalism. Crashed and burned in 1929 with a global recession in the 1930s. The New Deal and Keynesian ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 2 – Keynesian Capitalism. Ended with stagflation in the 1970s. Market led Capitalism ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 3 - Unfettered Capitalism (Part 2 – Market led Capitalism) Crashed and burned in 2008 with a global recession in the 2010s. It has followed the same path as Unfettered Capitalism (Mark 1).
[Some analogies]
1920s/2000s - high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism
Unfettered Capitalism has a catastrophic failure mode and dressing it up in the Emperor's New Clothes of supply side
economics didn't make a blind bit of difference. We've done Neo-Keynesian stimulus. After eight years of pumping trillions into the top of the economic pyramid, banks, and waiting for it to trickle
down. It didn't work, hardly anything trickled down.
The powers that be are now for Keynesian stimulus. Carry out infrastructure projects that create jobs and wages which will be spent into the economy and trickle up (pumping
money into the bottom of the economic pyramid). A new brush sweeps clean, the old ideologues stuck in their old failed ways must go. The Left is still full of neoliberal ideologues; it's time to move on.
Show me a version of Capitalism that hasn't failed
Your examples of "failures" actually demonstrate exactly the opposite: that capitalism is resilient.
It survived 2 world wars, the 1930's depression, withdrawal of the gold standard (which had far-reaching effects on the
"establishment"), the 2008 crash, the oil crises of the 1970s (that caused your "stagflation") and pretty much everything
else that has been thrown at the financial world in the past 100 years.
After eight years of pumping trillions into the top of the economic pyramid, banks, and waiting for it to trickle
down. It didn't work, hardly anything trickled down.
This is a weak and way too long article. That demonstrated inability to think in scientific terms such neoliberalism,
neocolonialism and end of cheap oil. Intead it quckly deteriorated into muchy propaganda. But it touches on legacy of Troskyst
Burnham, who was one of God fathers of neoliberalism.
Zelikov is the guy who whitewashed 9/11. This neocon does not use the term neoliberalism even once but he writes like
a real neoliberal Trotskyite.
Notable quotes:
"... The Managerial State ..."
"... Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated
admiration." ..."
"... Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster. ..."
"... Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice." ..."
"... Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong
all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted." ..."
"... "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all." ..."
"... Nineteen Eighty-Four. ..."
"... By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became
one of the original editors of the National Review ..."
"... Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism ..."
"... What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values"
of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. ..."
"... Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our ..."
"... "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no
matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes." ..."
My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad
money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined
with Trotsky during the 1930s.
By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State
. The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are
really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage
the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.
You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias.
You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.
It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine
themselves and their future.
In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these
emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version.
And he thought it would lose.
Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi.
All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free
countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.
Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.
Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different.
Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist
who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his
writing.
Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet
he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of
fascinated admiration."
Orwell
wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring
monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying,
irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act
of homage, and even of self-abasement."
Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham
was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.
Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie
partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."
Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that
present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept
is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is
wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."
Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities
of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision
did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to
hold together at all."
Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham
argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.
That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.
By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the
capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham
became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President
Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide
of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power.
Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations,
is survival." (Sound familiar?)
And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization
down from within. Suicide.
So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial
state" is so alive today.
State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized
world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?
My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe
their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed.
President Obama's
call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic
governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."
Yet look at how many values
he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality,
justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."
What about our current president?
Last month
he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom
and sovereignty. "
A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster,
doubled
down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world."
They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they
listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair
markets."
By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against
anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.
There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It
is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.
Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included,
and treated fairly.
But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been
battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic
and cultural, but often political and even military.
So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass
politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale,
I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.
Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record
in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.
Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very
interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always
had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.
First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were
often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts,
moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections
can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about
the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"?
Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.
It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might
prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.
By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list
-- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?
Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling,
is the one about community: nationalism.
Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish
and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.
But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist,
and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to
intervene
when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.
We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989,
working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the
president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came
up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned
out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."
Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister
Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper
puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie
Slaughter makes it a touchstone
in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.
Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not
only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution
or in holy scripture.
Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride
in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms
can be contested and do evolve.
The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran,
recently lectured on,
"Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and
legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran
said, had the "civilizational attributes."
... ... ...
Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former
executive director of the 9/11 Commission.
spending nearly
$13.7 billion. Just two years ago, it seemed that Seoul and Beijing were embarking on a honeymoon
phase when President Park Geun-hye attended a military parade in Tiananmen Square commemorating the
end of World War II!the only U.S. ally to do so.
Then THAAD happened.
In July 2016, Seoul and Washington announced their decision to deploy the anti-missile system.
China opposed the deployment, saying it undermined China's security and would destabilize the region
because its radars could be used by the United States to track China's missile activities.
China wanted to "teach South Korea a lesson" for the effrontery of the THAAD deployment. Shortly
after the announcement, Beijing
banned the airing
of Korean TV shows, films, and K-pop acts in China. After it was revealed that Lotte Group!a South
Korean conglomerate operating 112 stores in mainland China!once owned the land THAAD would be based
on, Chinese state media called for a nationwide boycott of the company. By March 2017, nearly half
of Lotte's stores on the mainland
were shutdown , due to vague "safety violations." That same month, Beijing banned its travel
agencies from selling trips to Korea, resulting in a 66 percent
decrease in Chinese
visitors from last year. Shortly after President Moon Jae-in was elected to the Blue House in May
2017, he announced the suspension of further THAAD deployments until further review.
Many South Koreans told me they expected blowback from the decision to deploy THAAD, but the swiftness
and intensity of Beijing's retaliation caught them off guard. Beijing's response to THAAD, they said,
"opened our [South Korean] eyes to China's true colors ." Simply put, they believed Beijing
could not be relied on to consider South Korea's interests if China's interests were on the line.
This disillusionment is fanning mistrust and has damaged China's image in South Korea. A March 2017
Asan Institute poll found that,
for the first time ever , Koreans had a more favorable view of Japan than of China. This was
a shocking finding; Japan has consistently been South Koreans' least favorite country after North
Korea.
In spite of growing mistrust, South Koreans recognize the crucial role Beijing plays in reining
in Pyongyang. Many interlocutors said they believed, in spite of THAAD, that Chinese officials wanted
to maintain good relations with South Korea!albeit on China's terms.
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are more pressing
than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism has continued
for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the brainwashed it
will fail.
It needs to stop calling itself conservative and right.
What the majority of the
electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent self-deportations,
more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are
more pressing than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism
has continued for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the
brainwashed it will fail. it needs to stop calling itself conservative and right. what the
majority of the electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent
self-deportations, more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
Yes,
identity politics are a distraction, it's the political equivalent of sugar, it gets you high
but eventually ruins you.
It also answers the question why is Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the bankers all of a
sudden are supporting identity politics? Because it's a counter to populism and economic
awareness.
This keeps people from noticing their politicians are all owned by wealthy special
interests who don't give a shit about the people and it fact plan to reduce most to serfs in
the name of profit. No one ever talks about why Wall Street gets a multitrillion dollar bail
out for what amounted to was a scam concocted by the bankers and real-estate moguls and bond
ratings agencies. Yet no one ever went to jail over this.
It distracts the young why they can't file for bankruptcy after graduating with a
worthless college degree that they paid $150k for.
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address
he gave at the Stigler Center's
conference on the political economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about
the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in
areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is
anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might
provoke discussion.
The understanding of exploitation
Of wage earning production workers
Is a better base then the 18 th century liberal ideal of equality
Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same
even if they make synergistic team mates oftener then not
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed
It's easy to Forget you are exploited
Unlike oppression
Exploitation can be so stealthy
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life
Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question
" equal with who ? "
Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status
Add in the obvious :
To be part of a successful movement aimed at Exclusion of some " thems " or other
Is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "
But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among
The community of would be excluders
That is a bummer
A thankless act of sanctimony
Unless you spiritually join the " thems"
Now what have we got ?
Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended
When black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions
were no longer necessary to Dixie
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center
left that no it's not true.
"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke
about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities
in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion."
Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides
they're racist/sexist.
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because
decision-making has increasingly been centralized toward state governments, national governments,
and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European Union, he noted, the concentration
of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'
I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in
large part because they have become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking
tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even if the local government attempts to rebuild
by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities in a
similar situation.
I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any
"concentration of decision-making", but because local (and regional, and national) politicians
have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular action.
"... the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire ..."
"... To distill it to an aphorism, "A million guys with one buck, are no match for one guy with a million bucks." ..."
"... Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics. ..."
"... What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common? An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats. ..."
"... Some minorities are more equal than others. The Deep State, for example. ..."
"... It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation via the Republicans. ..."
My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support
foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress
the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate
and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the
AngloZionist Empire. That's all there is to it.
I think that minorities often, but not always, act and perceive things in
a way very different from the way majority groups do. Here is what I have observed:
Let's first look at minorities inside the US:
They are typically far more aware of their minority identity/status
than the majority. That is to say that if the majority is of skin color
A and the minority of skin color B, the minority will be much more acutely aware
of its skin color. They are typically much more driven and active
then the majority. This is probably due to their more acute perception of being
a minority. They are only concerned with single-issue politics , that single-issue being, of course, their minority status. Since minorities
are often unhappy with their minority-status, they are also often resentful
of the majority . Since minorities are mostly preoccupied by their minority-status
linked issue, they rarely pay attention to the 'bigger picture' and that, in
turn, means that the political agenda of the minorities typically does
not threaten the powers that be . Minorities often have a deep-seated
inferiority complex towards the putatively more successful majority.
Minorities often seek to identify other minorities with which
they can ally themselves against the majority.
To this list of characteristics, I would add one which is unique to foreign
minorities, minorities outside the US: since they have no/very little prospects
of prevailing against the majority, these minorities are very willing
to ally themselves with the AngloZionist Empire and that, in turn, often
makes them depended on the AngloZionist Empire, often even for their physical
survival.
The above are, of course, very general characterizations. Not all minorities
display all of these characteristics and many display only a few of them. But
regardless of the degree to which any single minority fits this list of characteristics,
what is obvious is that minorities are extremely easy to manipulate and that
they present no credible (full-spectrum) threat to the Empire.
The US Democratic Party is the perfect example of a party which heavily relies
on minority manipulation to maximize its power. While the Republican Party is
by and large the party of the White, Anglo, Christian and wealthy voters, the
Democrats try to cater to Blacks, women, Leftists, homosexuals, immigrants,
retirees, and all others who feel like they are not getting their fair share
of the proverbial pie. Needless to say, in reality there is only one party in
the US, you can call the the Uniparty, the Republicracts or the Demolicans,
but in reality both wings of the Big Money party stand for exactly the same
things. What I am looking at here is not at some supposed real differences,
but the way the parties present themselves. It is the combined action of these
two fundamentally identical parties which guarantees the status quo in US politics
which I like to sum up as "more of the same, only worse".
I would like to mention an important corollary of my thesis that minorities
are typically more driven than the majority. If we accept that minorities are
typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately
can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the
numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities
being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing
to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
So we have easy to manipulate, small groups, whose agenda does not threaten
the 1% (really, much less!), who like to gang up with other similar minorities
against the majority. Getting scared yet? It gets worse.
Western 'democracies' are mostly democracies only in name. In most of them
instead of "one man one vote" we see "one dollar one vote" meaning that big
money decides, not "the people". Those in real power have immense financial
resources which they cynically use to boost the already totally disproportional
power of the various minorities. Now this is really scary:
Easy to manipulate, small groups, highly driven, whose agenda does not threaten
the ruling plutocracy, who like to gang up with other similar minorities against
the majority and whose influence is vastly increased by immense sums of money
invested in them by the plutocracy. How is that for a threat to real people
power, to the ideals of democracy?!
The frightening truth is that the combination of minorities and big money
can easily hijack a supposedly 'democratic' country and subjugate the majority
of its population to the "rule of the few over the many".
Once we look this reality in the face we should also become aware of a very
rarely mentioned fact: while we are taught that democracies should uphold the
right of the minorities, the opposite is true: real democracies should
strive to protect majorities against the abuse of power from minorities!
I know, I have just committed a long list of grievous thoughtcrimes!
At those who might be angry at me, I will reply with a single sentence: please
name me a western country where the views of the majority of its people are
truly represented in the policies of their governments? And if you fail to come
up with a good example, then I need to ask you if the majority is clearly not
in power, then who is?
I submit that the plutocratic elites which govern the West have played a
very simple trick on us all: they managed to focus our attention on the many
cases in history when minorities were oppressed by majorities but completely
obfuscated the numerous cases whereminorities oppressed majorities.
Speaking of oppression: minorities are far more likely to benefit and, therefore,
use violence than the majority simply because their worldview often centers
on deeply-held resentments. To put it differently, minorities are much more
prone to settling scores for past wrongs (whether real or imagined) than a majority
which typically does not even think in minority versus majority categories
.
Not that majorities are always benign or kind towards minorities, not at
all, humans being pretty much the same everywhere, but by the fact that they
are less driven, less resentful and, I would argue, even less aware of their
"majority status" they are less likely to act on such categories.
Foreign minorities play a crucial role in US foreign policy. Since time immemorial
rulers have been acutely aware of the " divide et impera " rule, there
is nothing new here. But the US has become the uncontested leader in the art
of using national minorities to create strife and overthrow a disobedient regime.
The AngloZionist war against the Serbian nation is the perfect example of how
this is done: the US supported any minority against the Serbs, even groups that
the US classified as terrorists, as long as this was against the Serbs. And,
besides being Orthodox Slavs and traditional allies of Russia, what was the
real 'crime' of the Serbs? Being the majority of course! The Serbs had no need
of the AngloZionists to prevail against the various ethnic (Croats) and religious
(Muslims) minorities they lived with. That made the Serbs useless to the Empire.
But now that the US has created a fiction of an independent Kosovo, the Kosovo
Albanians put up a
statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina and, more relevantly, allowed the Empire
to build the
Camp
Bondsteel mega-base in the middle of their nasty little statelet, right
on the land of the Serbian population that was ethnically cleansed during the
Kosovo war. US democracy building at its best indeed
The same goes for Russia (and, the Soviet Union) where the US went as far
as to support the right of self-determination for
non-existing
"captive nations" such as "Idel-Ural" and "Cossakia" . I would even argue
that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world
is a "Belarussian"?!).
I am fully aware that in the typical TV watching westerner any discussion
of minorities focusing on their negative potential immediately elicits visions
of hammers and sickles, smoking crematoria chimneys, chain gangs, lynchmobs,
etc. This is basic and primitive conditioning. Carefully engineered events such
as the recent riots in Charlottesville only further reinforce this type of mass
conditioning. This is very deliberate and, I would add, very effective. As a
result, any criticism, even just perceived criticism, of a minority immediately
triggers outraged protests and frantic virtue-signaling (not me! look how good
I am!!).
Of course, carefully using minorities is just one of the tactics used by
the ruling plutocracy. Another of their favorite tricks is to created conflicts
out of nothing or ridiculously bloat the visibility of an altogether minor topic
(example: homo-marriages). The main rule remains the same though: create tensions,
conflicts, chaos, subvert the current order (whatever that specific order might
be), basically have the serfs fight each other while we rule .
In Switzerland an often used expression to describe "the people" is "the
sovereign". This is a very accurate description of the status of the people
in a real democracy: they are "sovereign" in the sense that nobody rules over
them. In that sense, the issue in the United States is one of sovereignty: as
of today, the real sovereign of the US are the corporations, the deep state,
the Neocons, the plutocracy, the financiers, the Israel Lobby – you name it,
anybody BUT the people.
In that system of oppression, minorities play a crucial role, even if they
are totally unaware of this and even if, at the end of the day, they don't benefit
from it. Their perception or their lack of achievements in no way diminishes
the role that they play in the western pseudo-democracies.
How do with deal with this threat?
I think that the solution lies with the minorities themselves: they need
to be educated about the techniques which are used to manipulate them, and they
need to be convinced that their minority status does not, in reality, oppose
them to the majority and that both the majority and the minorities have a common
interest in together standing against those who seek to rule over them all.
Striving to remain faithful to my "Putin fanboy" reputation, I will say that
I believe that Russia under Putin is doing exactly the right thing by giving
the numerous Russian minorities a stake in the future of the Russian state and
by convincing the minorities that their interests and the interest of the majority
of the people are fundamentally the same: being a minority does not have to
mean being in opposition to the majority. It is a truism that minorities need
to be fully integrated into the fabric of society and yet this is rarely practiced
in the real world. This is certainly not what I observe today in Europe or the
US.
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto
to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality
and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement
in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other.
Everybody else either wants to oppress the "français de souche" (the native,
mostly White and Roman-Catholic majority) on behalf of the "français de branche"
(immigrants, naturalized citizens, minorities), or oppress the "français de
branche" on behalf of the "français de souche". Needless to say, the only ones
who benefit from this clash is the ruling Zionist elite (best represented by
the infamous
CRIF , which makes the US AIPAC look comparatively honorable and weak).
As for Soral, he is vilified by the official French media with no less hate
than Trump is vilified in the US by the US Ziomedia.
Still, equality and reconciliation are the two things which the majorities
absolutely must offer the minorities if they want to prevent the latter to fall
prey to the manipulation techniques used by those forces who want to turn everybody
into obedient and clueless serfs. Those majorities who delude themselves and
believe that they can simply solve the "minority problem" by expelling or otherwise
making these minorities disappear are only kidding themselves. To 'simply' solve
the "minority problem' by cracking down on these minorities inevitably
"While we all typically [have] several co-existing identities inside
us (say, German, retired, college-educated, female, Buddhist, vegetarian,
exile, resident of Brazil, etc. as opposed to just "White"), in manipulated
minorities one such identity (skin color, religion, etc.) becomes over-bloated
and trumps all the others." -- The Saker
That's a great critique of "identity politics" and one reason why identity
politics is self-limiting, maybe even self-destructive (as well as destructive
of democracy).
Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics.
It's like an Indian movie I once saw that was constructed as a family
history. When the family experienced many setbacks, one after another, until
they were all disheartened, the patriarch of the family spoke up, saying,
"Remember, we are Bengali!" That was the turning point in the film: after
that things began to improve for the family so that the film could have
a happy Bolliwood ending.
That was like saying, "Remember, we have a proud history!"
There was also a Yiddish joke that someone told me, like this: There
was a young Jewish man in some place like Minsk, somewhere in Eastern Europe,
and he saw an advertisement by none other than a great member of the Rothschild
banking family. The ad said "Wanted: young Jewish man for difficult and
physically challenging assignment." So the hero (or anti-hero?) of this
story set out immediately for Paris. Unfortunately, our hero experienced
many tragedies, even losing an arm and a leg. But he was determined and
he persevered, with the help of a crutch. Finally, he had to camp out in
front of the gate of the Rothschild mansion outside of Paris.
Eventually,
the great Rothschild had his carriage stop and spoke to the man, saying,
"You know, I've seen you standing here day after day what is it that you
want?"
Our hero brought out the advertisement that he had carried with him
through all his misadventures. The great Rothschild read the advertisement
and exclaimed, "What's the matter with you? Did you not read that the job
was physically challenging?" To which our hero responded, "Yes, but, Mr.
Rothschild, the ad says "young Jewish man."
Being myself a gentile, I did not at first get the joke, but eventually
I got a chuckle out of it.
What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common?
An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white
and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work
and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the
only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the
American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats.
I also lived for 5 years in Washington, DC, which was something like
70% Black and, at the time, openly and often rudely hostile to Whites
(I never thought of myself as a color before, but I sure felt like one
during those 5 years). And now I am a "legal alien" living in the US.
Anyway, while I am "White" (what a nonsensical category!)
Nonsensical? Really? Both the DC blacks and their DC (((paymasters)))
hate your "category" but you're still confused and want to hold hands and
educate them ? Do you have children?
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant
motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement
"Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only
political movement in France which does not want to favor one group
at the expense of the other.
Demographically speaking, the native French group ( white category
FYI) is already doomed to lose their homeland unless they reverse the invasion
and punish the plotters. Reconciling with their invaders would be assisted
suicide, surely. Almost as bad as the forced miscegenation idea proposed
by Nicolas "Jew Midget" Sarkozy a few years back.
You need to wake up and check for any vitamin/mineral deficiencies you
might have, Saker. Our ancestors butchered countless invaders to
give us the land we're standing on – they didn't reconcile it away.
One single question shows how profoundly silly The Saker's his "solution"
is:
Why would it be easier to convince resentful, envious minorities to just
get along with the majority than to convince the elites to act better, according
to the noblesse oblige principle?
Elites will always misuse their power. Minorities/majorities will always
quarrel and resent each other.
Give us (back) ethnically homogeneous states instead. No panacea, but
the besf we can hope for.
The ruling elites of US (both democrats and republicans) can be divided
into 2 categories:
1. The ones who think that they are better because of their race.
2. The ones who think that they are better because they were able to overcome
the feeling of being better because of their race. In other words – the
morally superior ubermensch instead of racially superior ubermensch.
In reality, category 2 doesn't exist (at least not among the ruling elites)
– they are all liars. They haven't been able to overcome any feeling of
superiority, they just added another one – the one of moral superiority.
Actually, the ruling elites for the most part are still category 1, only
pretending to be category 2. Not only do they feel they are superior to
other races, they feel they are superior to their own race – the poorer
members of it.
The ruling elites are manipulating the population of US into declaring
that they belong in either one of these 2 camps. Result: Charlottesville
riots.
This post would sound eminently reasonable if the white identitarians
had any kind of state blessing, but they are a de facto criminal element
being suppressed. Not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of the
elite who are Jewish, not Zionist, and not very Anglo.
White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white leadership
were transparently in control over the state. The wellspring of their support
comes from the fact that what whites do exist in the power structure are
absolutely and transparently subservient to other interests.
One of the problems is that the US was (and still is) a republic-with
a small r. The republican form of government assumes that the voters are
too stupid or ignorant to pass laws, so they have to hire professional political
types to write their governing laws for them. The politicos are easy targets
for the powers that be to manipulate, evidently.
The problem is – as always – with the numbers. The large influx of migrants
is changing the demographics and that changes the goals and behaviour of
each group. The minority groups can see the promised land in the future
when they will take over. The majority knows that they cannot stop it by
"equality and reconciliation" (whatever that would mean in practise, maybe
endless workshops to whine about each other?).
The numbers game has gone too far and there is no easy way to restore
stability. E.g. the labor markets in the West cannot be fixed without drastic
restrictions on supply of new labor from the Third World. The article has
some valuable insights, but the lame 'solution' it suggests is useless.
Another issue not addressed is that many minorities are a majority in
their regions leading to a geographic instability by putting borders in
question. That separation actually makes sense in many cases.
What we have had for some time are the elites behaving badly, they have
stopped being responsible and thoughtful. The best solution I can see would
be for the elites to sober up and start taking their role seriously again.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos. Those
are the wages of the baby boomer idiocy.
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
At the last French elections the political elite did anything possible to
prevent Front National getting legal political power.
With fifteen % of the votes, of those who bothered to vote, some 44%, Macron
got an absolute majority in French parliament, some 360 seats.
FN six or so.
Yet, alas, anyone knows he won the elections, but not the streets.
As his popularity goes down, Sun King habits, the strikes announced for
11 and 12 September will show who really is in power in France.
If you want to lesson the influence of minorities in western democracies,
then its essential to provide a more a la carte form of democracy that is
less open to elite manipulation. Options include getting rid of political
parties and voting directly for heads of government departments, or allowing
voters to vote on which party gets to run each of the key government departments.
It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political
parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote
on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages
which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks
in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor
American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation
via the Republicans.
There is no way around this problem without radically changing the political
system.
Easier said than done. Most minorities would support anti-majority politics
even IF they knew they were being manipulated. You severely underestimate
the human attraction to tribalism.
A more plausible plan would be to turn minorities against so-called 'AngloZionist'
values, which is already partially complete, since minorities are rarely
Anglos and therefore don't subscribe to their values as much. Have a look
at any SJW gathering. Always disproportionately white, even in very diverse
cities. It's much easier to convince even longtime resident minorities like
blacks that things like transgenderism is bullshit, than it is to convince
emotionally committed whites.
This would result in a country that allows multiple competing tribalisms,
but none of which would be very useful as pawns by the elites. Not as good
as homogeneity, but better than the current situation.
"Everybody gang up against the WEIRDs" is a nice thought and I would
love to see it, but it's just not very likely.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
Offer the minorities a future based on equality and reconciliation
Put the spotlight on those who fan the flames of conflict and try to
turn minorities and majorities against each other
Surprisingly weak and naive.
A simple question:
What's wrong with Serb approach in Kosovo before Western intervention?
Spare me "virtue signalling" .. if you can.
I think it would've worked if West hadn't stepped up with overwhelming
FORCE.
It worked in "Operation Storm". Serbs as victims but that's precisely the
point.
Perfect example how it CAN work.
So .following the same logic ..if IF .West used the same approach why
it wouldn't work?
Say .French government does exactly the same as Croats did with Serbs in
Croatia or Serbs with Albanians/whatever in Kosovo.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
While those ideas have merit, I predict they'll be impossible to implement.
Education is an active process and one cannot "be" educated in the passive
sense. People, like other creatures, can be schooled and trained, but that's
not the same as acquiring an education.
There are several reasons why the majority will never acquire any meaningful
education. Most people simply do not possess the requisite curiosity to
begin any sort of educational process and would rather make decisions based
on immediate emotions. A true education requires active questioning of the
standing myths and myths are evidently too comfortable for most to discard
or even doubt. Most folks appear too lazy and or too timid to face the hard
truths and would rather follow the dictates of some slick Peruna peddler.
A shocking percentage of people apparently love the feeling of "superiority"
of "knowing" something even if their belief is utter, easily discardable,
hogwash and actively reject any challenges to it. For example, the mindless
charge of "conspiracy theorist" is used to dismiss, without thinking, anything
but the spoon fed drivel they see on teevee.
I could go on, but this is already too long and is mostly preaching to
the choir.
Which is a key reason that things are not likely to improve for at least
a few more millennia. Accepting wages is a form of slavery, and most folks
simply cannot see beyond that trap. The system has evolved so that people
readily accept the idea of wages as a necessity (along with the extortion
and theft known as taxes). There's a huge difference between making (earning)
a living and holding a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince
anyone of that.
Tolstoy wrote about the concept of wage slavery over a century ago and
it makes good reading to this day.
"But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of [chattel] slavery was
only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary,
and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds
a greater number of people in bondage."
The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only
effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness
the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others
throats.
All true, except the part about solidarity, which would definitely be
a huge step in the right direction for us proles and peasants, but is probably
as unobtainable as true education of the masses.
As I see it, the best an individual can do is to toss a monkey wrench
into the system whenever we can get away with it, but that requires an understanding
of who are enemies are and that seems nearly impossible to achieve. Thus
it's effective only in theory. In practice, it's probably as ephemeral as
a gas emission in a tornado.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos.
Chaos is on the march.
It appears the minority has magically organized itself and planned
a 10-day march from Charlottesville to DC, there to demand the impeachment/removal
of Donald Trump, and to carry on a non-violent occupation (irony
alert).
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
An even bigger threat is the manipulat ing minorities aka certain
(most?) elements of the money bag crowd.
This problem has been recognized for millennia and was discussed in detail
by many early Americans who nevertheless argued in favor of a constitution
and a centralized bureaucracy that favored the rich.
Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.
-Diogenes of Sinope, quoted by Stobaeus, iv. 31c. 88
But if you will take note of the mode of proceedings of men, you
will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have
obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the
ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title
of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence.
- Niccolo Machiavelli , HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF
ITALY, Book 3 chap 3Para 8
" wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want
of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of
dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence."
THOMAS PAINE, DISSERTATION ON FIRST-PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, 1795
AfroAmericans who are descended from slaves should take into account
the fact that their ancestors were protected because they had value. As
a result they now number some 42 million and produced the last President.
Comparison with the indigenous natives who after centuries of genocide number
about 2 million and are mostly on reservations should give pause.
Nonwhites within the borders of the US are not innocent bystanders They
are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority
into a violently persecuted racial minority within the borders of America..
If you have a greater identification with Muslim "Americans" and Hindu
"Americans" than European American Natives then just go back to Russia..and
take the Hindus and Muslims with you.
It wasn't very nice of you not to let my comment go through yesterday
in response to commenter Eric .on The Vineyard of the Saker
You are waging demographic warfare against my Racial Tribe .
@WorkingClass The Chinese in California are Chinese Race Nationalist
The Hindus in California are Hindu Race Nationalists You are a Civic Nationalist
Cuck.
Using minorities as an excuse to oppress majorities is a classic colonial
technique. The British set themselves up as the "protectors" of the Muslims
in India, the Turks in Cyprus and the Protestants in Ireland, for example.
Putin justifies his actions in Ukraine by claiming that he is "protecting"
the ethnic Russian minority from the dastardly ethnic Ukrainian majority.
Ditto for the various cyber-attacks on Estonia. One assumes that the same
treatment would be meted out to the Belarusians if they dared to assert
their national sovereignty. The US captive nations legislation the author
refers to includes Belarus (designated "White Ruthenia"), Ukraine and the
three Baltic republics. I am unaware of any alliance ever having existed,
or existing today, between Serbia and Russia. Like "Eurasia", that "alliance"
seems to have been invented by US neocons when they were trying to use Putin
as an "asset".
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted The
Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into a racial
minority?
"Manipulated minorities represent a major danger to democratic states."
Well, yes. But the manipulation of minorities to change legal frameworks
or disassemble governments has been ongoing since the French Revolution.
'They' first foster a sense of oppression, more or less justified, then
move to grant the new rights. Monarchies suffered the strategy. Europe should
know the drill, witness the received oral tradition "Czechoslovaquia is
another spelling for Rothschild."
Breaking up the US along racial lines is exactly what 'they' want. They
want the fighting "whites" to come out, give the reason for changes in law.
The Trump impeachment is deliberate provocation.
There has never been a 'white nation', it is a silly, ahistorical idea.
Nations are built around culture. Fight for the culture. Use the damn high
IQ.
@Issac "White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white
leadership were transparently in control over the state."
Nope, but thanks for playing. White nationalism would have zero credibility
if the leadership actually promoted American–WASP–interests. There is no
escaping the Posterity clause, period. There is no magic dirt, no civic
nationalism, no immersion in American culture, that can replace descendants
of the English colonists that understand the importance of the Rights of
Englishmen. The US was never intended to be the world's largest rest stop
for every poor downtrodden person on Earth. Minorities now all undocumented
immigrants since 1965 (Hart-Cellar).
Homogeneous nation's are born from Heterogeneous nation's. We are witnesses
to the birth pains. The length of the labor depends on how long the majority
will tolerate the minorities. Reconciliation isn't just impossible–its not
even on the table, unless you reverse time. They. Have. To. Go. Back.
@Anon Well..you are wrong about that..America since it's inception has
always been a White Nation If you don't believe me..just ask Professor Noel
Ignatieve-the Father of White Studies. Where I differ from Professor Noel
Ignatieve:I think it's GREAT that America has historically been a White
Nation as did Socialist Labor Leader Samuel Gompers.
As far as your last two sentences go:Bring back the 1888 Chinese Legal
Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!!
Saker
The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc is the Voting
Bloc for War on Christian Russia not Trump's Whitey Racist Voting Bloc..
@Intelligent Dasein Damned right. If anything, he is the descendant
of African slave traders . But his skin is sort of black and he's
got a funky name, so he can pass as one of the "oppressed" minorities.
@jacques sheete 1 Timothy 5:18 ESV /
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
There's a huge difference between making (earning) a living and holding
a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince anyone of
that.
Try me.
I was a union man back in the day when private sector unions were active
and had support in Washington. We had a contractual relationship with employers
that was qualitatively different from serfdom or chattel slavery and a huge
improvement over the wage slavery that prevailed before the American labor
movement.
As ideologies go the Anarchists have the best of it. But even they are
Utopians. Capitalism sux. There will never be a free market utopia. But
neither will there be a workers paradise. Human beings are limited in what
they can accomplish by human nature. That's the law. I'm only interested
in what works in the real world, however imperfectly.
Nature does not know political frontiers. She first puts the living
beings on this globe and watches the free game of energies. He who is
strongest in courage and industry receives, as her favorite child, the
right to be the master of existence.
If a people limits itself to domestic colonization, at a time when
other races cling to greater and greater surfaces of the earth's soil,
it will be forced to exercise self-restriction even while other nations
will continue to increase.
For some day this case will occur, and it will arrive the earlier
the smaller the living space is that a people has at its disposal. As,
unfortunately only too frequently, the best nations, or, better still,
the really unique cultured races, the pillars of all human progress,
in their pacifistic blindness decide to renounce the acquisition of
new soil in order to content themselves with 'domestic* colonization,
while
inferior nations know full well how to secure enormous areas on this
earth for themselves, this would lead to the following result:
The culturally superior, but less ruthless, races would have to limit,
in consequence of their limited soil, their increase even at a time
when the culturally inferior, but more brutal and more natural, people,
in consequence of their greater living areas, would be able to increase
themselves without limit.
In other words: the world will, therefore, some day come into the
hands of a mankind that is
inferior in culture but superior in energy and activity.
For then there will be only two possibilities in the no matter how
distant future: either the world will be ruled according to the ideas
of our modern democracy, and then the stress of every decision falls
on the races which are stronger in numbers, or the world will be dominated
according to the law of the natural order of energy, and then the people
of brute strength will be victorious, and again, therefore, not the
nations of self-restriction.
But one may well believe that this world will still be subject to
the fiercest fights for the existence of mankind.
In the end, only the urge for self-preservation will eternally succeed.
Under its pressure so-called 'humanity,' as the expression of a mixture
of stupidity, cowardice, and an imaginary superior intelligence, will
melt like snow under the March sun. Mankind has grown strong in eternal
struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
Hint: today in an appearance on an internationally broadcast program,
a minion from Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD) dismissed as "conspiracy
theory" the suggestion that the USA/(Trump admin) is involved in Afghanistan
"because Afghanistan has vast lithium resources, which US needs for new
technologies" [see this 2010 report,
Read More
Minorities are nothing but trouble, even though political correctness
demands that we not see that or dare to say so. History offers not a single
– NOT ONE SINGLE – example of harmony and mutual love between the minorities
and the majority in any community/country/nation. Prove me wrong, cite one
significant exception.
Don't cite Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans in the American melting
pot. They came with full intent to be melted, they came white, Christian,
and western in outlook and culture. They came pre-cooked for the melting
pot. Can't say the same for the Muslims streaming in today. Nor for the
Hindus and the Orientals coming in today. Leaving aside the Muslims (not
even worth discussing in any talk of assimilation), the Hindus and Orientals
today stand aside and apart, both groups highly conscious of their groups'
share in the American pie. The Hispanics will make Spanish the lingua Franca
– already largely done in California. So what exactly can the melting of
Spanish and English languages produce? Spanglish? No, it will be one or
the other, depending on which group acquires demographic majority and sufficient
political clout. Who will melt whom?
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted
The Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into
a racial minority?
Please elaborate on what you mean. I definitely do not see myself as
a racial minority in California.
Manipulated Minorities Represent a Major Danger for Democratic States
The solution is an easy one – we must abandon the Jew Matrix of identity
politics and return to the Christian Matrix of neighborliness.
Jew thought is about biological identity, and all the fear and hate associated
with it – the Christian philosophical mindset is an intellectual entreaty
to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Hmm – one favors gonad driven
actions – the other using our brains to overcome our biology, and make peace
and abundance.
The differences are stark and profound – we can see what the Jew way
has brought us – Jew tribalism is killing America and the West.
If we want a just kind world we cannot abandon philosophical Christianity.
Philosophical Christianity is not about "the virgin birth" and "the ascension
into heaven" – it is about a practical way to peaceably live with each other
and build an abundance for all.
@Cloak And Dagger Non-Hispanic white is now down to 37.7% of the California
population as of 2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts ..probably
less if you include all the uncounted illegals.
"I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo
(What in the world is a "Belarussian"?!)."
Hey, us Anglo-Zionists didn't create Belarus. That was an indigenous
or possibly German puppet state created (sort of) in early 1918. It was
then conquered by the Bolsheviks and reborn as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, a constituent republic of the USSR till it fell apart, at which
point it became (sort of) independent.
The Anglo-Zionists had nothing to do with any of this, with probable
exception of the collapse of the USSR.
@Intelligent Dasein Actually, if we go back a dozen or two generations,
it's probable most people on the planet are descended from both slaveowners
and slaves. Especially if you're a little loose with the definition of slave.
@Bragadocious If we had ever made a serious consistent effort to kill
all the Indians, they'd be gone. But there seem to be quite a few of them
still around. About 5M, in fact, considerably more than lived in the boundaries
of the USA in 1491.
Argentina had similar Indian problems during the same time period (late
19th century) we were fighting our final Indian wars. But they had a different
approach: extermination.
Quite successful at it, too. Very few Indians left in Argentina. And
they didn't import any other minorities, which means Argentina is now upwards
of 90% "white." Much more so than USA, in fact.
If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than
most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence
over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical
"weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent
or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being
spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
It's true that there is greater activism, but the key ingredient is probably
ethnic patronage.
A.H. gave an (approving) explanation of how it works:
"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's
partly explained by the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers,
in virtue of an unwritten law, of fifty million non-Germans. This German
ruling class took strict care that places should always be found for Germans.
For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in this
privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way
towards the Slav population."
Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation Nº 109, 15th-16th January 1942
American Jewry has been following the same policy since the early 1900′s,
pushing for Jewish candidates in key placings, who if successful, are expected
to return the favour. On a "level playing field" this has a ratchet effect
whereby corporate management and key media, finance and government positions
can be gradually taken over with Anglos squeezed out in a rather unobvious
way ("He wasn't the right candidate for reasons A,B,C X,Y,Z").
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years. I
believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education. How
has it worked? What does the US Census data show for the indicator median
education level persons over 25 years of age in 1960 demonstrate when compared
to 2010? Compare for both white and black. Wow! we all are much smarter.
Okay, as Rodney King so aptly stated it "why can' t everbody just get along?"
@Wally okay wally, i'm only going to say this once, so please pay attention.
the gas chambers were but one method by which jews were killed. starvation,
disease, forced labor, firing squads, killed legions. what if it was only
4 million jews who perished in the camps? or 3? does that make it better.
one last thing: elie wiesel is not the wonderful man he is purported to
be.
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
Dear Sir, as I've often stated, I like what you have to say and agree
with 99% of it. I also respect the fact that your reply to me was obviously
respectful and sincere.
My usual answer to your question is to replace them with nothing. For
example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it; I'd rather
do without. Instead of wages and a time clock, I advocate finding other
(hopefully respectable) sources of income.
I realize that in this environment, it's nearly impossible to do without
wages, but that shows how much our system sux, hence my objection to them
and the system. I pretty much became disgusted with the concept after working
at a few jobs that were really akin to slavery or some other unsavory paid
profession, so I worked to make a living without punching time clock. That's
not to say that I did not receive money for my services, but I managed to
do without a direct boss during my earning days. Several other rather cantankerous
members of my family manged to do the same, and some still do. I'm not saying
that to brag, but to point out that it can be done.
I do admit that it now seems nearly impossible to do that sort of thing,
but a close neighbor, in his thirty's, manages to do that and does quite
well. He does have the advantage of both a good work ethic and access to
a family business though.
The bottom line for me is that it's too bad that we have to submit to
bosses for the most part to earn a living. From that we seem to learn to
submit to other forms of "authority" with little or no questioning, and
it seems to be a downhill slide from there. Also, the more power the bosses
get, they more they control, and the less chance there is for people to
become independent. that's no way to live.
Since you consider "working for wages" as not "making a living,"
That is a false statement. It is both illogical and unreasonable based
on what I actually said.
Working for wages in one of several ways of earning a living. It just
happens to be, in my way of thinking, one of the least desirable for many
reasons.
I'm curious what you would consider to constitute "making a living."
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years.
I believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education.
Most folks are entirely ineducable and seem to like it that way. Of course,
it's a fine sounding pretext for mass brainwashing and it's attendant bureaucracy
and source of profits.
How has it worked?
It's probably worked just as intended but not at all as advertised!
See John Taylor Gatto and Upton Sinclair's "The Goslings" and the Goosestep"
which basically describe schooling in America as a tool for corporations.
what if it was only 4 million jews who perished in the camps? or
3? does that make it better?
Well, in several countries you can go to jail, and many have, for saying
it was less than 6, so go figure. Norman Finkelstein was destroyed by the
"Holocaust Industry" for showing in the simplest terms that if you add up
the numbers of supposed "victims" and "survivors", the official figures
are patently absurd. The more you dig, the more absurd it gets.
The Saker: You are not a "minority." You are a Caucasian, the European
branch, ethnically Russian. You are Christian, specifically Orthodox. You
are one of the interesting groups that make up the Caucasian peoples. You
have nothing in common with blacks/Asians.
The Democratic party is the party of nonwhites, non-Christians, sexual
degenerates. Manipulation has nothing to do with this. Minorities know they
are inferiors. What they are doing is because they realize they can never
accomplish what Caucasians/Europeans/ Christians/neopagans have accomplished.
This means it is time for separation/deportation/repatriation.
This is coming. An RCC priest "confessed" to having been in the KKK when
he was a teenager. The US Conference of Bishops has established an ad hoc
committee to address racism. This is the final nail in the coffin of the
RCC. Homosexuals have taken over the priesthood. Priests do not preach about
hell, sin, repentance. Now that this KKK priest has been exposed, from now
on sermons will only cover "racism," the worst sin.
Caucasian Christans/pagans have to deal with the reality that world history
can be summed up in two words: IQ, which is tied to race. The past 2000
years of Western civilization united under the RCC are gone. There has to
be a new paradigm shift to deal with the future and what needs to be done.
@anonymous I hope they act like they have at every event they have been
a part of and the president acts accordingly. Trump needs to hire people
to record the whole thing and put it all up on a new website thats created
just to host the event. Dozens of live feeds from dozens of angles. All
put up on this new website just so there will be no confusion. Once the
left riots, because they will riot, National guard needs to be called and
these domestic terrorists need to be put down. He then needs to put out
an executive order to shut down all propaganda news agencies that are spinning
this, and if people want to see what happened, view the live feeds from
dozens of angles on the newly created website. And if people bitch about
how its wrong to have this up, fuck them. Its time to take off the kiddy
gloves.
@Tim Howells It was more like around 300,000 in all of the German camps
since their inception back in the mid-1930′s, according to the International
Red Cross. And that refers to all camp inmates of all ethnic backgrounds.
It is entirely possible that many Jews may have been killed on the Eastern
Front or in the Soviet Union, but that can hardly be blamed solely upon
the Germans, who were not known to be savagely cruel or vengeful- even though
the anti-partisan actions may have led to some excesses.
In any case, there is zero evidence for "millions of Jews" killed by
the Germans. There are no mass graves commensurate with such figures, nor
is there any documentary evidence of a deliberate plan of "extermination."
@jacques sheete I understand you quite well I think. I have worked on
commission. I have been self employed. For a time I was a soldier. I have
worked for wages for mom and pop business and for large corporations and
held both union and non union jobs. I did a few years working for a not
for profit homeless shelter. I am a Jack of all trades and (unfortunately)
master of none.
On union jobs (IBEW and Teamsters) I had the great benefit of having
a contract with my employer that spelled out the duties and privileges of
both the worker and the company. This meant that both labor and management
worked from the same set of rules. The path to promotion was defined as
was the possible cause for termination. Personalities had nothing to do
with anything. The boss and I followed the same rules. It was nothing like
being subject to the whims and prejudices of one man.
" For example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it;
I'd rather do without."
Having a "job" can be worse than the gleet.
Unfortunately a mans gotta eat.
@Ivy The white trash (as of 2016, down to 37.7% of California's population)
has simply been replaced by brown trash in California. The only question
remaining is which ethnic elite will run the state ..the jooies or the chinkies
or the hindus. Or will the ethnics simply rule via a de facto coalition?
Whitey's demise in CA is an accomplished fact ..with AZ and TX soon to follow
and eventually OR, WA, ID, and CO. The efforts of James K. Polk are soon
to be fully reversed. And yes, Ivy, you will have employment ..every Chinese
has been promised a white house boy and white concubine by 2050.
the same tolerant technology has been applied five thousand years ago
in the Sumerian civilization
what was a non semitic composed society. Few hundred years prior to the
destruction of that culture
semitic tribes were allowed to settle in, first in smaller numbers , then
in the name of tolerance larger migrating groups were allowed , and enjoyed
benefits of education, comfortable, cultured living. The original majority
of the population were builders and workers , the migrants for the most
part were users, who's interest were to find an easy way to become the more.
The complete opposite of mentality. In time the semitic migrants were able
to build up a fifth column , moved in to powerful positions such as religion
and astrology , and from then on destruction has begun. The original populous
were pushed out, part of them were forcefully crossbred , the rest of them
flee and
build new countries in Europa . The migrants of that time gained written
culture , tailored clothing ,
the benefit of toilet so not to go to the bushes to relieve themselves .
This time around there is no place left to flee.
@WorkingClass I, too, think I understand from whence you come.
I agree with the concept of labor unions but recognize that they too
can be turned against the interests of the workers, and unfortunately, have
been.
I do applaud you for your success working within the system and I have
no doubt that you did it as a sincere, able and good man. I also respect
your views and thank you for sharing them.
As for bosses, I loathe them so much that I myself never hired employees
because I didn't want to be a boss any more than I wanted to answer to one.
I almost get physically sick when I see that the window of opportunity for
youngsters to follow a independent lifestyle is next to nil and getting
tougher all the time.
I do still counsel my younger relatives to acquire as much experience
as they can so that they are in a position to have some control over their
own lives. I'm also actively involved in fortifying my grandkids with both
defiance and the attitudes and skills to back it up.
Is that attitude Utopian? No doubt to some degree it is, but so is the
attitude of submission, i.e., the wish for everything to be taken care of
so long as one submits.
There is much contention as to whether even a single jew was killed
in a gas chamber.
Not only is there much contention, but there is no credible evidence
that it really happened. Besides, the numbers are farcical.
Where do they get 6 million?
"Allowing for a maximum of 100,000 who succeeded in emigrating from
Europe, this would bring the total number of Jews under the direct rule
of Nazi Germany to about 3,200,000."
Distribution of the Jewish Population of Europe 1933-. 1940," prepared
by Mr. Moses Moskowitz
AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK 1941-1942, page 662
"I submit that the real truth is totally different. My thesis is very
simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert
states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population
is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities
present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire. That's
all there is to it."
That is pretty much it, save for the origins. WASP culture's Germanic
basis began by hating the native British Isles. That set the pattern:WASPs
most hate those from whom they steal or otherwise wrong gravely. The Reformation
provided the perfect theological and philosophical justifications for that
pattern to become something much greater.
The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were Judaizing heretics. You cannot over-emphasize
that point. WASAP culture from the moment it was crystalized, truly formed,
was one that saw the world through Jewish-influenced, Jewish-fawning, eyes.
Naturally and inevitably, once the true WASPs gained total control of the
government, with the Puritan Revolution, their fearless leader, Oliver Cromwell,
allied with Jews. He took Jewish money to wage war, to exterminate cultures
and make at least virtual serfs of whole populations.
White Christian populations.
WASP culture began with an alliance with Jews, allowing Jews back into
England, with special rights and privileges that the vast majority of British
Isles native Christians did not have, that allowed the WASPs to continue
waging war to exterminate white Christian cultures.
When WASPs encountered non-whites, they began to grasp the value of using
them – non-whites and non-Christians – as tools and weapons with which to
batter the white Christians they wished to destroy.
That is the reason the 'Anglo-Zionist Empire' uses minorities as it does.
You cannot separate the Jewish Problem from the WASP Problem. You cannot
solve the Jewish Problem without solving the 'WASP Problem.
"... Why are you so gungho for a war with north korea? America shouldn't be over there. We went there in the first place to block the ussr and to play with our new toys (helicopters). ..."
The last half of the final paragraph (beginning 'BTW') should be, as follows:
As Pepe and everyone else knows, there is much good reason for USA being in Korea -
entirely honorable. National honor has meaning -- whether greedy and treasonous politicians
understand that or not. History has meaning -- whether the likes of Pepe Escobar pretend
ignorance of the real history of the Korean War or not.
Why are you so gungho for a war with north korea? America shouldn't be over there. We went
there in the first place to block the ussr and to play with our new toys (helicopters).
South korea is about as Democratic as America. The contestants are paid for by Washington,
and when their guy or gal loses, the whole system flips out.
"... Why are you so gungho for a war with north korea? America shouldn't be over there. We went there in the first place to block the ussr and to play with our new toys (helicopters). ..."
The last half of the final paragraph (beginning 'BTW') should be, as follows:
As Pepe and everyone else knows, there is much good reason for USA being in Korea -
entirely honorable. National honor has meaning -- whether greedy and treasonous politicians
understand that or not. History has meaning -- whether the likes of Pepe Escobar pretend
ignorance of the real history of the Korean War or not.
Why are you so gungho for a war with north korea? America shouldn't be over there. We went
there in the first place to block the ussr and to play with our new toys (helicopters).
South Korea is about as Democratic as America. The contestants are paid for by Washington,
and when their guy or gal loses, the whole system flips out.
Buchanan lost it. he does not understand what neoliberalism is about and that dooms all his
attempts to analyse the current political situation in the USA. Rephrasing Clinton, we can say:
This is the crisis of neoliberalism stupid...
And it was President Reagan who presided of neoliberal coup detat that install neoliberal
regime in the USA which promply started dismanteing the New Deal (althouth the process of
neoliberalization started in full force under Carter administration)
Decades ago, a debate over what kind of nation America is roiled the conservative
movement.
Neocons claimed America was an "ideological nation" a "creedal nation," dedicated to the
proposition that "all men are created equal."
Expropriating the biblical mandate, "Go forth and teach all nations!" they divinized
democracy and made the conversion of mankind to the democratic faith their mission here on
earth.
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this. Result: Ashes in
our mouths and a series of foreign policy disasters, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Behind the Trumpian slogan "America First" lay a conviction that, with the Cold War over and
the real ideological nation, the USSR, shattered into pieces along ethnic lines, it was time
for America to come home.
Contra the neocons, traditionalists argued that, while America was uniquely great, the
nation was united by faith, culture, language, history, heroes, holidays, mores, manners,
customs and traditions. A common feature of Americans, black and white, was pride in belonging
to a people that had achieved so much.
The insight attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville -- "America is great because she is good, and
if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great" -- was a belief shared by almost
all.
What makes our future appear problematic is that what once united us now divides us. While
Presidents Wilson and Truman declared us to be a "Christian nation," Christianity has been
purged from our public life and sheds believers every decade. Atheism and agnosticism are
growing rapidly, especially among the young.
Traditional morality, grounded in Christianity, is being discarded. Half of all marriages
end in divorce. Four-in-10 children are born out of wedlock. Unrestricted abortion and same-sex
marriage -- once regarded as marks of decadence and decline -- are now seen as human rights and
the hallmarks of social progress.
Tens of millions of us do not speak English. Where most of our music used to be classic,
popular, country and western, and jazz, much of it now contains rutting lyrics that used to be
unprintable.
Where we used to have three national networks, we have three 24-hour cable news channels and
a thousand websites that reinforce our clashing beliefs on morality, culture, politics and
race.
... ... ...
To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral "progress" of recent
decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, "This isn't the country we grew up
in."
Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a "basket of deplorables
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic bigots," and altogether
"irredeemable."
So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us
one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are
becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and
fundamentalist faith?
If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us,
what is the compelling case for it?
A sixth of the way through the 21st century, what is there to make us believe this will be
the Second American Century?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this.
The GWOT was never about exporting democracy. It has always been about war profiteering
and imperial hegemony.
We have a democratic facade but we do not have government by consent of the governed Pat.
Our political and financial institutions are absolutely corrupt. Imperial Washington is
determined to rule the Earth by force of arms. Legions of Maoists want to turn white people
into untouchables. It's over for our republic. Our Constitution is stone cold dead. The
empire itself is in steep decline.
After the collapse the U.S. will be just another big country in the Americas. Survivors of
the crash will have an opportunity to build something new.
This is a HUGE topic, hard to cover in a short article.
First, I echo Pat's sorrow at the negativity evidenced viz. our past.
However, the fact is that, much like the present, most of our history comprises lies covering
up huge crimes, mainly massive deception on the part of those in charge. Only in the past two
decades has any idea of the scale of decimation of the indigenous populations in North and
South America emerged. When I was a boy I was told there were only a couple of million of
Indians in America, whereas more recent estimations have it at 50 million plus. And Central
America had larger cities than any in Europe at the time with close to 200 million perhaps,
90% of whom died in a matter of decades, an appalling price to be paid for our arrival. That
most of this was due to lack of resistance to our imported microbes does not excuse that our
history fails to tell this. What an appalling and inhuman lack of respect and decency. We are
not as superior and tolerant as we pretend to be.
Similarly: the slavery story: Slavery is a nasty business, but life back then was
extremely hard, and furthermore blacks weren't the only ones in slavery – for a while
white slaves far outnumbered them. In the late 1800′s children were sent down to the
mines in England, many of them dying young. If you were an able-bodied male, even one as
young as 12, and out at night in the wrong place and time, a press gang was legally allowed
to knock you out and drag you into a life of service on the high seas.And if you tried to
escape, it was the noose for you. It is both hard for us and wrong to judge people in the
past based on our own more delicate sensibilities.
Indeed, it is thanks to their great work, sacrifice and yes, crimes, that we have
progressed to the point that we can look back at many of their practices with disapproval.
Unfortunately we seem unwilling to merge that with understanding, largely because of an
inadequate educational institutions and a sensation-driven public press.
In order for us to unite, we have to dig much deeper, reject the storm und drang of
outrageously polemic, Deep-State-managed press and many other institutions, and tap into our
fundamental humanity along with learning what the constitution is and why it is the way it
is. The attempt is to create a genuinely uplifted, and also flexible, society. But it can be
hijacked by determined powers and become a plutocracy, which is what has happened.
What will unite us, truly, is when we realise the degree to which all normal people, both
'left' and 'right', 'black' and 'white' have been and are being manipulated so that they
don't come together. We should unite to throw off the yoke of oppression placed and used by
the Elites who have infested and bloated all major social institutions, private and
public.
Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists.
And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib
Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in
politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched
when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters
did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually
been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions
they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully
condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist
enough
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly
lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and
their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the
alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully
deny that they are driven by racial animus.
... ... ...
To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not
only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders
against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars
that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites
exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know
what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant
additional study.
A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in
outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman
in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus,
when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are
taken by surprise.
It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically
from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about
alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.
People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long
now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides
something compelling and firm to grab.
The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a
coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the
side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions
and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days.
People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and
now permanent quest to find new victim groups.
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality
behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein
white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward
identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend
to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.
The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless
The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant
in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin
Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important
work by Thomas Sowell.
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right
of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist
objectives.
It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union,
enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force
and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.
With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American
Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig
Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire abound in contemporary America.
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who
they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they
are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they
are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are
sick and tired of it.
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through
what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors,"
hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball
players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB,
the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now,
and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation
of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's
ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition
much like this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election
in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans
and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from
Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt
Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and
53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the
2016 race.
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus
of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even
itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs,
since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's
reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."
In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's
words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That
he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation
of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides
of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.
Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty,
having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not
much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this
point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.
Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we
are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone
even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially
in our humanities departments.
I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested
in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has
grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter
issues that really matter to most Americans.
I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions
to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa
left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by
no means just a problem of the right.
Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good.
The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start
to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made.
Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl,
and it should start NOW.
But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere
near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides
has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are
depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics
themselves in not surprising
One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he
left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the
world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that
he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.
The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their
own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is
now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might
question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity
of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and
heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist
takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits
and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more
social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).
The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such
that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.
The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to
white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to
have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture,
harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe
(Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the
Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be
an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).
Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable,
even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it
was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and
ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).
So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white
supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did
not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked
their butts.
Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise
hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among
pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the
NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar"
was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease
in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed
for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately
and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."
I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural
"Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".
Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is
where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial",
or "feelings" overtake "facts".
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing.
They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful
white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far
from being illiterate.
***
Todd Pierce,
Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu
I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite
a bit of a stretch.
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the
way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites
have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my
frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all
the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players
in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent
years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around
sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they
are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all
sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously,
the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries
who know how to develop soccer talent.)
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors
show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can
see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until
blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's
just the way it has to be.
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called
alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney
left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
"... There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!! ..."
"... "The past is never dead. It's not even past." ..."
"... From this point of view ..."
"... All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number. ..."
"... relative to this baseline ..."
"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ..."
He also raises the question of what can we do to make a positive difference in our lives?
And this may sound terribly mundane, but for those of you who have time and money for the fees:
get emergency training. IMHO, everyone should know how do to the Heimlich maneuver, but I only
know the idea of how to do it. Ditto with CPR, and that bothers me. If I had been at the scene
with all the horrible injuries, the only principles I know are "Don't move the injured since
they may have a spinal break and you could increase the damage to nerves" and "If they are
bleeding, put pressure on the wound". But is that OK if all you have is not clean cloth? I
assume yes if they are bleeding profusely, but still
I assume there must be what amounts to first responder training (as in what to do before the
medics get there). If readers can indicate what this type of training is usually called and
where to go to find it, please pipe up in comments.
Separately, I've kept out of the discussions of Charlottesville in comments. I'm perplexed
and disappointed on the fetishization of statues by both sides in this debate. I'm not enough
of an anthropologist to get to the bottom of it, but the desire of some Southerners to preserve
and elevate figures like Robert E. Lee isn't just about the Civil War. It has to do with the
fact that the South was late to industrialize and remained poor relative to the rest of the US
and is not part of the power structure at the Federal level (to my knowledge, there are no
tracks from Southern universities to important positions in the Acela corridor. That isn't to
say that people from the South don't get there, but it's not a well-greased path). And of
course, people from the rest of the country tend to forget that Southerners are regarded as
hicks and regularly treated as such in movies and on TV (remember My Cousin Vinny, for one of
many examples?). Having a Southern accent = minus 10 attributed IQ points outside the South,
with the possible exception being Texans. I had a Virginia client who used the "Southerns
aren't so sharp" prejudice brilliantly to their advantage in negotiations, but I am sure on
another level the perception still bothered them.
Mind you, I'm not defending the Southern position. If I were to believe family lore, I have
a Hungarian ancestor whose statue in Budapest was torn down by the Soviets. Do I care?
But my guess is that while for some Southerners, Civil War iconography is meant to
intimidate blacks, for many others, the storied Civil War generals are the only local boys held
up as having historical importance. LBJ and Jimmy Carter weren't seen as great presidents.
There must be important Southern scientists and inventors, but oddly I can't think of any,
which means they aren't generally depicted as such.
By contrast, it's easier to present the point of view of blacks and reformers: that losers
in war pretty much never get to have memorials, so that on its face, having so many images
touting loserdom is perverse, and not justified because it separately holds up aggressive
defenders of slavery as role models.
And I know I've probably touched on too many disparate threads in this short post, but the
other part about Charlottesville that has been mentioned, but cannot be said enough is that
this was a huge policing fail, and the passivity was no accident. As Lambert and others have
said, if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd have
seen mass head-breaking and arrests. The Charlottesville police knew this was coming and appear
not to have sought advice from police forces with lots of experience in crowd control
(Washington DC and New York City), nor did they get reinforcements (state troopers). It's one
thing if they had tried to cordon off or break up the two sides and lost control of the
situation. But there's no evidence they attempted to intervene.
In addition to watching the Lee Camp video, I strongly urge you to
read
the article from The Root
that goes with this photo (Lambert flagged it yesterday):
Perhaps most important, this fight over symbols is diverting energy from tackling the many
areas where African Americans have been promised equal protection under the law but don't get
it. Let's start with the War on Drugs, which Richard Nixon envisaged as a way to disenfranchise
blacks. Consider this comment from
Governing
(hat tip UserFriendly):
[Richmond's] Mayor Levar Stoney, who has rejected the idea of removing statues, spoke to
reporters Monday about the controversy after a groundbreaking ceremony for the American Civil
War Museum. He said he wanted the city to acknowledge "the complete truth" about its history
as the Confederate capital.
"At the end of the day, those statues are offensive to me, very offensive to me," said
Stoney, who is black. "But you know what I'm going to focus my time on? Destroying vestiges
of Jim Crow where they live in our city -- public housing, public education, you name it."
Here's a significant Southern figure who has statues to honor him, a self-made scientist
and inventor to whom today's kids and sandwich eaters owe so much: George Washington Carver.
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ca-Ch/Carver-George-Washington.html
He was even a person of color, and born in Kansas, a violent battleground "border state" in
the "time of Troubles."
Yes, as a Southerner, I was hoping someone would mention Carver early on. But the larger
point is valid. IIRC the first Southerner to win a Nobel Prize, Medicine/Physiology, was Earl
Sutherland at Vanderbilt in about 1971.
There have been a few since, I think. The reasons are historical, well covered by C. Vann
Woodward (Johns Hopkins and Yale) in his Origins of the New South. Regarding E.O. Wilson, who
is mentioned below, yes, he is a great scientist who knows more about ants than any other
human being. And being of a certain age and a biologist-in-preparation when Sociobiology was
published in 1975, I was well aware of him from that beginning.
That book was a great synthetic triumph, until the last pages. Then came On Human Nature
and the unfortunate collaboration with Lumsden.
Still, Yves' friend is correct about the anti-Southern "feelings" directed at Wilson. He
was not alone. Even inconsequential scientists like yours truly felt it. I spent nearly 5
years at the best medical school in the United States in the late 1990s, a famous place in
sight of Fort McHenry.
Because I was from the South, more than one New England Yankee assumed that I had a Klan
hood in my closet, mostly because of how we do things "down there," the latter being a direct
quote.
You get used to it, but having a president from the South like Clinton LLC doesn't help,
much. As far as the statues go, my compatriots don't believe me when I tell them most of
these monuments appeared starting in the late-19th century, during the flourishing of the
"Moonlight and Magnolias" glorification of the "Lost Cause" that accompanied the hardening of
Jim Crow.
Just a bunch of Bourbons jerking working class chains, but damn, it worked well. And
continues to work with money largely from elsewhere.
Probably in the 1980's I had the task of demonstrating some expensive electronic equipment
at a Bell Labs facility in New Jersey.
The local sales engineer advised our visiting California group to be wary of Bell Labs
people with southern accents as they were teased by the northern Bell-Labs people about their
accents and education and the Southerners had reacted to this when dealing with outside
visitors/vendors..
As I remember, the advice was to be aware that a Bell-Labs Southerner might start with
some basic questions and progressively ask more and more difficult questions simply to back
the visitor into a corner.
Strange advice to receive, considering that at this time, Bell-Labs was one of the top
industrial research/development facilities in the world.
I did not observe this behavior at all, but still remember the caution.
And I think southerners aren't obsessed with the Civil War the way they used to be. When I
was a kid the local radio station would sign off with a lovely choral version of Dixie rather
than the national anthem. If Gone With the Wind played downtown the line would be around the
block. Numerous houses in my town have the columned portico meant to evoke the exterior set
for Tara.
Now increasingly cosmopolitan cities are more likely to feature blocky post modern
architecture and people are more into their smartphones than what happened at
Chancellorsville.
Black and white children can be seen walking home together from school and my town has had
a black mayor and the state currently a black (albeit Republican) senator. These days it
could be the north that is clinging to the past.
As for scientists: Charles Townes, Nobel prize winner, inventor of the laser, fellow
Carolinian.
I grew up in Columbia (a largely mixed demographic area – though often very sharply
racially divided), and while it is true that much of the veneer has changed, it is the
seething beneath that doesn't seem to have changed much since I left. This seems especially
true once you get a few miles outside of those more cosmopolitan cities.
On kids playing together – it has been one of my strangest experiences to go from
elementary school where everyone was friends and played together, regardless of race. And
then, after 3 months of summer, moving to middle school and the racial hell that ensued. But,
maybe things have changed for the better since when I lived there.
I've seen a small data point supporting your theory of the Civil War being less important
to most Southerners than it once was. When I first started visiting Alabama, every book store
had a pretty significant section devoted to Civil War books. Even thought there aren't
anywhere near as many bookstores these days, the few I've visited don't have proportionately
as much space devoted to the Civil War, and some just have it as part of the History
section.
Thanks Rick, especially for the perfect concluding summation, but also from the first-hand
account and historical contextualization of this persistent sort of niche bigotry. From
another continent it was hard to guess how prevalent that phenomenon still might still be,
although harder to imagine that it could have disappeared altogether. It constantly disgusts
me when the same sort of thing is extended to Americans at large by anglo/European bigots
insufferably assured that their tiny colonist cultures are "superior".
As a long-term/tedious polemicist against sociobiology -- mostly as casual normative
framework today, but the academic origins do matter too (see: [
http://www.theharrier.net/essays/kriminalaffe-sultan-at-the-dole-office-written-with-matthew-hyland/
]; (I'm the other one, not JB/The Harrier)) -- I'm aghast at the thought that any critic of
E.O. Wilson would stoop to invoking his geographical/cultural background, especially when
discussing the racist applications of the body of theory. Really, if they can't do better
than that they're missing huge swathes of the obvious, mimicking the worst of their opponents
and ultimately doing latter-day neo-socio-bio presumptions an unwarranted favour.
Also, complete agreement with you, Yves, about the way excessive concern with statues and
symbols generally can skew everything. Not that those things are meaningless, but the whole
present-day world also bears witness to the past in the form of raging injustice -- much but
not all of it involving the malign invention of "race" -- everywhere. Nohow is this a
"bipartisan"/"everyone calm down"-type statement: I side unequivocally with the "grassroots"
BLM, the direct-action anti-fascists and especially the IWW members, and would be delighted
never to see one of those monuments (or its anglo/Euro equivalents) again, but if it had to
be one or the other, I'd rather the statues were left standing while Lee, Sir Arthur 'Bomber'
Harris, Christopher Columbus and friends were made to spin in their graves by the abolition
of racist "criminal justice", housing and immigration policy and racialized top-down class
warfare/imperial admin in general, if the alternative is just to take the statues down while
leaving the policies in place and the Generals smirking in hell.
What about an alternative method to these history rewrites. Every time A legislative body
decides to remove one of these ancient tributes–instead of removing the offensive
statue–the erection of a new and at least equal in size monument that points out the
failure of the earlier tribute.
That is, the new monument would be larger, more noticeable, and will be to point out the
error of the earlier structure. In this way history is preserved–and a much more
educational site is created – pointing out the reasons for the new interpretation of
the site. Thus a site without a physical monument, for example, would be treated in the
following manner. Jefferson Davis Boulevard would become Former Jefferson Davis Bvd, or
Ex-Jefferson Boulvard or such. What do you think?
And add effigies of J. Edgar Hoover (let us debate whether he should appear "dressed" or
not), and Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms, and Al Sharpton, etc. to improve the contextual
mapping
Ah that brigs back a memory. I lived in Raleigh, NC when Jessie was in the Senate, and my
children went to a local Episcopal School.
The head of the Schools was Jessie Helms' daughter, and I was asked, and an outside of my
opinion in from of his daughter. My response is "He is very interesting," was acceptable.
Advice I was given when moving to the south was "Never say anything bad about one
Southerner to another. They are all related."
The animus then, and possibly now, was strong, so much so that my view was "War of
Independence, forgotten. Civil war, not at tall."
I was also told, by another Southern lady, that the difference between English Table
Manners and the US', was devised because the ladies never wanted to entertain the English in
the homes again after the War of Independence.
I'd also point out there is a significant difference between Spanish and English table
manners. In some cases under the English rules you can eat with your fingers (chicken on the
bone or unpeeled fruit, for example)t. Under the Spanish none I know of, its knives and forks
for everything.
There seemed to be a consensus a few years ago after that kid shot up the black church
that confederate flags would not be sold and that any debate about it was over. Looks like
that didn't take.
Point being that one part of the nation can't make another part of the nation erect
certain statues or not carry certain colored pieces of cloth.
I've always been a bit of an iconoclast, but maybe we should get out of symbolic thinking
and communication through pieces of political artwork and try communicating directly instead.
Battling over art and architecture seems wrongheaded. The fundamental message here should be
"What are the ideas we are debating?" not "These people over here are animals, what should we
do about it?"
But as Yves said, this event really went down because of a failure of the local police. It
was amateur hour over there.
And shame on the media for making this event into some kind of referendum on America. How
many people died in Chicago over the weekend? Baltimore? Nationwide? How is that any
different or less political in nature?
The problem is that the statues and flags represent a part of American history, whether
good or bad. I find it reprehensible that history must be rewritten, and the lessons learned
discarded. What's next? Book burning, the destruction of Monticello or the Jefferson
Monument?
There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through
division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!!
Hitler was the leader of, and policy director, of a genocidal government. Southern Civil
War generals were not. They were leaders of armies, of men not policy makers of slavery.
And the policy they were leading those men to fight for was the "peculiar institution."
Forget Hitler. Are there statues of, say, Rommel in Germany? Yet he, too, a leader of an
army.
It's doubly ironic that all this furor over removal of statues of R. E. Lee, which seem to
be the ones the media likes to focus on, likely because Lee is the only Southern general that
bulk of the under-educated population can recognize, never mentions what the man himself said
about commemorating the war:
"I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those
nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the
feelings engendered." -- Robert E. Lee
What is really funny is that he was teaching the intro biology course at Harvard when I
was there. I didn't take it but one of my good friends did.
She said that she was a hick from California (actually she'd gone to a very good school)
but the point was she didn't know that Stephen Jay Gould was the "hot" professor at the time,
and that Wilson's "Sociobiology" view was considered to be retrograde, as unduly
deterministic. So she got into Wilson's course when most people were pulling strings to make
sure they got Gould, not him.
I saw her recently and asked about the Wilson course. She volunteered that another reason
she thought he got a bad rap at Harvard was that he was Southern.
I'm deeply envious of anyone having the chance to attend classes from either Wilson or
Gould. Both have their detractors (to put it mildly), but the are/were both wonderful
writers, I think I've read pretty much everything both of them have written.
The 'Darwin Wars' between the determinists and the Gouldites was my introduction to just
how deep epistemological divisions can be in science, even between those who essentially
agree on 99% of the data. Wilson, despite his association with Sociobiology, seems to have
kept a wary distance from the Dawkins disciples, quite wisely IMO.
I have the impression she very much liked the Wilson class. Had I been at all clued in, I
would have taken that class, but I oddly wasn't into star professors.
We may actually be talking about different E.O. Wilsons then -- entirely my mistake, and
nothing to do with 'greatness' or otherwise, but surely the one who invented sociobiology, or
at least coined the term, isn't still alive? Quite possibly another mistake on my part there
though.
E.O. Wilson, entomologist, author of "Sociobiology", "Biophilia", and co-author of "The
Theory of Island Biogeography", was born in 1929 and is still alive.
Its just past the 50th Anniversary here in Ireland of one of the most spectacular examples
of removing old outdated symbols,
the blowing up
of Nelsons Column in Dublin.
Despite its origin as an overtly Unionist attempt to mark
the Battle of the Nile, it was popular with Dubliners because you could climb to the top for
a good view.
In Ireland numerous monuments to Imperialism were removed over the years – some by
public authorities, some by way of gelignite planted at night. But most people still accept
the remains as part of history – there are still numerous 'Victoria Roads' around
Ireland, plenty of old post boxes with crowns on them, as well as huge monuments to the the
likes of the Duke of Wellington (who was Irish, although as O'Connell put it, 'just because
you are born in a stable doesn't make you a horse'.) Hardly anyone notices that the beautiful
arch in Stephens Green is a detailed monument to the Boer Wars and all that entailed.
I think monuments that give active offence should be removed, but in most cases its better
to accept that time changes and alters the meaning of all public symbols. Eventually, some
sort of equilibrium comes about and people accept with a shrug.
Not all people, including quite a few Irish– but of course they nurse their
grievances better than they nurse their drink albeit with a lot of good historical basis, and
with current hope of getting their own back, or at least some revenge. For some reason(s),
some subset of every polity just won't let bygones be bygone
Faulkner
had
much to say about the past. Will the Charlottesville events spark some resurgence on interest
in his works? His quote
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
from Requiem
for a Nun seems to be at once forgotten or disavowed by many in this modern world.
When I went to South Africa, I was in a community of young ex-pats, from may parts of
Great Britain and its far flung parts.
One person was from Belfast, and one night after a few beers, and his round was next, he
looked at me and rattled off a series of "efforts" the English had tried in Ireland, most of
them bloody.
And accused in a strong Irish accent "You English!" Not wishing for a fight, especially
before his round I considered his litany on English misdeeds, and said "You're right!" He
looked utterly surprised, probably because he excreted a denial, and I wanted no fight, and
it was his round.
The I added, "and I personally did none of them." Which after a thought he considered
accurate, and bought his round.
We were friends for years, but time and distance have severed that bond.
The South captured and dominated the federal government for much of the antebellum period
thanks to special gimmicks like the 3/5ths rule. In many ways, Southern interests directed
federal power to advance their economy. The flood of free-thinking Germans and the election
of Lincoln shocked the South, leading to panic and, ultimately, a bitter resentment in
defeat. In this sense, the 1970's Southern strategy of harping on deficits while promoting
tax cuts was just part of a long counterattack against federal power. The entire Republican
policy edifice for a generation has been built around a segregationist backlash and you're
watching it all unravel – Obamacare, tax cuts, deficit-hawkery – even the war on
pot. Even Republican Secretaries of State have refused to cooperation with the voter
suppression commission. It's not a coincidence they can't get anything passed and impotent
rage erupts in the street.
I think you need to read up on the origins of the groups that worked to move the county to
the right. It was a very well funded, loosely coordinated corporate effort. The core group
came out of the John Birch Society, which is based in Belmont, Mass and had people like
William J. Buckley of Yale as prominent members. The Adolph Coors family out of Colorado were
also big players. Fred Koch, the father of the Koch Brothers, was a founding member of the
John Birch Society and a big early funder. The University of Chicago, and in particular
Milton Friedman, played a huge role in promoting neoliberal ideology.
As we flagged in a post yesterday, the reason the country moved to the right wasn't due
just to the Republicans. There were plenty of Democrats who were on board, starting in the
1970s.
And although I don't have data to support it, my perception is that Southerners have long
been underrepresented in high profile Administration positions, like Cabinet members and as
Supreme Court justices. I'd be curious as to whether any lawyers have a sense as to their
participation levels on the Federal bench.
Southern committee chairmen dominated Congress for decades last century. Of course, not
sure many people remember.
I do not think that Southern sense of victimhood is particularly special. More another
example of a more general phenomena, often seen in many times and places.
People are driven quite often by a sense of dignity or no dignity ( humiliation/rage).
That is the emotional force behind many different sorts of notions of glory.
I find it ironic that you are arguing the "identity" angle here, while I feel little
sympathy for it. During election discussions, I argued the emotional angles, and I felt that
you focused more on objective conditions. Today, I feel your approach was better.
Anyway, in the end it is about finding a way forward that is fair to everyone. As you
would probably agree, we have not seen much leadership from any group in that direction.
You're talking about the party funders – largely mining, fossil fuels, agribusiness
and banking/insurance/real estate (mostly interests dominant in the South). I'm talking about
the voters. They had real anger at the federal government over desegregation in the '70s and
the oligarchs channeled that into a deregulatory agenda which is now falling apart. Witness
Trump's pandering to regulate drug prices. He may be pushing deregulation but many popular
parts of his agenda were reregulatory in some aspect – like giving everybody great
health insurance – and he's reneging on them. In this sense, he's what Skowronek would
call a Jimmy Carter – a bridge figure in a disintegrating political order.
Second, the South maintained immense influence throughout the New Deal era and deep into
the '90s thanks to Democratic Party dominance in the region, seniority and the congressional
committee system. No other region could match the clout of the John Stennises or Earl Longs.
Of course, with the South flipping and the committee structure rearranged around fundraising
instead of seniority, all that changed.
But I look at the current Republicans in Congress and I recognize all the major leadership
positions as belonging to the segregationists, regardless of their geographic origin. They
nurse deep racial grievances. They speak Dixiecrat, sputtering about state sovereignty,
states rights and nullification (quite shrilly during the Obamacare debate). They block black
voting. They gerrymander. They race-bait (birtherism/Dred Scott-ism). They attack programs if
black people get it too (Obamacare). They like privatized police, prisons (slave labor) and
civil forfeiture. They love those gun rights (regulators/slave catchers). They all want to
pass laws legalizing private discrimination – which was a pet cause of the defeated
segregationists at the tale end of the '60s. This agenda's contradictions are going down in
flames.
I would also remind you that the Nuremberg laws were inspired by Southern
anti-miscegenation legislation. Nazis came to Southern law schools to study them (though they
weren't limited to the South). Fascism is the idea that private business should own and
operate the government for private profit. That's where the party funders and the street
racists come together.
Though the formal racist state institutions and ideology were never limited to the South,
they did reach their fullest, most overt expression here. You're talking about a group that
has supported the Articles of Confederation for going on two centuries after they fell apart.
It's what the Koch brothers hope to bring back by negating congressional commerce regulation
with a constitutional amendment.
Consider what props this up and you'll understand why their coalition is coming apart at
the seems. New energy sources are slowly eviscerating the petrodollar complex and the money
it pours into politics.
No, I've studied this in depth and you haven't. I have an entire chapter in ECONNED on
this, with extensive footnotes, from contemporaneous sources. All you have is your opinion
and on this it is incorrect.
The "free market" messaging was all about corporate and business interests. It had nothing
to do with narrowcasting on identity politics issues. That came later with the rise of Karl
Rove as a Republican party strategist.
And I'm sorry, Susan Collins just blocked Obamacare repeal and she's not a racist. I don't
like sweeping inaccurate generalizations. We care about accuracy of information and
argumentation. We make that explicit in our written site Policies. If you are not prepared to
comment in line with our Policies, your comments will not be approved.
As someone who used to be a group fitness instructor, I had to take both CPR (adult and
child) and First Aid training to retain my ability to teach. Both are generally available in
the US with the Red Cross (and others), and once you are certified, you can renew the
certificates every 1 or 2 years with a quick multiple choice test and demonstration of CPR
and AED techniques on the test dummy.
CPR standard practices have changed over the years, so it is important to keep up the
certifications if you want to be genuinely prepared to assist. The First Aid cert is mostly
common sense, but some of it seems counter-intuitive, until you know why it's done that way.
The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if there's
any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Also: I LOVE George Washington Carver. I did my first stand-up school presentation on his
amazing work with peanuts when I was in elementary school, and I've never forgotten what an
impressive person he was.
>The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if
there's any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Of course here in America you've probably kicked off a series of bills just starting at
$800 for said ambulance making the victim feel like a victim twice over.
As someone who teaches CPR/AED first aid, O2 administration, and lifeguarding for red
cross, yes call them as soon as there is anything serious. If the person is conscious they
can refuse care and not pay anything.
As basic first response; care for severe bleeding by applying constant pressure with gauze
(any cloth will do).
If someone is unconscious check for a pulse and breathing, if they have either they don't
need CPR. If they do need cpr two hands interlocking at the center of the chest push straight
down, hard, and fast (you might break ribs) to the beat of
Another One Bites the Dust
or
Stayin Alive
. Just keep going with that till EMS
comes.
That is basic community level training. 1. level up and I'd teach more about giving rescue
breaths but that should do in most cases.
I live in Canada, that horrible bastion of socialized medicine, and if you have to call
911 for an ambulance here, you will never, ever see a bill. No-one will. B/c there isn't
one.
Note to USA: socialized medicine, you can do this!
I view my limited First Aid Training as hopefully making me slightly less likely to be
totally useless in an emergency situation. I think I'm less likely to just freeze or flap my
arms in panic when confronted by a serious injury than I was before training.
The mainstream Republican have gotten the racist tag thrown at them so much that it
doesn't seem to carry much weight anymore. That this is giving truly virulent racist groups a
pass is a huge problem. Calling everyone a Nazi seems to be working in an unintended
fashion.
The Social Darwinian ideology is a very powerful one, and a natural one for the groups
vilified by identity politics to make. You are empowered because you were mean and took
things from other people, your empowered because you are the sociological group that acts and
thinks the right (Western) way. Your dominance is justified.
Of course given that same dominance, I can sympathize with folks who choose to push back
physically against the storm troopers. But as it stands today, both sides start dressing
themselves up in passive victimhood rather than as fallen warriors. Horst Wessel would be
turning in his grave.
It seems to me that the ideas of a meritocracy and racism, rather than the circumstances
they put in, to explain why some groups/individuals do great and others do not are very
similar. Yet, somehow the neoliberal democrats use the former for poor people especially
whites and the republicans use the latter for poor blacks. Although in the past few years
they have been blending the ideas together into a modern version of Social Darwinism.
That was a good piece, thank you. I think the author hit on the main issue which is that
people now make up their owns facts and often live in their own ideological worlds. It
started with talk radio and cable news but the Internet has made the situation much
worse.
How would the Civil Rights movement get ahead in today's climate? Would the murders of
Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner be declared false flag attacks orchestrated by George Soros
and the Deep State? How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, would that also be a
false flag attack?
It is not just the Right that engages in this sort of thinking but some people on the Left
too. How can you successfully promote reform when you cannot even get people to agree on
basic facts or to engage in rational debate? Perhaps the most dangerous outcome of this state
of affairs will be that the political and business elites will decide that the population is
too feral for democratic, constitutional governance and decide to increase the assault on
civil liberties. Many Americans, frightened by more incidents like Charlottesville, will
agree to go along with such a project.
Plus Livius, there is an incredible lack of trust in this country. I don't trust many
public figures nor do I trust that certain public servants will do the right thing. In an
emergency I do think that strangers will help a person in need, but if it isn't considered an
emergency good luck (see opiid crisis, the reactions of many that I thought to be decent
human beings has been ghastly).
I agree. I think the Internet has altered news for the worse. Real factual news is hard
work and expensive to produce. Opinion on the other hand is cheap and plentiful. And the more
outrageous the opinion, the more clicks. So now opinion is the news.
Politics has gone the same route. I worry about societal problems like opioid addiction, a
rise in alcoholism, and affordable healthcare. Dealing with these issues would require hard
work and hard choices. It is a lot easier to shout and insult. So now insults have displaced
policy.
There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. There is also no rational debate possible with
people who believe in any form of racial superiority.
Tribalism is one thing, belief in racial superiority leads to dehumanization of others and
that ends in genocide, slavery, and host of other vile behaviors that decent people have
moved beyond. My support for free speech ends at dehumanizing others.
"There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. "
Here's the 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So there's no rational debate with anyone who swears alllegiance to the US Constitution;
and, it follows, no possibility of rational debate between such adherents.
Boy, you are really really reaching to claim that the point of the 13th Amendment you
quoted was to permit slavery. Think what one may about the punitive nature of our criminal
justice system (a completely different topic), this language was explicitly aimed at
permitting that system to continue. Not chattel slavery.
Well most of them go to work in highly authoritarian cultures called corporations so they
actually tolerate a great deal of authoritarianism for that paycheck.
But regardless their materialistic lives are merely their lives, or at any rate the number
of people that can actually share in much materialism is ever shrinking (yea I know they have
smart phones or some such horror but by and large). While rampant materialism may have been
at least a temptation to many baby boomers at one time, wages just haven't kept up. But with
no carrot there are always sticks, if not one's physical life or anything, everything else
one needs (needs not wants).
Thanks for the pointer to my article! Note that it is intended at as first cut look at
what happened, putting together the news stories of the first 24 hours to forms a coherent
picture of the event.
It got 10,000+ hits in the first day, which is a lot for us – without any mention in
a major website (the usual way a post goes viral). I assume that results from people who want
to know what happened, and are dissatisfied with the major media's coverage -- which has been,
imo, high school journalism level.
Two aspects are covered. First, the amazing -- even delusional -- statements by civilian and
police officials about the policing of the event. Let's hope we get some accountability for
the incompetent policing (e.g., not taking standard simple measures).
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils." That
such nonsense is taken seriously by the tribes of Left and Right is very Weimar. Large
numbers on both sides came armed and eager to fight, and they did fight.
The post linked to by Yves in The Root is typical. These are lies. Doesn't that bother
you?
Reform of America is impossible so long as we prefer lies to truth.
Good request! How is The Root article an example of "how each side lies. "OUR side were
innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The article is exactly about that theme: good vs.
evil, innocent vs. aggressors. Let's rewind the opening vignette:
"At first it was peaceful protest," Long said softly as he spoke. "Until someone pointed
a gun at my head. Then the same person pointed it at my foot and shot the ground." Long
said the only weapon he had was a can of spray paint that a white supremacist threw at him
earlier, so he took a lighter to the spray paint and turned it into a flame thrower. And a
photographer snapped the photo.
But inside every photograph is an untold story. If you look closely at Long's picture,
there's an elderly white man standing in between Long and his friend. The unknown man was
part of the counterprotests, too, but was afraid, and Long and his friends were trying to
protect him. Even though, Long says, those who were paid to protect the residents of
Charlottesville were doing just the opposite. "The cops were protecting the Nazis, instead
of the people who live in the city," Long said. "The cops basically just stood in their
line and looked at the chaos. The cops were not protecting the people of Charlottesville.
They were protecting the outsiders."
This makes two assertions. First, that the alt-Right were the aggressors, the Left the
victims. Videos and eyewitness accounts show otherwise. They show two sides, elements on both
of which show up armed to fight, and do fight. See
this in
yesterday's LAT
.
Second, it says that the police preferentially sided with the alt-Right. Not only is there
no evidence of that, the alt-right believe the police deliberately flushed them out of their
safe space in the park into the left's mob. See
Rob Sterling's detailed account
.
That does appear to be roughly what happened. The police cancelled the permit and forced
the alt-right protesters out of the park. That decision led the the widespread fighting
because the police had also not set up the standard transit routes for each group to their
designated protest area -- along streets both patrolled and blocked off from vehicular
traffic.
Now we can only guess at why the police did this. Panic, or incompetence, or a confused
chain of command with so many officials present? Only after intensive analysis of the
witnesses testimony and the videos (esp the Guard's video from the rooftop) can we say
more.
E. of the F. M. w. s., I feel like you can make a straightforward case that the Root
article presents a picture of how one side was "innocent" and was attacked by bad "others."
That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is "lies." You can
argue that an overall narrative is misleading and partial, and that a particular first person
account plays into that misleading or partial narrative. But moving from this to calling the
account
itself
a lie is
also
an oversimplified narrative, of the sort that
you often zero in on for criticism. So I would suggest – given in particular that you
set as your objective to try to avoid slipping into mass-produced narratives that are
imperfectly grounded in evidence but easily propagated – that you choose your
characterizations with a little more precision.
It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative that one side was
the good guys and the others attacked them without provocation. This is true – on both
sides – even when subsequent evidence shows substantial asymmetry in how tensions
flared. It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying (although of
course out and out lying does sometimes occur in eyewitness accounts). It
does
mean
that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and synthesize eyewitness
testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate.
(A) "That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is
"lies."
That's a valid point of wordsmithing. It would be a powerful rebuttal if
(1) I could point to no material factual error. But there is little or no evidence for the
Root's claim about police aiding the Right.
(2) I just said it was "a lie" and did not explain in what sense I meant that -- leaving
ambiguity in my description. But my sentence was explicit in its description:
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils."
That such nonsense is taken seriously by
(B) "It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative "
It's common for people to throw down hot butts and start forest fires. But it's a bad
thing. DItto for writing a one-sided article that throws kerosene on a burning conflict.
(C) "It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying"
Here we have different perspectives. I understand what you are saying, and have no basis
to say you are wrong. But I see the situation differently.
* I believe the Founders were right about factionalism as one of the great dangers to the
Republic.
* I believe these Weimerica-like street battles between extremists, cheered by masses on Left
and Right, make us weak. They make rule by the 1% stronger.
* I believe our love for propaganda makes us weak.
(D) " It does mean that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and
synthesize eyewitness testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate."
That is exactly the basis of my dislike for the Root article. It does not even try for
accuracy, just tribal cheering. It is just propaganda.
On (1), I think my explanation on this point still holds. The Root itself (i.e. the
article when it is not quoting Long) does not say the police was aiding the "Unite the Right"
people – only Long does. It's true that Long's statement, if propagated without
context, would spread the idea that the police was literally intervening on behalf of the
white nationalists. I argued in one of my responses to your comments that this is clearly
not
what Long meant. Long actually states clearly that the police did not get
involved. However, Long believed the police
should
have intervened against the white
nationalists, and in fact should not have even allowed them to march.
From this point of
view
, he says that the police "were protecting the Nazis."
This is the sort of way of talking that is very easy to imagine in a participant or a
bystander. For example, imagine if someone were mugged in broad daylight right in front of
the police. Since in this case, we all expect the police to intervene on behalf of the
victims, we might say the police were "obviously protecting the muggers." That doesn't mean
the police were actually helping to beat anyone up, and it's an imprecise form of speech. But
it's an understandable one.
(2) I'm willing to grant that you didn't say in what sense it was a lie and have since
clarified the matter. By a strict standard of the sort we mentioned above, what you said was
potentially misleading (i.e. it was easy to interpret it in another way). The same might be
said of Long's statement about the police protecting the Nazis. In neither case is it
impossible to understand, just a reason to try to be more careful.
(B) True, it would be better if eyewitnesses could strive to be very precise in how they
report what they see. In practice, eyewitnesses come from all walks of life and involve all
sorts of people. We are better off banking on their accounts being partial for the
foreseeable future. I think the onus for completeness and fairness is considerably greater on
journalists, analysts, and others whose putative role is to provide reliable summaries.
(C) I don't disagree with any of this, except that for "factionalism" I would say
"tribalism" – but maybe we mostly mean the same thing.
(D) I think it's fair to criticize news outlets that only provide eyewitness testimony
that fits with one particular frame. It doesn't mean that an outlet should never publish an
article centered around one person's account – but if it does, it should presumably
balance it elsewhere with other information giving a more complete picture.
(E) [not from your reply, but I was curious] As Yves says, the news has mentioned several
cases of serious injuries suffered by counterprotesters (not to mention the deaths), and if
there were serious injuries suffered by the "Unite the Right" side, I at least haven't run
into any reliable accounts of such. Do you know of any?
It passed fact checking by the New Yorker, which reported basically the same information.
And you would have had to have sources who saw that incident, which seems awfully unlikely
given how few there were in that photo (as in it seems to have taken place away from the main
crowds).
The other part is I disagree with the equivalence. The antifa types (and this occurred
with the Black Bloc in Occupy) weren't "our side" in that most of the people who came who
were against the white supremacist types aren't pro violence. By contrast, it appears that
the smaller group of "Unite the Right" types were heavily armed and they consciously and
deliberately used symbols of violence against black people and minorities from the very
outset.
So it would be possible for people in the anti-bigotry group to have marched and not seen
what the anitfa types were up to, while I don't think you can credibly say anyone on the
white supremacist side didn't see all of the intimidating weaponry and violent
encounters.
"It passed fact checking by the New Yorker" is indeed tempting, isn't it?!
However in addition to Fabius Maximus I've come across additional reports with first-person
accounts describing how both sides came prepared to do battle. At this point I'm of the
opinion that there was not one "bad side" and other "poor victim" side. I have come across
lots of info linking the Neo-Nazi side having connections to the Ukranian "revolutionaries"
(funded by CIA among others, thank you very much) and of left-side groups having links to
Soros-funded groups. It looks like the whole situation was a confrontation that was set up.
I'm not suggesting all participants were part of this, but nonetheless there is enough
evidence strewn around that at the minimum one should think twice before accepting
any
major media spin on the event.
Jason Goodman and Crowdsource the Truth on YouTube had lots of videos documenting the
neo-Nazi links to Ukrainian groups ("Blood and Soil"), flags in evidence, starting the night
before the "big event". IIRC Lee Stranahan had info documenting the links to Soros-controlled
organizations.
1. That violent antifa types were representative of most of the marchers on the left side.
You are implying that both sides were raring for a fight. The white supremacists were. Only a
minority of the marchers on the left were, and I further question how many would have
approved of their tactics. I know from Occupy that pretty much everyone were not at all happy
about Black Bloc tactics and regarded them as anarchist interlopers trying to take advantage
of Occupy without having the consent of Occupy (Occupy was big on super-democratic
processes). Black Lives Matter has consistently rejected violent tactics. I know Lee Camp
would reject the antifa types as being part of "our side" or representing his values.
More generally, left-wing protests, particularly anti-globalization protests, have
agitators show up who had nothing to do with the organizers of the protest. They are plants
to make the protestors look bad. Here, I am sure the antifa types were genuinely motivated.
But the bigger point is peaceful leftist marchers often have a violent minority show up that
does not represent the approach of the majority. Hence it is not correct at all to say that
they are representative of that side.
2. #1 above means it is possible for eyewitnesses on the left side not to have seen antifa
provocations and to be truthful in saying and believing that that the fights were instigated
by both sides.
3. The police THEMSELVES said the reason they didn't intervene was that the right wing
protestors were heavily armed! Who are you kidding here?
4. You are ignoring the message that the white supremacists were sending. They made heavy
and deliberate use of symbols of violence against blacks and minorities. The only thing that
was missing was KKK robes. They were visibly carrying guns and bludgeons. Bludgeons are
illegal in NYC because they are more effective in close combat than a gun. They were not
signaling an intent to have a peaceful rally. They were signaling an intent to have a fight
and the antifa types were all too happy to pick one.
And please explain the black schoolteacher who was nearly beaten to death? Pray tell how
does that fit your theory?
All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side
and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number.
That's
because the antifa types weren't using anything that would do more than bruise someone or
make them filthy. All I have read is that they threw cans, bottles with urine in them, and I
saw one account saying feces. So the implements used by each side were not remotely
equivalent, contrary to what you imply.
I'm not sure you understood my contention. I didn't say all left-wing side people were out
for a fight, but there is evidence that some were and yes these may have been infiltrators as
you suggest. Numerous protests are infiltrated by troublemakers.
The fact that one side may indeed have felt more pain than another doesn't affect the
point I'm making. What I'm suggesting is to pay attention to the entire "conflict" set up.
It's predictable. There's a degree of scripting. It serves many functions–to make
people insecure, feel convinced that others are out to get them (on either side), to feel
that conflict is inevitable, to want the police/military to take a more active role.
It's not that any of these points necessarily lack merit on their own (e.g., in some
situations law enforcement should play a constructive role), but rather that this is one tiny
event within a larger picture of social engineering that has been taking place over an
extended period of time (decades). Foment conflict artificially (e.g. CIA-funded
insurrections such as Ukraine and many countries in South/Central America and currently
Venezuela; create or increase a feeling of insecurity; get the people to give up rights in
order to have "security" and "protection"; increase military/law enforcement budgets and
sales to interested parties.
Focusing only on a single situation (xxx group was hurt "more" in yyy situation/event) can
lead one to overlook the larger societal pattern, by not recognizing that there was
manipulation occurring that affects both sides.
This is the first time I have had the software do this. I was replying to the editor of
Fabius Maximus' comment and it wound up misplaced. It might be that it didn't go through the
first time and what I did on the retry wound up relocating it.
As to the bigger issue, you are ignoring my contention that the two "sides" were equally
cohesive. If you go to a soccer game, and hooligans who favor your team beat up on fans of
the other side, are you responsible for their actions merely by virtue of having gone to the
game to cheer on your team? That seems to be the basis of your and the editor of FM's
comment. In fact, Black Lives Matter, which is opposed to violence, was represented there and
I am highly confident other marchers opposed to the white supremacists were unarmed and has
not interest in perpetrating or participating in violence.
By contrast, the organizers of Unite the Right called on the participants to come armed
and not only did they come "armed," they brought implements that are designed to maim and
kill. If their aims were defensive, to preserve their right to make a public statement,
pepper spray would have sufficed. How can you depict that as equivalent?
I didn't say anything at all about blaming one side or another. To the contrary, I
suggested it was more important to look at the overall pattern of such conflicts and the
overall societal impact (division! fear! giving up rights! agreeing to surveillance!
increased law enforcement/military power and spending!).
First, the assertion about the police favoring the Alt-Right appears baseless. Both sides
report -- supported by videos -- that the police watched everybody fighting. Where are the
accounts of the police intervening on just one side? The New Yorker fact checkers missed
that.
Second, let's rewind to see what I said -- The Root
article an example of "how
each side lies. 'OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The Root's article
clearly paints that kind of incorrect picture due to its misrepresentations and omissions.
See my reply to Vatch above for details.
The Root article is at all times reporting the perspective of a single person, the
23-year-old Corey Long. Even when the article is not directly quoting Long, it is plainly
summarizing his testimony.
In my opinion, you overstated your case by terming the Root article "lies." As you know,
it's very common for eyewitness testimony to diverge dramatically. In the midst of big,
chaotic situations, each particular person sees only a part of what is going on. They can be
entirely sincere and the picture that they paint might still be a partial one.
Similarly, if you read what Long actually said, he agrees that the police "basically stood
in their line and looked at the chaos." Long felt that the police should have intervened
actively against "the Nazis," and
relative to this baseline
, interprets the police
of having favored the white nationalists. He makes this quite clear when he says that a
rapper was earlier not allowed to march and so why were white supremacists allowed to?
I don't see any evidence for Long lying in the article. When the article, near the end,
says "we are in a Trump presidency, this is the world we live in,"
this
is
editorializing – maybe something Long said at one point, maybe something the article
put in his mouth. But it still isn't distorted testimony about the events on the ground.
It might muddy the waters less if you stick to criticizing MSM accounts that are
straightforwardly presenting themselves as unbiased general accounts of what happened.
You have shifted the grounds of your argument. You made a sweeping attack against The
Roots article: "These are lies."
Despite Outis having patiently picked apart your argument, you in fact have not engaged
with him but are broken recording. Your "let's rewind" is effectively an admission that you
are not about to acknowledge what Outis described, that The Root article is a first person
account, and you have not provided one iota of evidence to suggest that Long misrepresented
what he saw. You are therefore unable to support your original claim and are thus trying to
shout Outis down.
This is a violation of our site's written Policies. We don't make exceptions for anyone.
You either need to engage with him in a good faith manner or stand down.
OK. I should not have said "lies" and just said the remaining text. Consider this an
apology.
I did not claim that the root misreported what he saw, but that the article misrepresented
what happened at the article. If anyone believed that is what I said, then I apologize for
that too.
It's been an interesting discussion. I'm don't believe anyone has engaged with what I said -- but everybody has their own perspective on these things.
Thank you for that. I was of two minds about posting the Lee Camp video because this
horrible affair has gotten people very upset, we only have pieces of what happened, and many
people are drawing inferences that go beyond the information. I think we all agree strongly
with one of your big points, that this was a massive failure on the part of the police.
The history of the neo-liberal revolution is starting to come clear.
James Buchanan first became motivated by the US Government insisting that segregation
between white and black children should end. He saw private schools as a way of maintaining
this segregation outside the control of Government.
He started in Virginia, near Charlottesville, where racism festered not far below the
surface and they still resented the Northern Government telling them what to do; removing the
freedom of the wealthy to do what they liked and taxing them to look after others.
The Government shouldn't have the power to end school segregation in Virginia.
The beginnings of neo-liberalism / economic liberalism.
It is ironic the new liberals should now be so aghast at the goings on in a region where
their own beliefs first started to take shape.
"Democracy in Chains" Nancy Maclean
How a right wing ideology was developed in the US to roll back the "New Deal" and give
economic freedom back to the wealthy to do pretty much as they pleased.
Our Brian C and Sluggeaux, a former state prosecutor, disagree. He disabled the airbag. An
airbag deploying 1. could have injured him and 2. would have made it impossible to drive the
car, as in exit. This is a strong tell that he planned to use the car as a weapon and was
primed to find an excuse.
Both the way he drove into the crowd (hands steady on the wheel and well positioned when
he started( and his impressive exit weren't consistent with road rage.
Perhaps his psychiatrist could answer your very specific question?
If you think this is evidence of a planned attack, you could be right.
But mentally unstable people are perfectly capable of a greater or lesser degree of
'planning' a murder – even if it means only a walk to the woodshed to pick up an
axe.
Arguably, only the 'crime passionel' is free from any prior decision – making.
So I still maintain my original point – that the question of culpability is complex
when the perpetrator is known to be mentally unstable, and, in this case, professionally
diagnosed.
As is the issue of motivation.
That means you cannot characterise his crime as a 'terror attack', as that assumes he was
fully compos mentis, using the car in the same way as, for example, the takfiri attack in
Cannes earlier this year.
Since this seems to be conjecture, what if the driver of the attack was not fully compos
mentis and he was used and manipulated by a group of disaffected radicals?
Why do white men seem to get the pass (with Dylan Roof, also) that they are mentally
unstable and therefore not guilty of acts of terror? Maybe if the jihadists had access to
psychological screening we would find that they are unstable, possibly due to decades of war
and economic privation.
You seem to be quibbling over irrelevancies here. How many members of many terrorist
groups might be diagnosed by the (questionable) standards of the brain babblers? We are all
"insane" according to one section or other. So maybe nobody is to "blame' for anything?
To claim he was not motivated by politics seems insane in itself, given his history of
interest in far right politics and racist ideologies.
There is a specific legal definition of insanity in murder cases, which is not
understanding the difference between right and wrong. The fact that he disabled the airbag to
facilitate a speedy exit and attempted to make one says he knew full well.
There is more here than merely a guy who was "disturbed".
Driving in reverse – totally straight for extended period under duress is quite a
feat. This guy was not an amateur. He was a Pro! Ask any of the posters here, if they can do
that – no one I have asked said they could.
The Cops management of the event was deliberate. This was a permitted event so the
authorities knew what the response would be, there should be no doubt about it. Yet they put
the two groups together on a narrow street.
The typical establishment mime is to say the cops made a mistake and the guy was crazy.
Always giving the benefit of the doubt to the committed narrative. Makes no sense.
New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?
It is relevant whether he had occasion in the past to back up at speed. If so, he would
quickly learn how sensitive steering with the now rear wheels is. The trick is to brace one
arm on the door (or door-leg-arm) and make the finest of steering adjustments using the
braced fingers; start relative slow, establish direction, and then speed up. Young bodies
with coordination talent can easily do this.
so its is easy is your promote – at high speed on a narrow street with people
chasing you – any young guy can do that – nerves of steel for any amateur who is
emotionally diagnosed with ??? Baloney
it gets worse:
"the discovery of a craigslist ad posted last Monday, almost a full week before the
Charlottesville protests, is raising new questions over whether paid protesters were sourced
by a Los Angeles based "public relations firm specializing in innovative events" to serve as
agitators in counterprotests.
The ad was posted by a company called "Crowds on Demand" and offered $25 per hour to
"actors and photographers" to participate in events in the "Charlotte, NC area." While the ad
didn't explicitly define a role to be filled by its crowd of "actors and photographers" it
did ask applicants to comment on whether they were "ok with participating in peaceful
protests." Here is the text from the ad:
Actors and Photographers Wanted in Charlotte
Crowds on Demand, a Los Angeles-based Public Relations firm specializing in innovative
events, is looking for enthusiastic actors and photographers in the Charlotte, NC area to
participate in our events. Our events include everything from rallies to protests to
corporate PR stunts to celebrity scenes. The biggest qualification is enthusiasm, a "can-do"
spirit. Pay will vary by event but typically is $25+ per hour plus reimbursements for
gas/parking/Uber/public transit."
aside:
"New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?"
This morning's NYTimes throws a curveball. This morning they report that a here-to-for
unknown "witness" to the "hacking" has been found. Someone from Ukraine. (Ignores technical
issues about the data download time-stamps and document meta-data).
" a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now
become a witness for the F.B.I."
Considering the amount of armament the nazi militia brought plus Charlottesville's
knowledge of caches of more weapons hidden – it's a miracle 3 souls were lost & not
dozens.
There was over 1,000 law enforcement members there.
I fear, as I'm sure others do as well, the odds of of dozens dead happening Somewhere USA
are high thanks to the ignorant facilitator in chief.
I for one am thankful police didn't get into the fray sooner. Police always make things
worse. Although I'm curious about reports saying they were waiting on orders to do so which
never happened. Waiting on orders from whom? Who decided to hold back our police state, which
so rarely happens?
And never ever underestimate the possibility of agents provocateurs being all or part of
this.
Isn't it funny how protests with armed citizens cause police to stay out of it.
According to an article in The Guardian, the armed militia members present (from NY and
PA) intended to help keep the protesters separated, asked the police for permission to
attend, and vociferously deny being Nazis in any way. Seems they are just garden variety
survivalists preparing for the day society collapses. That they seemed better armed than the
authorities is a different matter.
"The men in charge of the 32 militia members who came to Charlottesville from six states
to form a unit with the mission of "defending free speech" were Christian Yingling, the
commanding officer of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia
"We spoke to the Charlottesville police department beforehand and offered to come down
there and help with security," Yingling told the Guardian. "They said: 'We cannot invite
you in an official capacity, but you are welcome to attend,' and they gave us an escort
into the event," he added.
Yingling said he had been asked to bring a team to Charlottesville by a local militia,
the Virginia Minutemen Militia, to reinforce their numbers, and to be in charge on the
day.
But Yingling said the original request for a militia force to attend the event had come
from the organizers of the white nationalist rally, who wanted them to act as security.
The militiamen had said: "No, we will not come and defend just you," Yingling recalled.
"It's important for us to say we were there in a neutral stance."
If a major earthquake (or any disaster) hits, do you
have enough supplies for a minimum of 72 hours up to an entire month for all family
members, including pets?
know how to turn off the gas?
know how to safely turn off the power?
know how to apply first aid?
have enough water for all of your family and your pets?
have provisions for living outside your home for a length of time if the structure is
compromised?
It is important to know, if a major disaster occurs, the LAFD, paramedics, police WILL NOT
COME! They will be deployed FIRST to major incidents such as collapsed buildings. That is why
you constantly hear You MUST be prepared to take care of yourself. In the CERT course they
say "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People." When you are trained, you are far
more equipped to deal with your circumstances without needing aid from outside sources.
CERT members are trained in basic disaster response skills such as fire safety, light
search and rescue, team organization and disaster medical operations. You will learn how to
prepare for emergencies, what supplies you should NOW have in your house, how much food, how
much water but most importantly, how to protect your family in an emergency!
How could you call the guys in "Deliverance" hicks? Especially the banjo player and the
dude pumping gas in overalls. The white collar guy with the glasses was no match for the
banjo player on the porch. He was befuddled and he fumbled like an amateur. I guess they
can't put up a statue of William Faulkner since not too many people have read his books.
Maybe a statue of Janis Joplin who was from Texas and maybe Buddy Holly. I think Buddy Holly
actually has a statue someplace. And Mississpi Muddy Waters too. And the guitar player to end
all guitar players, the famous Robert Johnson from Mississippi. I'm not sure if he has a
statue. He might! I'm not sure. But these could be southerners you could make statues of. How
about Ted Turner?? We'd have to think about that one. As long as he's alive he's his own
statue. That's the way a man should be.
No real southern hick would go to one of these race rallies -- it takes waaay to much
effort, they have to work the Wal-Mart shift, they're too overweight, and it gets in the way
of fishing. All those white guys are northerners, probably from the mid-west even.
That pic says it all. Jousting as a form of self-expressionary theater. Look at the laid
back lazy gestures by both actors. What truly amazes me is this -- if it hadn't been for a
mentally ill psycho behind the wheel of a car and a helicopter accident almost nobody would
have been seriously hurt. That really is incredible, given all the guns and presumably ammo.
I'm not sure if the armed individuals there just carried guns and no ammo but I doubt it. I
find that really really amazing -- and that photo captures the underlying energetic structure
of the whole phenomenon quite aptly.
This is a form of theater of the kind suggested by the great wacko himself -- Antonin
Artaud. Who was a French guy. I suspect it will stay that way (I could be wrong, but I don't
think so.) To grasp and grapple with the phenomenon at hand requires a conceptual vocabulary
that I have yet to see in the media coverage and "I was there" narratives.
All those guns cost money. Trips to the protest cost money.
Just like the false meme that Trump was elected by the working class. Nope. It was the
gated community suburban megachurch religious nuts who elected him. Affluent small town and
suburban nabobs
High-quality guns and good ammo cost serious money. This, in a nutshell, is why Yours
Truly had to give up the shooting sports. I could no longer afford the cost of
participation.
Leaving aside all other issues I always thought: Confederate memorials/statues commemorate
actual treason and people who tried to dismember the country. Solely for the purpose of
keeping other human beings as slaves. Thus zero sympathy from me to the "Heritage not Hate"
crowd.
I am, however, unsympathetic to "applies 21st century standards of PC virtue-signalling to
centuries-old figures" types, as they will inevitably be the authoritarian leftists that are
as distasteful to me as the Confederafluffers.
Pretty well impossible to deal with the imbeciles who immediately jump to "George
Washington owned slaves so 100% of everything about him must be rubbished." Unproductive on
every level and outright destructive on most of them.
Historically, those officers were taught that it was constitutional to secede from the
Union. Constitutional law classes at West Point taught constitutional secession so when many
of the southern states seceded those officers thought that these States were being denied
what was their constitutional right. They lost the war so they were wrong. Most of these
men's primary reason for fighting was for honor. Sadly, they were defending slavery as an
institution.
Not the US Constitution but from the Declaration "
But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security
."
I think the Declaration of Independence seems more like a justification for slave revolts
than for the secessions of 1861. The slaves experienced absolute despotism.
Careful, Vatch.
Justifying one interpretation and denying the other smacks of bias.
My problem is it's just so damned difficult to find my own response to being a
hypothetical Southern farmer in 1860, without slaves, but facing a Northern pressure that
puts my family and living at risk. I'm a let's say..Virginian. Neighbors (State) over
strangers (Nation)? Practical over principle? What principle?
I guess my point is the Declaration of Independence isn't so much about economic models
(although THAT is there) as it is about the ideals of freedom from political domination.
And in that interpretation, both slave revolts and the War for Succession are totally
valid.
Well, the Northern states violated the Constitution when they (rightfully so) didn't
return fugitive slaves back to the South.
Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
whom such Service or Labour may be due.
We have the fugitive slave law passed by congress, the dread scott decision passed by the
Supreme Court and a slew of other federal policies that (irony) the Northern states
nullified.
I wonder when we Americanized the word Labor?
So if the North was in violation of the Constitution, at what point do you have the right
to succeed? I don't know to be honest.
I think this is being far too kind. Most officers were from the landowning class, and the
rationale for the secession was very clearly to preserve slavery. Saint Lee was not a kind
master, he did little to stop the lynching and capturing or Northern freemen when his army
invaded the north, nor did he actively oppose the rise of the neo-confederate terror groups
during the postwar era.
I'd like to see a link or something that states (or even implies) that instructors at a
facility for training officers for the US Military would ever say that it was "constitutional
to secede" .sounds a bit treasonous to me ..
Re. statues: My first reaction is that it is easy to predict the mindset of someone quick
to defend Confederate symbolism. On the other hand it seems wrongfooted to spend energy
trying to expunge all of it from our public spaces. I nevertheless cannot help but find the
en masse demonstration in favor of the statue to be super predominantly white supremacist in
nature. I do not come to this uninformed. As a middle American born white male, I have been
privy in my life to the kinds of things white people say to other white people, who they
either assume are like them, or simply don't care. As a one-term military enlistee, I found a
similar saturation of racial bigotry in those ranks. It had already been abundantly clear to
me from my upbringing that those who tend toward the police force likewise harbor racial
animosity and wilful ignorance of the history that would inform the reasons behind some of
the superficial observations made by those who don't bother to get to know black or brown
people if they can avoid it.
In short, the military and police forces have a white supremacy problem, so
institutionalized, it would explain how it is that even minority officers engage in brutal
tactics against "their own". I hasten to add to your bit about Nixon's war on drugs the fact
that someone in the Reagan/Bush realm also knowingly created the crack epidemic in South
Central Los Angeles, something we now know is fact, thanks to the late Gary Webb. The culture
that grew out of that era is paradigm shifting.
So whenever we are tempted to say that law enforcement failed in such situations, we
should quickly reassess and remind ourselves of the proverbial "feature not a flaw". The
authoritarian impulse in America has its own dynamic, but even here in Berlin, where there
are plenty of ultra-right demonstrations, none of which exist without a counter demo that
includes an antifa presence, the police don't fail as demonstrably, but it's pretty clear
where their sympathies lie. The first such demo I attended was where I first heard the taunt
out of the ranks of the right: "Sie schützen uns! Sie schützen uns!" (They [the
police] 're protecting us! They're protecting us!") And they were in no way implying this
meant they needed protection from the counter demonstrators; it was a taunt that clearly
meant that the cops were on their side
One more thing: Trump has shown an ability to selectively and tactically tell truths
otherwise unspoken in the political sphere. His comment on Washington and Jefferson memorials
is totally legit. But it's couched in the rest of his rhetoric, which is utterly
bullsh**.
I fear that I may have to make issue with Yves's characterization of statues as fetishism.
Do statues contain an element of ancestor-worship? Maybe likely. Are most of them poorly
designed and thought out? Definitely. In any case in our culture, it is usually the leaders
that get the statues, not the engineers and scientists who actually got it all done. But
remember that they are actually symbols and people live by symbols and incorporate them into
their lives. The pert Manhatten woman who totes a Gucci handbag and the San Fransisco hipster
who takes pride in his artisanal cheese may look dissimilar but they are both using symbology
to establish their identities. To threaten people's symbols is to threaten their identity and
people will resist that to the hilt. That is why the resistance to the removal of those
statues.
I think that we are going to have to go back to the old stick-and-stones attitude. That is,
if you come to me and say that you see a statue in another state that causes bad feelings in
you and makes you feel angry or that you find it wrong that the candidate that you voted for
did not win, I would say build a bridge and get over it. But if you come to me and say that
people are trying to restrict your voting rights, the courts charge you constantly so that
that can fill their coffers with your fines, your churches are burnt and so on then brother,
that is something that is actually worth fighting against. This is real damage versus
emotional damage and I think may be the only workable way to go.
One last thing that came to mind. There were all sorts of rat-bag groups in Charlottesville
and I am wondering just where the hell they came from. But then a disturbing thought occurred
to me. Could it be that the identity politics that has been used for the past couple of
decades in America for political gain has led to the unintentional formation of these
sub-groupings? The politicians may have played it too clever by half in their angling for
power and this may be the result. Movements like this from the left and the right do not come
about spontaneously but must have a lineage somewhere. The only one that I recognize that has
a lineage is the KKK but they just look ridiculous.
What makes you think the sub-groupings are unintentional? It's a classic divide and
conquer strategy. Without it, after all, the great unwashed might have noticed that tea party
and occupy sympathizer had more in common with each other than with the establishment, and
started talking to each other instead of heaping ridicule on the other.
I know we're not big on smartphones around here, and it should be treated as a supplement
rather than a replacement for training, but there is a Resucitate! app that gives a guide to
assisting someone in a CPR, AED, or choking situation.
Josh Marshall, a historian by training, has a nice piece about this over at TPM. In brief,
the elevation of the generals from the South after the War of Northern Aggression was one of
the pacts that formed the post-reconstruction South. It whitewashed, hrm, their personal
treason and allowed the South to rewrite its history, exonerating its leadership. It gave the
planter class icons around which to form a revised culture, one that reconstituted slavery in
all but name. Jim Crow lasted a hundred years; the culture that built it survives its
demise.
Jim Crow kept a reconstituted planter class and its courtiers in power, It built on
earlier culture and characterized former slaves as an extravagant threat, sexually,
economically, politically. A variation on the British empire's divide and conquer. African
Americans became the focus of poor whites angst rather than the southern elite. That, too,
survives Jim Crow. It's part of the white supremacy that informs Trump.
The Charlottesville driver/killer, for example, is a minimum wage 20 year-old outcast,
rejected by the US Army, and apparently with untreated mental health problems. (Not that he
– or anyone similarly situated – would have had access to health care.) He's a
textbook example of one personality type for whom white supremacy and the victimhood and
promises of neonazism hold the most attraction.
Without a doubt the southern aristocracy fought the war over slavery but what doesn't get
mentioned as often is that the north, by and large, fought the war over union, not slavery.
As for "treason," this was not a term that got bandied about so much back when people were
closer to a Revolutionary War that was also called treason. Gore Vidal for one said that the
south had a right to secede and perhaps the US would have been better off if they had done
so. The premise of Vidal's book Lincoln was that Lincoln suffered under the great moral
weight of almost single handedly keeping the Union together at the cost of 500,000 lives.
Of course few southerners now (certainly speaking for myself!) think the south would have
been better off if they had won. An enduring south is the be the premise of an upcoming HBO
series by the Game of Thrones creators–a very bad idea, especially in light of recent
events.
He sounds a lot like Jared Lee Loughner, who was the killer of six people at
then-Representative Gabrielle Giffords' Congress on Your Corner event. The guy needed help,
didn't get it, and the rest, they say, is history.
Interesting graph that. Only comment is that that second blimp in the 1960s was only
marked down as the era of the civil rights movement. What should be noted is that it was also
the centennial of the civil war so you would expect more memorials to be dedicated then.
By propagating this word you are playing into the hands of the security establishment who
want to turn the tools of war against the American people. Terrorism is a tactic used by
smaller, less powerful groups to effect a response in what is generally a war.
By falling into the trap of misusing this word people are setting trap for themselves when
law enforcement is given blanket authority to violate civil liberties.
I agree. And it's good you post that and it bears repeating, perhaps ad naseum. I doubt
most people clamoring for equal inclusion in the terminology have given it any
consideration.
Terror is a violent political tactic conducted in full awareness and as part of the
terrorists arsenal to reach specific goals.
State-sponsored terror is the real scourge of our times. Where's the outrage? Or is the
killing of countless Brown people only 'racist' on US soil?
As Fields only known political affiliation was his registration as a Republican, we would
have the to logically designate that party a terrorist organisation, if he is categorised as
a terrorist.
While many would agree with that (Iraq) it is hardly practical, given the Democratic
Party's equal enthusiasm for state – sponsored terror (just look at who is supplying
arms to the numerous takfiris in Syria,or the destruction of Libya.)
So branding Fields a terrorist instead of a mentally disturbed killer opens up a real can
of worms.
Are we to also allege 'religious motivation' for the 'God/Satan – told – me
– to – kill' contingent too?
if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd
have seen mass head-breaking and arrests
If the question of fascism is at all relevant here, it's not in the mouthing of phrases
and the medieval accoutrements of the neo-fascists. It's in the inaction of the police.
Mcauliffe's recourse to saying the cops were outgunned to explain why the police didn't stop
the neo-fascists, his hesitation to say this was a profound screwup, is a replay of the
history of fascism in Germany and Italy. Tolerance and support from the cops were essential
in its success. Demonstrators should be going after Mcauliffe, not Robert E Lee. The next
move on the part of the neos, if they're smart, will be to see how much state support they
can get if they more tightly focus on the left. Support/tolerance on the part of the state
should be attacked in whatever form it takes, from Trump on down.
Agree. The inaction of the police, the "both sider-ism" of Trump and the Trumpertantrums
which normalizes white supremacist extremism on all of the right, and in its use by
libertarians and neoliberals to advance the cause of the rich because that's the way to
oppose the liberals, the left, and socialist antifa.
I can't pull a link right now but recommend the Vice documentary on Charlottesville. Bit
chilling.
And honestly, it's not just the excluded who are being radicalized, as the MRA phenomenon
shows, the openly superior attitudes of silicon valley tech bros, etc.
Yves, the point you make about the perceived lack of greased tracks from Southern
universities to the Acela corridor's hall's of power got me thinking about C. Wright Mills
and where else the power elite create leverage points
NOTE: This is a reprint of a journal article with the following citation:
Domhoff, G. William. 2006. "Mills's The Power Elite 50 Years Later." Contemporary Sociology
35:547-550.
Mills's career (and that of Sloane Coffin at Yale) certainly engendered a response of
"Never again" among the Ivy League and its patrons. The likes of Alfred McCoy at Wisconsin
and G. William Domhoff at UCSC were confined to the state ivies. Later nonconformist critics
of the establishment were lucky to be hired at mid-rank state schools. It was essential to
deprive them of formal inclusion among the nation's intellectual elite. Stanford, under its
longtime patron, arch-conservative Herbert Hoover was especially vigilant in excluding
nonconformists. UC San Diego spent a long time in purgatory for hiring Herbert Marcuse.
Among many other achievements, Mills made a mockery of the McCarthy era demand for
conformity and bland acceptance of the status quo.
It saddens me that the shrill media echo chamber (including that ridiculous Jacobin
article) has me -- a lifelong 'liberal' -- reading TAC.
I reject identity politics. I am an American citizen. But I have no political home. I had
hopes for the DSA, but now I see they were a proud part and parcel of the thuggery in
Charlottesville.
Yes, I have a very tight tinfoil hat but I smell the fire and brimstone of Soros,
provocations and color revolutions. "Heightening the differences" is I believe what this
violent street theater was intended to do.
Yes, they do have really good foreign policy analysis. Reality-based. But you have to wade
through quite a bit of Christian-values-under-attack and Culture War yaya to get there.
IMHO.
I only have Daniel bookmarked, and my browser takes me right to his exposes of the Peace
Prize President's support of the horrors in Yemen, the bipartisan war crime disaster which is
Syria, and the insanities of Trump's ignorant babbles. :)
The video of Fields attack broadcast on corporate media was mainly the one filmed by one
Brennan Gilmore.
The only description I found in an MSM report said he was a Charlotte resident, involved
in start – ups, and had been present with friends at the scene.
He had tweeted extensively, characterising the incident as a :terrorist attack ' by' Nazis
'.
He also claims that Nazis are running the White House.
Definitely not a' neutral' observer.
Now turns out he is a former State Dept employee, whose work smacks not a little of CIA
regime – changing.
This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
"This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
But what's the goal?"
I think the goals are clear. (Just look at the effects.)
What's less clear to me is what people/groups are orchestrating this. The
aftermath–creating division and opinion regarding even the facts of what
happened–is part of the goal. Look at this website and the data being generated by
commenters. Who defends themself? Who attacks? Who retreats? What is the nature of the
language used?
Quinn Michaels has analyzed that stirring things up in this way provides opportunities for
Smart AI to create more data regarding how individuals and groups respond emotionally, thus
further enabling future manipulation of society with even greater precision. Michaels'
extensive analysis of advanced bot networks is chilling. But even so he sees beneficial
opportunities. It's pretty intriguing, these games and deliberate disruption. His YouTube
discussions (many of which include extensive screenshots to document what he has observed)
are interesting stuff.
Thanks for the info – I can well believe that is a motive for some.
But I am focusing more on the political aims of what is looking more and more like an
orchestrated event.
Trump's condemnation of both 'sides' was greeted with predictable outrage from much of the
MSM.
Yet having watched an hour long video filmed by a non – partisan, who positioned
himself between the :warring parties, it is clear he is correct : the police were ordered to
stand down while both sides – one of which did not have a permit for a rally –
went at it hammer and tongs.
That casualties were greater for one 'side'(though I take such reports with a large dose
of salt given media disdain for facts, including' WMD: NYT) does not reduce culpability.
Interesting that Richard Spencer (the humanities graduate from an upper middle class
background who supposedly represents the grievances of much of the Deplorable class –
really?) was in Hungary months ago. Meeting with the 'far right' there. He sure gets
around.
With no visible means of support, I can only assume he's being bankrolled by some very shy
folk .
Hungary also happens to be run by Soros nemesis, Victor Orban.
A little digging might turn some 'unexpected' connections.
'Unexpected 'to those who are unfamiliar with events in the Ukraine that is.
Wilderness First Responder (WFR) training is great you get everything you would in the
above-mentioned Red Cross courses but with a wilderness overlay, the upshot being there is a
focus on helping injured people for a longer period of time than just waiting for an
ambulance. So longer term patient stabilization, splint making, assessment, etc. Strikes me
as useful in a situation where professional medical help is not going to be immediately
available for whatever reason. The Wilderness Medical Institute (WMI) runs courses all across
the country but there are other outfits that teach the course as well.
I have a unique perspective of sorts on this as I used to be "Robert E. Lee" on the Radio.
Other than being kidded about the name, I never, ever saw any push back or any negativity
from anyone. And my show was top-rated. Of course this was back in the 70's and things
change. But seems to me some of these people protesting over confederate statues are missing
the point and should read a book on the Civil war, which was mostly about oppression from the
Northern states and really not that much about slavery.
There are plenty of books that completely invalidate "the Civil war, which was mostly
about oppression from the Northern states and really not that much about slavery." Not that
any post here is going to change your mind.
What about the theory that the economic interests of the North in opposition to those of
the South motivated the Civil War? The North wanted to compel the South to sell its cotton to
Northern Mills at a lower price than the South could sell its cotton to English Mills. I
thought I read about that in a Post here at NakedCapitalism -- ? I have trouble believing the
Civil War was about slavery. If slavery were the driver then why did Lincoln wait until 1863
to make his emancipation proclamation? After the Civil War why did the North do so little to
help the slaves they emancipated and protect their freedom? It took 100 years and
considerable political and social pressure to compel the North to enforce even the most basic
civil rights in the South.
Every single version of the secession articles issued by the Southern states says they
were doing so to preserve their "peculiar institution." It's not about "belief." It's about
demonstrable facts. That the North didn't really give a [family blog] about the actual
slaves, and that anti-black racism was as bad north of the Mason-Dixon is irrelevant to this
discussion.
Likewise, the reason why none of the freed slaves got their "40 acres and a mule" is
available in any number of reliable historical sources, and just as has always been the case
is the result of a combination of rich people and politics.
Read some diaries by Northerners who fought in that war. Whether they liked it or not,
they knew the war was about ending slavery. An awful lot of them volunteered based on that
understanding (except the mobs in NYC that attacked an orphanage for black children). In his
memoirs Grant, writing much later in a time when the myth of "it was only about union" by
then had a firm hold, was clear about the role abolitionism played. Those in the South at the
time didn't pretend otherwise either.
Many of those fighting in the Civil War were motivated by their feelings about slavery.
However I am extremely skeptical that either a strong desire to abolish slavery or a
commitment to maintain the union motivated the Elite of the North to war with the South.
Their concern for the human condition didn't extend very far in time or space. Emancipated
slaves were left to suffer under Jim Crow. Northern Mills and factories operated in
conditions not greatly different than outright slavery.
Disclaimer: I am totally not a historian. Evidence *wholly* anecdotal, *wholly* oral and
simply a family story. My father had two great-uncles who died in Andersonville Prison, I
have seen the letters and the little carved Bibles send back to their family in Ohio/
Pennsylvania but not otherwise verified anything. The story in the family is that they went
for the substitute money, $100 (a whole lot of money back then). The draft was only for
landowners, ie voters, but they could and very often did pay to have non-landowners, such as
my greatuncles, take their duty for them. Irony: the family was awarded land, in
Michigan.
Yves, CERT or Community Emergency Response Training is what you might want to check out
for basic emergency training/preparedness. CERT operates on both a national and local level.
Out here in earthquake country the local chapter is pretty active.
Yves, here in NYC, I took a good basic first aid course at the American Red Cross (it
included CPR, dealing with burns, broken bones, seizures, etc.); someone upthread mentioned
the American Heart Association and their offerings look intriguing too. And NYC does indeed
have an active CERT chapter; which fields teams of trained volunteer first-responders for all
sorts of disasters. (I had looked into all this stuff just post-9/11; picked up a good manual
on disaster prep from the ARC and still carry their first-aid kit and a pair of construction
gloves in my backpack, just in case.)
I'm not sure what to make of the events in Charlottesville. They hold a dark foreboding I
can't decipher.
Lee Camp's portrayal of how fleetingly brief is our moment of life and consciousness and
his admonition to use that moment is what most moved me in his brief video.
While Red Cross and other organization offer courses, you might try to find a good edition
of the Boy Scout's First Aid Merit Badge booklet. It has probably been updated over the
years, but was a good read and taught me enough to help several injured people since earning
my Eagle rank. Not sure I could revive the dead, but I've kept a heart attack victim alive
until help arrived, as well as many bleeding people.
The South has long dominated key sectors of the US power structure, if not the ones where
Yves has spent her time/ drawn her acquaintances.
Just look at those who have had prominent roles in Congressional leadership and committee
chairmanships over the last century. What about Mitch McConnell? Jeff Sessions (before he
became AG)? Russell Long? Jamie Whitten? Herman Talmadge? George Smathers? Lindsay Graham?
John McCain (Mississippian by birth)? Strom Thurmond? Theodore Bilbo? Just to name a few.
Southerners are also over-represented in the military.
http://www.ozy.com/acumen/why-the-us-military-is-so-southern/72100
NB, as Yves has mentioned, the retired general and flag officers often end up running defense
contractors when they leave active duty– so Southern influence is also strong
there.
The South continues to dominate our political life and our military industrial complex.
Guilt tripping non Southerners about anti Southern prejudice continues to enforce such
dominance. While that prejudice certainly exists, it's no reason to give the white South a
pass, or the affirmative action program Trump wants to grant by re-orienting DoJ's Civil
Rights Division.
McCain was born in Panama, there was a birther issue with his candidacy. I see nothing in
his bio about MS, though he moved a great deal as a military brat.
The fact that southern pols attain such positions does not necessarily reflect dominance.
And while Yves's' characterization elides some issues, it has the virtue of pointing up the
obvious: there is prejudice toward white southerners and, like most prejudice, tends to
prevent us from seeing the region clearly.
Furthermore, McCain makes no bones about his Southern heritage. He has also, among other
things, defended the Confederate flag and spoken highly of his treasonous ancestors who
fought for the Confederacy (as noted in Salon link above).
Regarding your disputation of Southern dominance on Capitol Hill -- I worked at CBO and got
to see it first hand back in the 70s. With all due respect, your statement about the
prevalence of southern pols in high positions on the Hill not "necessarily" reflecting
dominance, is clueless. It may be a little different now but given the continued power of
Southern Republicans on the Hill I tend to doubt that.
Of course there's prejudice towards just about everyone who isn't in one's own group.
Unfortunately, that is the way humans are. The real issue is, has that group been victimized?
Not all that much in the case of white Southerners, who run a great deal of the country.
I would also say: the prejudice against Southerners actually works in many ways to their
advantage. Both in terms of outsiders underestimating them, and in terms of outsiders' being
clueless about how powerful the South really is.
Simply saying that Southerners dominate the America power structure doesn't make it the
case. Put that case together and I am interested. Calling me "clueless" looks to me like a
sign that you are either operating out of your own prejudice rather than solid fact or just
disputatious. I would gladly accept that Southerners are a disproportionate part of the power
structure; that they dominate? Pony up.
Out here in Seattle we seem to be more and more segregated. The city is basically cut in
half, with the north side of downtown/ship canal being primarily white and the south side of
downtown being the last vestige of minority home ownership in the city. Gentrification is
alive and well in the Pacific Northwest. We call it the "San Francisco-zation" of Seattle.
Everyone is being priced out and the City of Seattle Government seems perfectly ok with it.
Perhaps the era of the City-State is here?
Yes, policing fail. But there were some reasons for that. This "From a member of UVA
staff," which appeared on a trusted friend's FB page, which has a ring of authenticity:
'A few specifics that I learned from a very somber staff meeting with our Dean of
Libraries just now. Some of these details may have been available in news reports but they
were new to me. (1) Apparently on Friday night there was a 'very low level' request for
permission for a group of 20 people to read a speech at the Rotunda. This overture to the
University was then bait-and-switched to the march with torches that circled Central Grounds.
(2) During the white nationalists' intimidating march around Grounds, many UVA police
officers were actually located downtown, where they had been seconded to support
Charlottesville City police. (3) On Saturday, there were "several deliberate attempts to
spread police thin" through tactics such as fake bomb scares in parts of town away from the
main action. (4) By UVA policy, students and employees are prohibited from carrying firearms
on Grounds, but by state law, because this is a public property, people with no University
affiliation are allowed open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a permit. UVA
can make policy enforceable on its own students and employees but not on the general public
.
"I am sharing all of this because I think there were several specific, calculated tactics by
the white nationalists to leverage our laws and policies against us and to maximize the
terrorizing effect of their activities in Charlottesville over the weekend. I believe the
white nationalists are not done with us here in Charlottesville and I believe they will
target other universities, university towns, and communities with progressive political
reputations for similar attacks. I hope that forewarned is forearmed and that by
disseminating information about the white nationalists' tactics we can be better prepared in
the future.' (thanks to Gregory N Blevins)"
Nature. Skilled Labor. Community Bank credit creation. Shorting nature into a battery with
debt expertise always ends the same way, a black hole of symptoms chasing their own tail,
until all the financial and operational leverage is stranded.
An elevator eliminates the arbitrary clock in the compiler, allowing an increasing
diversity of events to time themselves.
"... This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. ..."
The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a
policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice, the putative
benefits of diversity or any other standard justification. It is this peace- keeping function that
explains why the entire establishment, from mega corporations to the military, endorses
constitutionally
iffy racial discrimination and why questioning diversity's benefits is the most grievous of all
PC sins. Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring
Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for
social peace.
This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic
or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the
ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise
just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either
at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots
and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America's potentially explosive race relations,
academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral
damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.
Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with
violent Indian tribes
well into the 19 th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims
or today's civil war in Burma
with the Karen People. Then there's Turkey's enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the
threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the
ETA ), and the
Irish Republican Army
. In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according
to the
Global Terrorism Database . At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500
years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling
of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.
The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem
has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating
a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for
example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity
by encouraging religious acceptance of one's lowly state.
Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for
its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled
despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.
To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost
been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today's
relative tranquility. A sampling
of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles,
CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.
The damage from these riots! "uprisings" or "rebellions" according to some!was immense. For example,
the Detroit riot of 1967
lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and
both the 82 nd and 101 st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death
toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation
remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out
black anger.
To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution
to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian
Henny Youngman when asked
"How's your wife?" He responded with, "Compared to what?" This logic reflects a hard truth: when
confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect
solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current
conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist
would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and
food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business
list–the Danegeld .
In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students,
professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the
top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots.
While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white
crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized
related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to
have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating
about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street
corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street
socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale,
organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago
or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.
Co-optation is a staple in the political management repertoire. The Soviet Union adsorbed what
they called the "leading edge" into the Party (anyone exceptionally accomplished, from chess grandmasters
or world-class athletes) to widen the divide the dominant elite, i.e., the Party, and hoi polloi.
Election systems can be organized to guarantee a modicum of power to a handful of potential disruptors
and with this position comes ample material benefits (think Maxine Waters). Monarchies have similarly
managed potential strife by bestowing honors and titles on commoners. It is no accident that many
radicals are routinely accused of "selling out" by their former colleagues in arms. In most instances
the accusation is true, and this is by design.
To appreciate the advantages of the racial preferences in higher education consider Henny's "compared
to what"? part of his quip. Certainly what successfully worked for quelling potential Native American
violence, e.g., forced assimilation in "Indian Schools" or confinement in pathology-breeding reservations,
is now totally beyond the pale though, to be sure, some inner-cities dominated by public housing
are increasingly coming to resemble pathology-inducing Indian reservations. Even less feasible is
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
I haven't done the math but I would guess that the entire educational racial spoils system is
far more cost effective than creating a
garrison state or a DDR-like police state where thousands of black trouble-makers were quickly
incarcerated. Perhaps affirmative action in general should be viewed as akin to a nuisance tax, probably
less than 5% of our GDP.
To be sure, affirmative action at elite universities is only one of today's nostrums to quell
potential large scale race-related violence. Other tactics include guaranteeing blacks elected offices,
even if this requires turning a blind eye toward election fraud, and quickly surrendering to blacks
who demand
awards and honors on the basis of skin color. Perhaps a generous welfare system could be added
to this keep-the-peace list. Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than
dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence.
This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. Now, given all
the billions that have been saved, maybe a totally free ride at lesser schools would be a small price
to pay for their dissatisfaction (and they would also be academic stars at such schools). Of course
this "Asian only" compensatory scholarship might be illegal under the color blind requirements of
1964 Civil Right Act, but fear not, devious admission officers will figure out a way around the law.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women.
@Carlton Meyer At first, I was surprised that they listened to him.
After a while, I realized that many negros are stupid enough to think that Hispanics and Asians
would like to be in some anti-white alliance with blacks as a senior partner. In reality, they
have an even lower opinion of blacks than whites do. US blacks have zero knowledge of the world
outside America, so this reality just doesn't register with them.
John Derbyshire has made similar arguments–racial preferences are the price for social peace.
But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer
black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs"
for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Could care less about your smart Asians The smart Asians are enthusiastivally voting Whitey
into a racial minority on Nov 3 2020 They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and
Breeding Space
Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi ** ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but ' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest.
Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are
quite distinct.
In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways
except appearance and diet.
Plus, since SE Asia has always had influence from both, there is a smooth continuum in the
US across all of these groups by the time the 2nd generation rolls around.
They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space
Three things wrong with this sentence.
1) I don't think you know that Native Americans (i.e. Siberians) were here first.
2) I will bet anything that all 128 of your GGGGG-GPs are not English settlers who were here in
1776. You are probably some 2nd gen Polack or something who still worries that WASPs look down
on you.
3) There is very high variance among whites, and white trashionalists are SOOOO far below the
quality threshold of any moderately successful white that they can't claim to speak for all whites.
White Trashionalists represent the waste matter that nature wants to purge (which is the process
that enables exceptional whites to emerge on the other end of the scale). That is why white women
are absolutely doing what nature wants, which is to cut off the White Trashionalists from reproduction.
If you care about the white race, you should be glad that white women want nothing to do with
you and allow you to complete you wastebasket role.
Obama was one of the beneficiaries of AA along with his wife and their kids. Did that prevent
Baltimore and Chicago and etc from blowing up?
In a way, AA and Civil Rights made black communities more volatile. When blacks were more stringently
segregated, even smart and sensible blacks lived among blacks and played some kind of 'role model'.
They ran businesses and kept in close contact with black folks.
It's like white communities in small towns used to be much better when the George Baileys stayed
in them or returned to them and ran things.
But as more and more George Bailies left for the big cities, small towns had fewer top notch
role models and leaders and enterprisers. Also, the filth of pop culture and youth degeneracy
via TV corrupted the dummies. And then, when globalism took away the industries, there were just
people on opioids. At least old timers grew up with family and church. The new generation grew
up on Idiocracy.
Anyway, AA will just taken more black talent from black community and mix them with whites,
Asians, and etc. Will some of these blacks use their power and privilege to incite black mobs
to violence? Some do go radical. But most will just get their goodies and forget the underclass
except in some symbolic way. It's like Obama didn't do crap as 'community organizer'. He just
stuck close to rich Jews in Hyde Park, and as president, he was serving globo-wars, Wall Street,
and homos.
When he finally threw a bone at the blacks in his second term, it lit cities on fire.
Did the black underclass change for the better because they saw Obama as president? No. If
anything, it just made them bolder as flashmobs. The way blacks saw it, a bunch of fa ** ogty
wussy white people voted for a black guy created by a black man sexually conquering a white woman.
They felt contempt for cucky whites, especially as rap culture and sports feature blacks as master
race lording over whites. To most underclass blacks, the only culture they know is sports and
rap and junk they see on TV. And they are told blacks are magical, sacred, badass, and cool. And
whites are either 'evil' if they have any pride or cucky-wucky wussy if they are PC.
The Murrayian Coming-Apart of whites took place already with blacks before. And more AA that
takes in smarter blacks will NOT make things better for black underclass. And MORE blacks in elite
colleges will just lead to MORE anger issues, esp as they cannot keep up with other students.
Even so, I can understand the logic of trying to win over black cream of crop. Maybe if they
are treated nice and feel 'included', they won't become rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton and act
more like Obama. Obama's race-baiting with Ferguson was bad but could have been worse with someone
like Sharpton.
The Power can try to control a people in two ways. Crush everyone OR give carrots to comprador
elites so that sticks can be used on masses. Clinton did this. He brought over black elites, and
they worked with him to lock up record number of Negroes to make cities safer. As Clinton was
surrounded by Negroes and was called 'first black president' by Toni Morrison, many blacks didn't
realize that he was really working to lock up lots of black thugs and restore order.
Smart overlords play divide-and-conquer by offering carrots to collaborator elites and using
sticks on masses.
British Imperialists did that. Gandhi would likely have collaborated with Brits if not for the
fact that he was called a 'wog' in South Africa and kicked off a train. Suddenly, he found himself
as ONE with the poor and powerless 'wogs' in the station. He was made equal with his own kind.
Consider Jews in the 30s and even during WWII. Many Western European Jews became rich and privileged
and felt special and put on airs. Many felt closer to gentile elites and felt contempt and disdain
for many 'dirty' and 'low' Eastern European Jews. If Hitler had been cleverer and offered carrots
to rich Jews, there's a good chance that many of them would have collaborated and worked with
the Power to suppress or control lower Jews, esp. of Eastern European background.
But Hitler didn't class-discriminate among Jews. He went after ALL of them. Richest Jew, poorest
Jew, it didn't matter. So, even many rich Jews were left destitute if not dead after WWII. And
this wakened them up. They once had so much, but they found themselves with NOTHING. And as they
made their way to Palestine with poor Eastern European Jewish survivors, they felt a strong sense
of ethnic identity. Oppression and Tragedy were the great equalizer. Having lost everything, they
found what it really means to be Jewish. WWII and Holocaust had a great traumatic equalizing effect
on Jews, something they never forgot since the war, which is why very rich Jews try to do much
for even poor Jews in Israel and which is why secular Jews feel a bond with funny-dressed Jewish
of religious sects.
For this reason, it would be great for white identity if the New Power were to attack ALL whites
and dispossess all of them. Suppose globalism went after not only Deplorables but Clintons, Bushes,
Kaineses, Kerrys, Kennedys, and etc. Suppose all of them were dispossessed and humiliated and
called 'honkers'. Then, like Gandhi at the train station, they would regain their white identity
and identify with white hoi polloi who've lost so much to globalism. They would become leaders
of white folks.
But as long as carrots are offered to the white elites, they go with Glob and dump on whites.
They join with the GLOB to use sticks on white folks like in Charlottesville where sticks were
literally used against patriots who were also demeaned as 'neo-nazis' when most of them weren't.
So, I'm wishing Ivy Leagues will have total NO WHITEY POLICY. It is when the whites elites
feel rejected and humiliated by the Glob that they will return to the masses.
Consider current Vietnam. Because Glob offers them bribes and goodies, these Viet-cuck elites
are selling their nation to the Glob and even allowing homo 'pride' parades.
White Genocide that attacks ALL whites will have a unifying effect on white elites and white
masses. It is when gentiles targeted ALL Jews that all Jews, rich and poor, felt as one.
But the Glob is sneaky. Instead of going for White Genocide that targets top, middle, and bottom,
it goes for White Democide while forgoing white aristocide. So, white elites or neo-aristocrats
are rewarded with lots of goodies IF they go along like the Romneys, Clintons, Kaines, Bidens,
and all those quisling weasels.
" Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable
for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely
stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs. "
I read an article, making a learned impression, that on average USA blacks have a lower IQ.
I do suppose that IQ has a cultural component, nevertheless, those in western cultures with a
lower IQ can be expected to have less economic success.
A black woman who did seem to understand all this was quoted in the article as that 'blacks should
be compensated for this lower IQ'.
One can discuss this morally endless, but even if the principle was accepted, how is it executed,
and where is the end ?
For example, people with less than average length are also less successful, are we going to compensate
them too ?
"economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions
and countless government uplift programs"
It only stalled when the Great Society and the uplift programs started. According to The Bell
Curve there was basically an instant collapse when LBJ started to wreaking his havoc. Go back
to pre-1964 norms and no late-60s riots.
We have sacrificed smart white students for three generations to keep the hebraic component
around 30% at our highest-ranked colleges and universities, and no one (except the jewish Ron
Unz himself) made so much as a peep. And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far
more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting
it.
@War for Blair Mountain "They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding
Space "
Your statement would be perfectly correct if it read, "White people of European origin don't
belong on Native American Living and Breeding Space "
Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain
that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely
than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent.
Honestly, what is the world coming to when you spend centuries and millions of bullets, bottles
of whisky and plague-ridden blankets getting rid of tens of millions of people so you can steal
their land – and then more people like you come along and want to settle peaceably alongside you?
That's downright un-American.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable if the Asian immigrants behaved more like the European settlers
– with fire, sword, malnutrition and pestilence.
@Diversity Heretic The Kipling quote is stirring and thought-provoking (like most Kipling
quotes). But it is not entirely correct.
Consider the kings of France in the 10th century, who were confronted by the apparently insoluble
problem of periodic attacks by bands of vicious, warlike, and apparently irresistible Vikings.
One king had the bright idea of buying the Northmen off by granting them a very large piece of
land in the West of France – right where the invading ships used to start up the Seine towards
Paris.
The Northmen settled there, became known as Normans, and held Normandy for the rest of the
Middle Ages – in the process absolutely preventing any further attacks eastward towards Paris.
The dukes of Normandy held it as a fief from the king, and thus did homage to him as his feudal
subordinates.
They did conquer England, Sicily, and a few other places subsequently – but the key fact is
that they left the tiny, feeble kingdom of France alone.
Ratioal cost benefit arguments could be applied much more widely to the benefit of America
and other First World countries. If otherwise illegal drugs were legalised, whether to be prescribed
by doctors or not, it would save enormous amounts of money on law enforcement and, subject to
what I proffer next, incarceration.
What is the downside? The advocates of Prohibition weren't wrong about the connection of alcohol
and lower productivity. That was then. If, say, 10 per cent of the population were now disqualified
from the workforce what would it matter. The potential STEM wizards amongst them (not many) would
mostly be nurtured so that it was only the underclass which life in a daze. And a law which made
it an offence, effectively one for which the penalty was to be locked up or otherwise deprived
of freedom to be a nuisance, to render oneself unfit to perform the expected duties of citizenship
would have collateral benefits in locking up the right underclass males.
@Bro Methylene "Orientals," east Asians, or just Asians in American parlance are indeed quite
different from south Asians, called "Asians" in the UK,. These are quite different groups.
But the groups of east and south Asians include widely differing peoples. A Korean doesn't
have much in common with a Malay, nor a Pathan with a Tamil. Probably not much more than either
has in common with the other group or with white Americans.
That they "all look alike" to use does not really mean the do, it just means we aren't used
to them.
Was recently watching an interesting Chinese movie and had enormous difficulty keeping the
characters straight, because they did indeed all look alike to me. I wonder if Chinese people
in China have similar trouble watching old American movies.
@Carlton Meyer yeah and hispanics are natural conservatives. dont be a cuck once that slant
is here long enough he will tumble to the game and get on the anti white bandwagon. and sure asians
will eventually out jew the jews just what we need another overlord, only this one a huge percentage
or world pop. .
You know weisberg youre not fooling anyone here peddle that cuck crap elsewhere affirmative
action leads to nothing but more affirmative action at this point everyone but white males gets
it, and you my jew friend know this so selling it to sucker cucks as the cost of doing business
is just more jew shenanigans. There is a much better solution to the problem peoples deport them
back where they belong israel africa asia central america.
This is all about nothing now. The only thing White people have to learn anymore is controlled
breathing, good position, taking up trigger slack, letting the round go at exactly the right moment
– one round, one hit.
When your child tosses a tantrum and tears up his bedroom, and you tell him his mean-spirited,
selfish cousins caused it and then you reward him with a trip to Disneyland and extra allowance:
then you guarantee more and worse tantrums.
That is what America and America's Liberals, the Elites, have done with blacks and violence.
A very interesting post. Really a unique perspective – who cares if it's not fair, if it is
necessary to keep the peace?
I do however disagree with one of your points. " whose economic advancement over the last half-century
has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs."
I think you have missed the main event. Over the last half-century the elites of this nation
have waged ruthless economic warfare AGAINST poor blacks in this country, to an extent that far
dwarfs the benefits of affirmative action (for a typically small number of already privileged
blacks).
Up through the 1960′s, blacks were starting to do not so bad. Yes they were in a lot of menial
jobs, but many of these were unionized and the pay was pretty good. I mean, if nobody else wants
to sweep your floors, and the only guy willing to do it i s black, well, he can ask for a decent
deal.
Then our elites fired black workers en masse, replacing them with Mexican immigrants and outsourcing
to low-wage countries. Blacks have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw, and the benefits of
affirmative action (which nowadays mostly go to Mexicans etc.!) little more than a bandaid.
And before we are too hard on blacks, let me note that whites are also being swept up in the
poverty of neoliberal globalization, and they too are starting to show social pathology.
Because in terms of keeping the social peace, there is one fundamental truth more important
than all others: there must be some measure of broadly shared prosperity. Without it, even ethnically
homogeneous and smart and hard working people like the Japanese or Chinese will tear themselves
apart.
Note that there is not a word in this article about what this does to the white working class
and how it can be given something in return for allowing Elites to bribe blacks with trillions
and trillions of dollars in goodies. Nor is there is there any indication that this process eventually
will explode, with too many blacks demanding so much it cannot be paid.
Was this written tongue in cheek?
Affirmative action will never end. The bribes will never end. The US made a mistake in the 1960s.
We should have contained the riots then let the people in those areas sleep in the burned out
rubble. Instead through poverty programs we rewarded bad black behavior.
By filling the Ivy League with blacks we create a new class of Cornell West's for white people
to listen to. We enhance the "ethos" of these people.
Eventually, certainly in no more than 40 years, we will run out of sacrifices. What then when
whites constitute only 40% of the American population? Look at South Africa today.
We have black college graduates with IQs in the 80s! They want to be listened to. After all, they're
college graduates.
I do not believe you have found "a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence".
You mix in this "top 10%" and they get greater acceptance by whites who are turned left in college.
"The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core,
a policy to protect the racial peace "
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of
billions and countless government uplift programs.
The reality of this is become a huge stumbling block. In fact this group has actually been
mostly regressing into violence and stupidity, going their own separate way as exemplified by
their anti-social music which celebrates values repugnant to the majority. Look at the absurd
level of shootings in cities like Chicago. That's not changing anytime soon. They're by far overrepresented
in Special Ed, juvenile delinquency, prisons and all other indicators of dysfunction. Their talented
tenth isn't very impressive as compared to whites or Asians. Their entire middle class is mostly
an artificial creation of affirmative action. The point is that they can only be promoted so far
based on their capability. The cost of the subsidy gets greater every year and at some point it'll
become too heavy a burden and then it'll be crunch time. After the insanity of the Cultural Revolution
the Chinese had to come to their senses. It's time to curtail our own version of it.
It really is terrible and unfair that an Asian needs to score so much higher than you white
oppressors to get into the Ivy league
A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher
on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference
some have called "the Asian tax."
I think this is brilliant satire.
It is actually an argument that is logically sound. Doesn't mean that it's good or sensible or
even workable over the long run.
It's just logically sound. It holds together if one accepts the not-crazy parts its made out of.
I don't believe it's meant to be taken literally, because both the beneficiaries and those who
get screwed will grow in their resentment and the system would melt down.
New fields with the word "studies' in them would get added and everyone would know – deep down
– why that is so, and Asians would continue to dominate the hard sciences, math and engineering.
Still, as satire, it's so close to the bone that it works beautifully.
@Tom Welsh "Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall
to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more
closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent."
Agree. The country should be returned to pre-1700 conditions and given over to anyone who wants
it.
@Anonymouse I guess one man's riot is another man's peaceful night. There was a bit of rioting
in Brooklyn that night, businesses burned and looted, and a handful of businesses were looted
in Harlem. There was a very heavy police presence with Mayor Lindsey that night and blacks were
still very segregated in 1968, so I'd guess it was more that show of force that prevented the
kind of riots we'd seen earlier and in other cities at that time. Still, there was looting and
burning, so New York's blacks don't get off the hook. As a personal note. my older brother and
his friends were attacked by a roving band of blacks that night in Queens, but managed to chase
them out of our neighborhood.
The costs of BRA may be lower than the costs of 1960s urban riots, though an accurate accounting
would be difficult as many costs are not easily tabulated.
Consider, for instance, the costs of excluding higher performing whites and Asians from elite
universities. Does this result in permanently lower salaries from them as a result of greater
difficulty in joining an elite career track?
What costs do affirmative action impose upon corporations, especially those with offices in
metropolitan areas with a lot of blacks? FedEx is famously centralized in Memphis. What's the
cost to me as a shipper in having to deal with sluggish black customer service personnel?
The blacks are 15% of the population, so I doubt "garrison state" costs would be terribly high.
I am certain that segregation was cheaper than BRA is. The costs of segregation were overlooking
some black talent (negligible) and duplication of certain facilities (I suspect this cost is lower
than the cost of white flight).
How did America ever manage to survive when there hardly any Chinese Hindus..Sihks .Koreans
in OUR America?
Answer:Very well thank you!!!! ..America 1969=90 percent Native Born White American .places
two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon 10 more after this Who the F would be opposed
to this?
Answer:Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" Hindu "Americans" .Sihk "Americans" .Pakistani
"Americans"
There would still be racial peace if affirmative action was abolished. They'll bitch for a
while, but they'll get used it and the dust will settle.
Side note: Affirmation action also disproportionately helps white women into college, and they're
the largest group fueling radical leftist identity politics/feminism on campus. In other words,
affirmative action is a large contributor to SJWism, the media-academia complex, and the resulting
current political climate.
@jilles dykstra The statement "blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ" is no different
than the descendents of the so-called jewish "holocaust ™" being compensated in perpetuity by
the German government. Now, there are calls by the jewish "holocaust ™" lobby to extend the financial
compensation to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these so-called "holocaust
™ survivors, stating the fake concept of "holocaust ™" transference" just another "holocaust ™"
scam
Same thing.
More Monsanto, DuPont cancers and degraded foods.
New diseases from medical, biological, genetic research
More spying and censorship and stealing by Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, high IQ thieves.
All jobs overseas, domestic unemployment, endless wars, by the best and brightest.
Toxic pollution, mental pollution that dwarfs the back yard pollution of tires and old refrigs
by "low IQ deplorables (white and black and brown".
Degraded, degrading entertainment and fake news to match fake histories by Phds.
Tech devices that are "wonderful" but life is actually better more meaningful without.
[Blacks] "whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite
tens of billions and countless government uplift programs." No, Professor, it is Trillions
spend over the last 50 years and millions before that. Countless Whites and other non-Negroid
people have had to step aside in education, military, government, private industry, to let the
lesser person advance and leap frog the accepted virtue-merit path to advancement. AND IT STILL
IS NOT ENOUGN FOR BLECKS.
The obvious solution is to separate into uni-racial/ethnic states. For Whites, this would include
a separate autocephalous, independent state of Caucasians, Asians, and Hindu. This is the Proto-IndoEuropean
Family, related by genes and languages.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil...with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women. Could agree 1 and 2.
2-3 millions Top caliber White males moving to Asia?
haha, Top caliber White males (American) will stay in America, screw the rest WN, devour all
the resources available, not only in America, but from the rest of the world.
This is a real White so-called Top caliber White males enjoying in Philippines.
I'm guessing the author would be screaming at the top of his lungs if it was Jewish students
being told to go to some state university–instead of Harvard–since we have to make room for blacks.
BTW, your comment "..Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes" needs clarification.
Maybe the tribes got violent because of the 400 treaties Uncle Sam made with the various tribes,
he honored NONE
@jim jones A great part of that is because, well, let's say that the place where those actresses
have got their work done is the same.
Whites have much greater natural variations in hair and eye color, but skin color among East
Asian individuals is more naturally variable (especially when the effect of tanning is considered),
and their facial features and somatotypes are also more diverse in my opinion. For example, East
Asian populations contain some individuals who have what the Japanese call futae mabuta
"double eyelids" and some individuals who have what they call hitoe mabuta "single eyelids,"
whereas White populations contain only individuals who have "double eyelids." Whether such increased
physical variability is positive or negative probably depends on one's viewpoint; in the case
of that eyelid polymorphism, the variant that is found in Asians but not in Whites is generally
considered neutral or even positive when it occurs in male individuals, but negative when it occurs
in female individuals, so plastic surgeons must be overflowing with gratitude for the single eyelid
gene.
@Thorfinnsson The separate school facilities meant a major saving in the costs of school police
and security guards, resource teachers, counselors buses and bus drivers, and layers and layers
of administrators trying to administer the mess.
Separate schools were a lot cheaper in that the black teachers kept the lid on the violence
with physical punishment and the White teachers and students had a civilized environment.
The old sunshine laws kept blacks out of White neighborhoods after dark which greatly reduced
black on White crime. In the north, informal neighborhood watches kept black on White crime to
a minimum until block by block the blacks conquered the cities.
George Wallace said segregation now, segregation forever. I say sterilization now, problem
solved in 80 years.
Asians??? I went to college with the White WASP American young men who were recruited and went
to work in Mountain View and Cupertino and the rest of Santa Clara county and invented Silicon
Valley.
Not one was Asian or even Jewish. And they invented it and their sons couldn't even get into
Stanford because their sons are White American men.
I think the worst thing about affirmative action is that government jobs are about the only
well paid secure jobs that still stick to the 40 hour work week. Government is the largest employer
in the country. And those jobs are "no Whites need apply".
BTW I read the Protocols years before the Internet. I had to make an appointment to go into
a locked section of a research library. I had to show ID. It was brought to me and I had to sit
where I could be seen to read it. I had to sign an agreement that I would not copy anything from
the protocols.
And there it was, the fourth protocol.
"We shall see to it brothers, that we shall see to it that they appoint only the incompetent and
unfit to their government positions. And thus we shall conquer them from within"
@Thomm Only 4) is remotely possible. And Brazilian women are not that attractive, they are
nice looking on postcards, but quite dumpy and weird-looking in person. But that is a matter of
personal taste.
The reason 1,2,3 are nonsensical is that geography and resources matter. Asia simply doesn't
have them, it is not anywhere as attractive to live in as North America or Europe and never will
be. It goes beyond geographic resources, everything from architecture, infrastructure, culture
is simply worse in Asia and it would take hundreds of years to change that.
So why the constant 'go to Asia' or 'Asia is the future'? It might be a temporary escape for
many desperate, self-hating, white Westerners, a place to safely worship as they give up on it
all. Or it could be the endless family links with the Asian women. But that misreads that most
of the Asian families are way to clear-headed to exchange what the are trying to escape for the
nihilistic dreams of their white partners. They are the least likely to go to Asia, they know
it instinctively, they know what they have been trying to escape.
It is possible that the West is on its last legs, and many places are probably gone for good.
But Asia is not going to step up and replace it. It is actually much worse that that – we are
heading for a dramatic downturn and a loss of comfort and civilization. Thank you Baby Boomers
– you are the true end-of-liners of history.
Bright and talented white kids from non-elite families stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis
of Cram-Schooled Study-Asians with no seeming limit to their tolerance for tedium and 90 IQ entitled
blacks is 2017 in a nutshell.
Said in all seriousness: I genuinely feel sorry for blacks but not because of slavery & Jim
Crow. Those were great evils but every group has gone through that. No, I feel sorry for them
because their average IQ of 85–yes, it is–combined with their crass thug culture, which emphasizes
& rewards all the wrong things, is going to keep them mired in dysfunction for decades to come.
Men like Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams have all the information that blacks need to turn themselves
around but they won't listen, I guess because the message is take responsibility for yourselves
and your families and refuse to accept charity in all its different forms to include AA.
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
Why not pay people to leave? A law change would convert the money supply from bank money to
sovereign money.
AMI's HR2990 would convert the money supply overnight, and nobody would be the wiser.
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that
don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of
their choice. This public money can be formed as debt free, and could also be directed such that
it can only buy American goods. In other words, it can be forced to channel, to then stimulate
the American economy.
In this way, the future works, to then get rid of disruptive future elements.
It always boils down to the money system. There is plenty of economic surplus to then fund
the removal of indigestible elements.
People automatically assume that the money supply must be private bank credit, as that is the
way it always has been. NO IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.
@helena If Whites leave America and go back to their origin, no one, I repeat, NO ONE would
complain about that. They'd be singing "God Riddance" song all along.
No one wants to migrate to Ukraine, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Hungary, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Austria, a white country.
Everyone wants to migrate to the place where there's an over-bloated sense of job availability.
In this case, America offers an ample amount of opportunity.
Let's wait and see how universities in CA populated with merit-based Asian Americans overrule
all universities in the US anytime soon.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the
world.
Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that well over 95% of the blacks getting AAed into universities
are then being trained/indoctrinated into being future disruptive activists? Activists with credentials,
more money and connections. Entirely counterproductive and much of it on the taxpayers' dime.
If there is a solution, AA isn't it.
@Rdm Can I count you in on the Calexit movement–followed by the purge of whites? Freed from
the burden of those miserable European-origin Americans, the Asian-Negro-Mestizo marvel will be
a shining light to the rest of the world!
I waited to make this comment until the serious thinkers had been here. Did anyone notice the
dame in the picture is giving us the finger? I did a little experiment to see if my hand could
assume that position inadvertently and it couldn't. It aptly illustrates the article, either way.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in
the world.
No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?
If you took the land mass of CA and imposed it on the U.S. East Coast between Boston and South
Carolina, I don't think it'd be a problem to surpass California in any Top 50 University competition.
Here's a simpler and more effective solution-KILL ALL NIGGERS NOW. See, not so difficult, was
it? Consider it a Phoenix Program for the American Problem. Actually, here's another idea-KILL
ALL LIBERALS NOW. That way, good conservative people of different races, sexes, etc., can be saved
from the otherwise necessary carnage. Remember, gun control is being able to hit your target.
The affirmative action game may well serve the interests of the cognitive elite whites, but
it has been a disaster for the rest of white America. I have a better solution.
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
Send all Asians and other foreigners who not already citizens back to their homelands. End
all immigration except very special cases like the whites being slaughtered in South Africa or
the spouse of a white American male citizen.
@Rdm I am not referring to guys like in the picture.
I am referring to the very topmost career stars, moving to Asia for the expat life. Some of
that is happening, and it could accelerate. Only 2-3 million are needed.
@Kyle McKenna " And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination
than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it. "
And that's the function of the fraudulent, impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers'.
"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity
to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of global society
requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old established order, secondly,
design and imposition of the new order. The first stage requires elimination of all frontier
borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical barriers and social definitions, only
then can the destroyed old system elements be replaced by the imposed system elements of our
new order.
The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social formations
created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women must be uprooted
from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type
shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms must only be viewed as
a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is; nothing is good so everything
must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must be gone."
from: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress
@Rdm Almost all white people would rather migrate to Austria, Hungary, and the Ukraine than
the following citadels of civilization:
Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Niger
Nigeria
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
It's particularly unfortunate that Asians, who can hardly be blamed for the plight of America's
Blacks, are the ones from whom the "affirmative action" #groidgeld is extracted.
@Diversity Heretic My impression and overall experience from interacting with White Americans
is good in general. I have a very distinct view on both White Americans and Europeans. I'd come
back later.
I don't recommend purging of Whites in America. Neither do I prohibit immigration of all people.
But I do wish "legal" immigration from all parts of the world to this land. But I also understand
why people are fed up with White America.
There is a clear distinction between Europeans and White Americans. White Americans born and
bred here are usually an admixture of many European origins. They usually hide their Eastern European
origin and fervently claim German, French, English whenever possible -- basically those countries
that used to be colonial masters in the past.
White Americans are generally daring, optimistic and very open-minded. Usually when you bump
into any White Americans born and bred here, you can sense their genuine hospitality.
Europeans, usually fresh White immigrants in this land, tend to carry over their old mentality
with a bit of self-righteous attitude to patronize and condescend Americans on the ground that
this is a young country.
My former boss was Swiss origin, born in England, and migrated to America. If there's an opportunity
cost, he'd regale his English origin. If there's a Swiss opportunity, he'd talk about his ancestry.
He'd bash loud, crazy Americans while extoling his European majesty. He became a naturalized American
last year for tax purposes so that his American wife can inherit if he kicks the bucket.
Bottom line is, every immigrant to the US, in my honest opinion, is very innocent and genuinely
hard working. They have a clear idea of how they like to achieve their dreams here and would like
to work hard. It seems after staying here for a while, they all change their true selves to fit
into the existing societal structure, i.e., Chris Hemsworth, an Australian purposely trained to
speak American English in Red Dawn, can yell "This is our home" while 4th generation Asian Americans
will be forced to speak broken English. This is how dreams are shaped in America.
Coming back to purge of Whites, I only wish those self-righteous obese, bald, bottom of the
barrel, living on the alms Whites, proclaiming their White skin, will go back to their origin
and do something about a coming flood of Muslim in their ancestral country if they're so worried
about their heritage.
@Thomm No, he just wants the street-defecating hangers-on like you to go back and show how
awesome you claim you are in your own country by making a success of it rather than milking all
of the entitlements and affirmative action and other programs of literal racial advantage given
to you by virtue of setting foot in someone else's country.
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
Calexit? Please, pretty please. So you're talking about Calexit in AA action?
Let us play along.
If CA is existing solely due to Fed Alms, I can agree it's the tip of the iceberg. But we're
talking about Universities, their performance and how AA is affecting well qualified students.
Following on your arguments,
UC Berkeley receives $373 Millions (Federal Sponsorship) in 2016.
Harvard University, on the other hand, receives $656 millions (Federal sponsorship) in 2012.
I'm talking about how Universities climb up in World ranking, based upon their innovations,
productivity, research output, etc etc etc. Which to me, is reflective of what kind of students
are admitted into the programs. That's my point.
If you want to talk about Calexit, you'd better go and refresh your reading comprehension ability.
The thing that is forgotten is that white Americans DO NOT need the Africans in any way whatsoever.
There is NOTHING in Detroit that we want – we abandoned it deliberately and have no interest in
ever returning.
On the other hand, what do the Africans need from us?
Food. We own and operate all food production.
Medicine. Ditto.
Clean water. Look at Flint.
Sanitation services. Look at anywhere in Africa.
Order.
To put a stop to African behavior from Africans is an idiot's dream. They will never stop being
what they are. They simply cannot. So if we cannot expel them, we must control them. When they
act up, we cut off their food, medicine, water, and sewer services. Build fences around Detroit
and Flint. Siege. After a month or two of the Ethiopian Diet, the Africans in Detroit will be
much more compliant.
@Thomm You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites. Thomm=the
girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" .Hindu "Americans"
Sihk "Americans" and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0 . Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers go read Denis
Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the
passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act
As some have pointed out, the trouble with appeasement is, it never ends. Those who are used
to the handouts will always want more. There's the saying parents tend to strengthen the strong
and weaken the weak, that's what paternalistic policies like affirmative action and welfare do
to a society. It creates a cycle of dependency.
Those who think multiculturalism coupled with identity politics is a good idea need to take
a good look at Malaysia, arguably the most multicultural country outside the US. The country is
in Southeast Asia, with roughly 30m people, roughly 60% ethnic Malay(100% muslim), 23% Chinese(mostly
buddhist or christian), brought in by the British in the 1800s to work the rubber plantations
and tin mines, and 7% Indian(mostly Hindu), brought in by the British to work the plantations
and civil service.
In 1957 the Brits left and left the power in the hands of the ethnic Malays. The Chinese soon
became the most successful and prosperous group and dominated commerce and the professional ranks.
In 1969 a major race riot broke out, the largely rural and poor Malays decided to "take back what's
theirs", burnt, looted and slaughtered many ethnic Chinese. After the riot the government decided
the only way to prevent more riots is to raise the standard of living for the Malays. And they
began a massive wealth transfer program through affirmative action that heavily favors ethnic
Malays. First, all civil service jobs were given to only ethnic Malays, including the police and
military. Then AA was instituted in all local universities where Malays with Cs and Ds in math
and science were given preference over Chinese with all A's to all the engineering, medicine and
law majors. Today no one in their right mind, not even the rich Malays, want to be treated by
a Malay doctor. I know people who were maimed by one of these affirmative actioned Malay "neurosurgeons"
who botched a simple routine procedure, and there was no recourse, no one is allowed to sue.
Thanks to their pandering to the Malay majority and outright voting fraud, the ruling party
UMNO has never lost an election and is today the longest serving ruling party in modern history.
Any dissent was stifled through the sedition act where dissidents are thrown in jail, roughed
up, tossed down 14th story buildings before they even go to trial. All media is strictly controlled
and censored by the government, who also controls the military, and 100% of the country's oil
production, with a large portion of the profit of Petronas going to the coffers of the corrupt
Malay government elites, whatever's left is given to hoi polloi Malays in the form of fluff job
positions created in civil service, poorly run quasi-government Malay owned companies like Petronas,
full scholarships to study abroad for only ethnic Malays, tax free importation of luxury cars
for ethnic Malays, and when the government decided to "privatize" any government function like
the postal service or telcom, they gave it in the form of a monopoly to a Malay owned company.
All government contracts e.g. for infrastructure are only given to Malay owned companies, even
as they have zero expertise for the job. The clever Chinese quickly figured out they could just
use a Malay partner in name only to get all government contracts.
As opposed to the US where affirmative action favors the minority, in Malaysia AA favors the
majority. You know it can't last. The minority can only prop up the majority for so long. Growth
today is largely propped up by oil income, and the oil reserve is dwindling. Even Mahathir the
former prime minister who started the most blatant racial discrimination policy against the Chinese
started chastising the Malays of late, saying they've become too lazy and dependent on government
largess.
Yet despite the heavy discrimination, the Chinese continued to thrive thanks to their industriousness
and ingenuity, while many rural Malays not connected with the governing elite remain poor -- classic
case of strengthening the strong and weakening the weak. According to Forbes, of the top 10 richest
men in Malaysia today, 9 are ethnic Chinese, only 1 is an ethnic Malay who was given everything
he had. Green with envy, the ethnic Malays demanded more to keep the government in power. So a
new law was made – all Chinese owned businesses have to give 30% ownership to an ethnic Malay,
just like that.
Needless to say all this racial discrimination resulted in a massive brain drain for the country.
many middle class Indians joined the Chinese and emigrated en masse to Australia, NZ, US, Canada,
Europe, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Japan. The ones left are often destitute and poor, heavily discriminated
against due to their darker skin, and became criminals. Al Jazeera recently reported that the
7% ethnic Indians in Malaysia commit 70% of the crime.
To see how much this has cost Malaysia -- Singapore split off from Malaysia 2 years after their
joint independence from Britain and was left in destitute as they have no natural resources. But
Lee Kuan Yew with the help of many Malaysian Chinese who emigrated to Singapore turned it into
one of the richest countries in the world in one generation with a nominal per capita GDP of $53k,
while Malaysia is firmly stuck at $9.4k, despite being endowed with natural resources from oil
to tin and beautiful beaches. The combination of heavy emigration among the Chinese and high birthrate
among the muslim Malays encouraged by racialist Mahathir, the Chinese went from 40% of the population
in 1957 to 23% today. The Indians went from 11% to 7%.
I fear that I'm seeing the same kind of problem in the US. It's supremely stupid for the whites
to want to give up their majority status through open borders. Most Asians like me who immigrated
here decades ago did it to get away from the corrupt, dishonest, dog-eat-dog, misogynistic culture
of Asia. But when so many are now here, it defeats the purpose. The larger the immigrant group,
the longer it takes to assimilate them. Multiculturalism is a failed concept, especially when
coupled with identity politics. Affirmative Action does not work, it only creates a toxic cycle
of dependency. The US is playing with fire. We need a 20 year moratorium on immigration and assimilate
all those already here. Otherwise, I fear the US will turn into another basketcase like Malaysia.
@Tom Welsh There were only about one million Indians living in what is the United States in
1500. There are now 3 million living in much better conditions than in 1500.
I would be willing to accept non White immigration if the non White immigrants and our government
would end affirmative action for non Whites.
Asians are discriminated against in college admissions. But in the job market they have affirmative
action aristocratic status over Whites.
@Diversity Heretic John Derbyshire has made similar arguments--racial preferences are the
price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian
children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial
lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect
the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice,
The Black are protesting relentlessly and loudly verbally and thru assertive actions about
the racial discrimination they have been facing. I have never seen those academically unqualified
blacks admitted to the elite schools have stood up using themselves as shiny examples to refute
the discrimination allegations the Black made against the White.
While the policy to protect the racial peace by admitting academically unqualified blacks to
elite schools failed miserably, the restricting the smart and qualified Asians to elite schools
is blatantly racial injustice practice exercised in broad day light with a straight face lie.
The strategy is to cause resentment between the minorities so that the White can admitting their
academically unqualified ones to elite schools without arousing scrutiny.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist.
@Joe Wong All the Whites and Asians who are admitted to the top 25 schools are superbly qualified.
There are so many applicants every White and Asian is superbly qualified.
The entire point of affirmative action is that Asians and Whites are discriminated against
in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Harvard proudly proclaims that is now majority non White.
Don't worry, the Jews decided long ago that you Asian drones would have medicine and tech,
Hispanics construction, food, trucking,and cleaning and Hispanics and blacks would share government
work and public education.
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the
Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
@Wally So you are a tough guy, and never give in anything to anyone in your life? It seems
the Jews have similar view as yours, the Jews insist that if they give in an inch to those Holocaust
deniers, they will keep demanding more & more, at the beginning the Holocaust deniers will demand
for the evidence, then they will demand the Jews are at fault, then they will demand the Nazi
to be resurrected, then they will demand they can carry out Holocaust against anyone they don't
like, Pretty soon they will demand they to be treated like the pigs in the Orwellian's Animal
Farm.
@Priss Factor Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bs_BbIBCoY
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi**ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but...' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest. Asia is a big continent and Asians of
different ethnicity have very different voting patterns due to their culture and history. Japanese-Americans
tend to be the most liberal ethnic group of all Asian groups because of their experience with
internment during WWII. Somehow they conveniently forgot that it was a Democrat president who
put them in internment, and are now putting the blames squarely on the right for what happened.
These Japanese-Americans are drinking the kool-aid big time, but in the 90s I remember a Japanese
prime minister got in big trouble for saying America's biggest problem is we have too many blacks
and hispanics dragging us down.
Filipinos, Hmongs and other Southeast Asians tend to be poor and rely on government largess
to a certain extent, and also benefit from affirmative action at least in the state of CA, they
also tend to be liberal.
In this election cycle Indian-Americans have become the most vocal anti-Trumpers. From Indian
politicians from WA state like Kshama Sawant, Pramila Jayapal to Indian entertainers like Aziz
Ansari, Hasan Minaj, Kumail Nanjani, to Silicon Valley techies like Calexit mastermind VC Shervin
Pishevar, Google CEO Sundra Pichai, all are socialist libtards. In my local election, several
Indians are running for city council. All are first generation, all Democrats and champions of
liberal policies. It's as if they have amnesia(or just lower IQ), not remembering that socialism
was why they had to leave the shithole India to begin with. A Korean American is running as a
Republican.
There are Chinese idiots like Ted Lieu and other asians who've gone to elite schools therefore
drinking the kool-aid and insisted AA is good for Asian Americans, but most Koreans, Vietnamese
and Chinese tend to be more conservative and lean Republican. During the Trump campaign Breitbart
printed a story about a group of Chinese Americans voicing their support for Trump despite his
anti-China rhetoric because they had no intention of seeing the US turned into another socialist
shithole like China.
Per the NYT a major reason Asians vote Republican is because of AA. Asians revere education,
esp. the Chinese and Koreans, and they see holistic admission is largely bullshit set up by Jews
to protect their legacy status while throwing a few bones to under qualified blacks and hispanics.
Unfortunately it didn't seem to dampen their desire to immigrate here. Given that there are 4
billion Asians and thanks to open borders, if it weren't for AA all our top 100 schools will be
100% Asian in no time. I suggest we first curtail Asian immigration, limit their number to no
more than 10,000 a year, then we can discuss dismantling AA.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Delaware would be
the least dependent state in the US.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Maine would be among
the least dependent states in the US.
@Astuteobservor II The Indian tribe in tech is known to favor Indians in hiring. I've read
from other Indian posters elsewhere that Indian managers like to hire Indian underlings because
they are easier to bully.
Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys, TCS, Wipro are like 90% Indian, mostly imported directly
from India, with token whites as admin or account manager.
@Carlton Meyer That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls. Probably son of some corrupt Chinese
government official used to being treated like an emperor back home, ain't taking no shit from
black folks.
I suppose this is what happens when universities clamor to accept foreign students because
they are full pay. His tuition dollar is directly subsidizing these affirmative action hacks,
who are now preventing him from studying. He has fully paid for his right to tell them to STFU.
@Beckow Romans did not think Europe was a nice place to live, full of bloodthirsty barbarians,
uneducated, smelly, dirty, foul mouth and rogue manner, even nowadays a lot of them cannot use
full set of tableware to finish their meal, a single fork will do, it is a litte more civilized
than those use fingers only.
After a millennium of dark age of superstition, religious cult suppression, utter poverty medieval
serf Europe, it followed by centuries of racial cleanses, complete destruction of war, stealing
and hypocrisy on industrial scale, this time not only restricted to Europe the plague flooded
the whole planet.
Even nowadays the same plague from Europe and its offshoots in the North America is threatening
to exterminate the human beings with a big bang for their blinding racial obligatory. The rest
of the world only can hope this plague would stay put in North America and Europe, so the rest
world can live in peace and prosperity.
Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans"...Korean "Americans"....Hindu "Americans"...Sihk
"Americans"...and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0.... Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers...go read Denis Kearney's
Rebel Rousing speeches...google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage
of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act... It is MUCH better to be a libertarian than to
be a Nationalist-Leftist. You have effectively admitted that you want intra-white socialism since
you can't hack it yourself.
Socialists = untalented losers.
Plus, I guarantee that your ancestors were not in America since 1776. You are just some 2nd-gen
Polack or something.
@Priss Factor Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism,
but what a clown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY
Dineshisms are always funny as hell.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean...
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist. "Stalin brought back high culture and classical music.
He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones."
Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist
aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
@Joe Franklin Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups
of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians That is completely false. You just memorized that from some
bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA.
@Thomm Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad!
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control
the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
I don't think this is correct
Since California already has (very roughly) the future demographics you're considering, I think
it serves as a good test-case.
The Hispanic and Asian populations have been growing rapidly, and they tend to hold an increasing
share of the political power, together with the large white population, though until very recently
most of the top offices were still held by (elderly) whites. Whites would have much more political
power, except that roughly half of them are still Republicans, and the Republican Party has almost
none.
In most of the urban areas, there's relatively little black crime these days since so many
of the blacks have been driven away or sent off to prison. I'd also say that major black riots
in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they
don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead while being backed
up by the politicians, and many of the blacks probably recognize this. Admittedly, CA always had
a relatively small black population, but that didn't prevent enormous black crime and black riots
in the past due to the different demographics.
Meanwhile, Jewish-activists still possess enormous influence over CA politics, but they exert
that influence through money and media, just like they do everywhere else in the country.
@F the media that is actually true about indians. I have first hand account of a 100+ tech
dept getting taken over by indians in just 3 years :/ but that is not a "quota" that is just indians
abusing their power once in position of power.
@VinteuilPriss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't
favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
Right.. Ballet, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and classic literature. That's some pop crap.
Soviet Culture was about commie Lena Dunhams.
Now, most of Soviet culture was what might be called kitsch or middlebrow stuff, but it was
not 'pop crap' as known in the West.
@Saxon Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad! Whatever helps you
sleep at night..
Yesterday I was called a Jew. Today, it is Indian. In reality, I am a white American guy.
You white trashionalists can't get your stories straight, can you? Well, WNs are known for
having negro IQs.
Asians don't get affirmative action. They outscore whites in the SAT.
@Thomm That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA. You have reading comprehension problems to have confused Federal 8A government
contacts with Section 8 housing.
8A contracts are federal contracts granted to "socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s)."
The business must be majority-owned (51 percent or more) and controlled/managed by socially
and economically disadvantaged individual(s).
The individual(s) controlling and managing the firm on a full-time basis must meet the SBA
requirement for disadvantage, by proving both social disadvantage and economic disadvantage.
Definition of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals
Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice
or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups without regard to their individual
qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following individuals are presumed to be socially
disadvantaged:
• Black Americans;
• Hispanic Americans (persons with origins from Latin America, South America, Portugal and
Spain);
• Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians);
• Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea,
Samoa, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [Republic of Palau], Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, Laos, Cambodia [Kampuchea], Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Singapore, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Hong
Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru);
• Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal);
• And members of other groups designated from time to time by the SBA.
@Joe Wong Romans lived in Europe, get an atlas, Rome is in Europe. I will skip over your silly
summaries of European history, we all can do it to any civilization all day. Pointless. Try China.
Oh, I forgot, nobody knows much Chinese up and downs because it was mostly inconsequential.
If you call others 'racist' all the time, they might just not take your seriously. Or simply
say, fine, if liking one's culture is now 'racism', if it is a white culture, then count me in.
The rest of the world is tripping over itself to move – literally to physically move – to Europe
and North America. Why do you think that is?
I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local
police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot
the black rioters dead
Oh, would you stop being a make-believe pundit, Ron? That is some commentary you copped from
an OJ-era LA Times expose. You've had one conversation with a police officer in your life, and
that was over an illegal left term outside the Loma Linda Starbucksand culminated in disturbing
the peace when exited your Bentley yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!" at the top of your lungs
for 4 minutes.
Whenever you've had a nudity-mandatory, eyes-wide-shut, type globalist-soiree at your palatial
mansion, the only people you invited were politicians, lawyers, Ivy-league economists, Silicon
Valley tech nerds and hookers.
@Joe Franklin We've been over this. 8a is not given to anyone with over $250,000 in assets,
as your own link indicates. This means most Asians can't use it anyway (not that they need to).
The whole program should be done away with, of course.
What is funny is that you can't accept that Asians have higher SAT scores than whites, which
pretty much proves that they can (and do) outperform without AA. You WN idiots can't come to terms
with that.
But Section 8a should be removed just so that WN wiggers don't have anything to hide behind,
since Asians don't need it to excel.
@Thomm These untalented Socialists you refer to would include the vast majority of America
1969 90 percent Native Born White America .a White Nation that placed two Alpha Native Born White
American Males on the Moon .ten more after that. Seems that Socialism worked just fine.
If you prefer an Asian Majority you can always pack your bags and pick the Asian Nation of
your choice.
@Ron Unz hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will
not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made
for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
So with future aa population of 14%, that's 60 million blacks in america in 2060 timeframe,
although that will have an increasing amount of immigration from africa, which tends to be more
educated (at least 1st and 2nd generation).
Asians will be about 8%, so that's a poweful community of 40 million. I see tech and wall street
with increasing amount of asian representations.
What i would be interested in seeing if there will any maverick asian billionaires that could
disrupt the narrative.
This article may tend to take your mind off the real racial injustice at Harvard. In an article
"Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans" in the NY Times, August 3, 2017 ANEMONA
HARTOCOLLIS and STEPHANIE SAUL wrote ""The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans
to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority.
In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed
a quota to lower the number of Jewish students."" In my humble opinion this is a misleading statement
which implies that the admission of Jews remained below 20% in the years after 1918. In fact Hillel
reports that in recent years the admission of jews to Harvard has been around 25% of the class.
This means that almost half of the class are white and half of this white group are Jews. That
seems like an amazing over-representation of Jews who are only 2% of our population. So, at least
as many Jews as Asians are admitted to Harvard. No wonder the Asians are upset. I note that this
article does not point out this Jewish bias in admissions at Harvard and neither did the Asians.
Is this another manifestation of political correctness? Or is it an egregious example of racism?
This problem is the real elephant in the room. This is the Jewish racism that dare not speak its
name. Until lately.
@Truth Truth, you is so wise and true. You's right. Them Russian dummies didn't have no vibrant
black folks to make fun music that could make them wiggle their butts all their night long. So,
they grew stale and bored and drank too much vodka, caught fish with penis, and wrestled with
bears and didn't have the all the cool stuff like the US has.
All the world needs to be colonized by superior Negroes cuz folks will just die of boredom.
At least if you get killed by Negroes, it's exciting-like.
hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not
have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be
made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
Well, my California analogy was self-admittedly very rough and approximate given the considerable
differences in demographics. But I strongly suspect that such considerations provide a hidden
key to some contentious national policies of the last couple of decades, and I've actually written
extensively on the subject:
@Anon I imagine it was far different before the defense wind-downs of the mid 90s. Along with
the many cut-backs a lot of defense was moved out of California by the contractors as punishment
for California's liberal Congressmen. Companies that merged with California based operation usually
consolidated outside California such as when Raytheon swallowed up Hughes Aircraft Companies defense
operations and moved R&D to Massachusetts.
@Liberty Mike I know several white people who would rather live in Botswana than the Ukraine.
They have the advantage of having visited . The rest of your list seems pretty sound with the
possible exception of Swaziland.
P.S. If you deleted Austria and Hungary and replaced them by Albania and Kosovo you might make
your point even stronger.
@Thomm You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
@Thomm I seem to remember you telling everybody that Asians DON'T get affirmative action JUST
GOOGLE IT without ever offering proof. Of course it never occurred to you that there could never
be any documented proof of something like that. There isn't even official documented proof that
white males don't get affirmative action. When people claimed and linked to articles indicating
Asians are considered disadvantaged by the government, you claimed those people didn't know what
they were talking about JUST GOOGLE IT.
I think you made it quite obvious who the idiot is.
It's time to force our "Golden Dozen" (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Amherst and Williams) to admit
100% black until the average black income($43k) equals that of average white income($71k).
@Thomm The worst hate crimes I have personally witnessed were perpetrated by black men. I
have also seen more casual racism against Asians from blacks than from whites. This might be different
in other parts of the country or world.
Outside of the U.S., East Asians are the least likely to want to engage in some kind of anti-white
alliance since all of the West's most embarrassing military defeats have come from East Asians.
We have always relied on guns and not white guilt for racial equality.
@Ronnie In case you haven't noticed, Jews run this country. They dominate the media, academia,
Wall Street, Hollywood, Capitol Hill via the DNC and lobbying firms, Silicon Valley. Per the NYT
80% of Jews are self-proclaimed liberals. They are obsessed with dismantling the WASP World Order
that in their mind has oppressed them for the last 2000 years. The Ivy League is the pipeline
to these 6 sectors that collectively control the country, whoever controls Harvard controls the
country. Jews not only make up majority of the elite college faculty (esp. in the social sciences)
but are disproportionately benefiting from legacy admission and development cases(admission of
the dim witted sons and daughters of the rich and famous like Malia Obama, Jared Kushner, all
of Al Gore's kids).
Asians are the next up. Practically all Asians who've gone to the Ivy League or Stanford have
voiced their support for affirmative action, many are left wing nuts like the Jews. CA house representative
Ted Liu is one such kool-aid drinking Asian libtard, along with the HI judge Derrick Watson and
Baltimore judge Theodore Chuang, both of whom blocked Trump's temp. suspension of Muslim refugees,
both went to Harvard Law. As an Asian I would be more than happy if the Ivy League simply make
themselves off limits to all Asians and turn their schools 100% black. We don't need more Asians
to get indoctrinated in their dumb liberal ideology and go down in history as the group next to
the Jews and the blacks who destroyed America.
@Saxon You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
No they don't, as this very article explains. Could you BE more of a retard?
Plus, the fact that Asians get higher SAT scores than whites proves that they don't need it.
There is a left-wing conspiracy to hide Asian success.
Now, regarding an underachieving WN faggot like you :
Remember that white variance is very high. Excellent whites (like me) exist only because genetic
waste master has to be removed from the other end of the process. You and other WNs represent
that genetic waste matter, and that is why white women are doing a heroic duty of cutting you
off (at least the minority of WNs that are straight. Most are gay, as Jack Donovan has explained).
Nature wants the waste matter you comprise of to be expelled.
If you cared about the white race, you would be extremely glad that white women are cutting
you off, as that is necessary to get rid of the pollution that you represent.
Heh heh heh heh . it is so much fun to put a WN faggot in its place.
@MarkinLA No, I talked about 8a even two weeks ago. Good god, you WN really do have negro
IQs.
8a benefits Asians the least, and THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ANYWAY. There should
be no AA, ever.
8a harms Asians as it taints their otherwise pristine claim to having succeeded without AA.
They don't need 8a, most don't qualify for it as they exceed the $250,000 cutoff, and it lets
WN faggots claim that 'all of Asian success is due to AA', which is demonstrably false.
Read this slowly, 10 times, so that even a wigger like you can get it.
Don't let these WN faggots get away with claiming all of Asian success is merely due to affirmative
action. In reality, Asians don't get affirmative action (other than wrongly being included in
the Section 8a code form the 1980s, which ultimately was used by barely 2% of the Asian community).
Remember that among us whites, variance is extremely high. The prettiest woman alongside pretty
of ugly fat feminists (who the WN losers still worship). The smartest men, and then these loserish
WNs with low IQs and no social skills. White variance is very high.
That is why WNs are so frustrated. They can't get other whites to give them the time of day,
and white women are super-committed to shutting out WN loser males from respectable society.
Don't let them claim that Asian success is solely due to affirmative action. Remember, respectable
whites hate these WN faggots.
@Thomm You're not white, though. You're a rentseeker hanging onto someone else's country and
the fact that you write barely literate garbage posts with no substance to them tells all about
your intellect and your "high achievement." You're not high quality. You're mediocre at best and
probably not even that since your writing is so bad.
Do you even do statistics, though? Whites make up about 70% of the national merit scholars
in the US yet aren't in the Ivies at that rate. Harvard for example is maybe only 25% white. Asians
are over-represented compared to their merit and jews way over-represented over any merit. Now
how does that happen without nepotism? The whole system of any racial favoritism should be scrapped
but of course that wouldn't benefit people like you, Thomm.
Whites aren't more innovative and ambitious than Chinese people. You only have to look at the
chinless Unite the Right idiots in Charlottesville to dispel any idea that whites are the superior
race. The
This Thomm character is obviously of East Asian origin. His tedious, repetitive blather about
Asians, white women, and "white nationalist faggots" is a telltale sign. One of his type characteristically
sounds like he would be so much less distressed if those white males were not white nationalist
faggots.
@Tom Welsh An interesting historical argument My reply Land isn't money Arguably the Normans
came back in the form of the Plantagenets to contest the French throne in the 100 Years War. But
by that time France wasn't nearly so feeble
Giving Negroes land in the form of a North American homeland appeals to me (provided whites
get one too) although I know the geography is agonizing Blacks tend not to like this suggestion–they
realize how depedent they are on whites That wasn't true of the Normans–quite self-reliant fellows!
@Thomm I'm not sure what it was that I said that made you think I think all Asian success
is due to AA. In fact I think the opposite is true, that Asians succeed in spite of AA, which
is set up solely to hinder Asians from joining the club, and as far as I'm concern, it's a club
of sell-out globalist libtards that I wouldn't want more Asians to join.
I've worked in tech long enough to know that in tech, no one gives a fudge where you went to
school. I am surrounded by deca-millionaires who went to state schools, many aren't even flagship,
some didn't even study STEM. Some didn't even go to college or graduate. The only people I know
who still care about the Ivy League are 1st generation often FOB China/India trash, and a small
number of Jewish kids looking to benefit from legacy admission, most are gay and/or serious libtards.
You can tell that Jewish achievement has fallen off a cliff as Ron Unz asserted by looking
at a certain popular college website. The longest running thread that's been up there for nearly
a decade with over a thousand pages and over 18,000 posts is called "Colleges for the Jewish "B"
student". The site is crawling with uber liberal Jewish mothers and monitored by a gang of Ivy
graduated SJWs who strictly enforce their "safe space", posters who post anything at all that
might offend anyone (affirmative action is always a sensitive topic) are either thrown in "jail"
i.e. ban from posting for a month, or kicked off altogether. The SJW forum monitors even directly
edit user comments as they see fit, first amendment rights be damned. This is the future of all
online forums if the left have their way, the kind of censorship that Piers Morgan advocates.
Asians are over-represented compared to their merit
False. The main article here alone proves otherwise, plus dozens of other research articles.
You just can't stand that Asian success is due to merit. But you have bigger problems, since
as a WN, you can't even compete with blacks.
What bugs you the most is that successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time
of day. Most tune you idiots out, but I like to remind you that you are waste matter that is being
expunged through the natural evolutionary process.
Yes, more so if they are leftists (including Nationalist-Leftists like WNs are). But the fact
that WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan points out) also explains why they tend to
look grotesque, and it supports the scientific rationale that they are wastebaskets designed to
expedite the removal of genetic waste matter.
White variance in talent/looks/intelligence is high. WN loser males and fat, ugly feminists
represent the bottom. In the old days, these two would be married to each other since even the
lowest tiers were paired up. Today, thankfully, both are being weeded out.
@Pachyderm Pachyderma Not just that, but some of these 'white nationalists' are just recent
immigrants from Poland and Ukraine. They are desperate to take credit for Western Civilization
that they did nothing to create. Deep down, they know that during the Cold War, they were not
considered 'white' in America.
400 years? i.e. when most of what is now the lower-48 was controlled by a Spanish-speaking
government? Yeah Many of these WNs have been here only 30-70 years. That is one category (the
domestic WN wiggers are the other)
@Thomm It's too late, everybody knows what I wrote is true and that you are some pathetic
millennial libertarian pajama boy. The sad fact is that you can't even man up and admit that you
wrote that BS about "Asians don't get affirmative action just google it". See that would have
at least have been a sign of maturity, admitting you were wrong.
There is no point reading anything, even once, from a pathetic pajama boy like you.
@MarkinLA I openly said that I am proud to be libertarian. Remember, talented people can hack
in on their own, so they are libertarians.
Untalented losers (like you) want socialism so that you can mooch off of others.
Plus, Asians don't get affirmative action outside of one obscure place (Section 8a) which they
often don't qualify for ($250K asset cutoff), don't need, and was never used by more than 2% of
the Asian-American community. The fact that Asian SAT scores are higher than whites explains
why Asians outperform without AA.
Plus, this very article says that Asians are being held back. A WN faggot like you cannot grasp
that even though you are commenting in the comments of this article. Could you be any dumber?
I realize you are not smart enough to grasp these basic concepts, but that is why we all know
that white trashionalists have negro IQs.
Now begone; you are getting in the way of your betters.
Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence,
whites occupy both extremities of human quality.
Hence, the hierarchy of economic productivity is :
Talented whites (including Jews)
Asians (East and South)
Hispanics
Blacks
Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).
That is why :
1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites.
2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
4) WNs are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves
with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes
sense based on the hierarchy above.
5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine
the worst of all worlds.
6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything
to do with white trashionalists.
7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals
to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets.
8) The 80s movie 'Twins' was in effect a way to make these wastebaskets feel good, as eventually,
the Arnold Schwarzenegger character bonded with the Danny DeVito character. But these two twins
effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified
by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. In reality, these two would
never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.
This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.
Elite colleges are a prime example of left wing hypocrisy. The same people who are constantly
calling for an equal society are at the same time perpetuating the most unequal society by clamoring
to send their kids to a few elite schools that will ensure their entry to or retain their ranks
among the elites. Equality for everyone else, elitism for me and my kids. David Brook's nausea
inducing self-hating pablum "How we are ruining America" is a prime example of this hypocrisy.
Another good example of left wing hypocrisy is on "school integration". The same people who
condemn "bad schools" for the urban poor and call for more integration are always the first to
move into the whitest possible neighborhoods as soon as they have kids. They aren't willing to
sacrifice their own kids, they just want other people to sacrifice their children by sending them
to bad schools.
If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
When I first saw the title of this article, I, being an Asian, was a tad insulted. It smelled
like Dr. Weissberg was attempting to create (or at least escalate) racial strife between Asians
and blacks. I then read through the article and evaluated the bad and the good.
First the bad: Dr. Weissberg's assertion that Asians are being hurt by the Affirmative Action
promotion of blacks is a bit exaggerated. This is because most Asians go into rigorous difficult
programs such as engineering, science, and medicine. Most black affirmative action babies go into
soft programs such as Black Studies (and whatever else the humanities have degenerated into).
Now the good: I think this is the most true portion of the essay.
Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven
divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's
left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion
by decapitating its potential leadership.
I have once wrote that whites stopped sneering at MLK when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers
began taking center stage. They sure became more accommodating of "moderate" blacks. With all
of the terrorist attacks going on and with blacks converting to Islam, I don't think we're going
to get rid of affirmative action any time soon.
@Vinteuil Stalin alternated between favoritism and intimidation. The truth is he did have
an eye and ear for culture unlike Mao who was a total philistine.
If Stalin really hated artists, he would have killed all of them.
He appreciated them but kept a close eye.
He loved the first IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Eisenstein, but he sensed that the second one was a
criticism of him, and Eisenstein came under great stress.
OK, well, Stalin loved the movies, and may have had an eye for effective cinema. But when it
came to music he was, precisely, a total philistine. On this point, I again recommend Shostakovich's
disputed *Testimony,* a work unique in its combination of hilarity and horror, both of which come
to a head in his account of the competition to write a new national anthem to replace the internationale
– pp. 256-64. A must read.
@DB Cooper For the same reason North Korea is poorer than South Korea, despite being the same
people.
For the same reason the GDR was so much poorer than the FRG, despite the same people.
You probably never even thought about that.
A bad political system takes decades to recover from. Remember that the British also strip-mined
India for 200 years..
Come on, these are novice questions
If you think the success of Asian-Americans in general (and Indian-Americans in particular)
does not jive with your beliefs, then the burden of explaining what that is, is on you.
Indians happen to be the highest-income group in the US. Also very high are Filipinos and Taiwanese.
Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public
universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative. No black violence ensued. There is little
reason to think the black response would be different if the 8 Ivy League universities ended their
policies of racial preferences. Blacks would adjust their expectations. Fear of black rioting
and the desire to jumpstart the creation of a large and peaceful black middle class may have been
important motives for the initial development of racial preference policies in the late 1960s;
they are not major reasons for their retention and continued support from white administrators
today. Other reasons and motives are operative (including what I call R-word dread).
PS: Cornel West has moved from Princeton to Harvard Divinity School.
"Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread
1960s style urban violence."
Except back in the '60′s; the White, Euro-derived people were unwilling to fight back. They
felt guilty and half-blamed themselves. Not. Any. More! The costs -- social, mental, emotional,
physical; pick your metric! -- have now exceeded the patience of WAY more Americans than the media
is letting on.
Did you not see 20- and 30-THOUSAND, mostly White Euro-derived, Americans rallying to candidate -- and now President -- Trump's side? (No, the media carefully clipped the videos to hide those
numbers, but there they (we!) were! We're done! We're fed up! "FEEDING" these destructive vermin
to keep them from destroying our houses and families (and nation and country!) is no longer acceptable!
You "don't let Gremlins eat after midnight"? Well, we did -- and now we're in a war against them.
You think this capitulating in education is preventing 'widespread 1960s-style urban violence?
Have you not watched the news? We pretty much already are: ask NYC how many "sliced with a knife"
attacks they have there! In JUST Jan. and Feb., there were well more than 500! (Seriously vicious
attacks with knives and razor blades -- media mentioned it once for a few days, and then shut up.)
Look at the fair in Indianapolis; count up rape statistics; investigate the "knock-out game" ("polar
bear hunting" -- guess who's the polar bear?!). (Oh yeah, and: Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago; look
at ANY black-filled ruin of a city ) If (when!) we finally have to (CHOOSE to) deal with this
low-grade war -- WHO is better armed, better prepared, SMARTER, and fed up?
"This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs."
Wait, wait -- these are White schools, built by White Americans FOR White Americans! "Oh, the
poor Asians are not getting their 'fair share' cause the blacks are getting way more than their
'fair share'?! The Asians' 'fair share' is GO HOME!! The Asians don't have a 'fair share' in White
AMERICAN universities; we LET them come here and study -- and that is a KINDNESS: they don't have
a 'fair share' of OUR country! How about: stop giving preferences to every damned race and nationality
other than the one that BUILT this country and these universities!
@War for Blair Mountain Call them what they are: "paperwork Americans"! Having the paperwork
does NOT make them Americans, and nothing ever will!
Imagine a virgin land with no inhabitants: if you took all the Chinese "Americans" or all the
Pakistani "Americans" or Black "Americans" or Mexican "Americans" (funny, why did you leave those
last two out?! Way more of them than the others ) and moved them there, would they -- COULD they
ever -- create another America? No, they would create another China, or another Pakistan -- or their
own version of the hellholes their forebears (or they themselves) came from. ONLY White, ONLY
Euro-derived Americans could recreate an America.
And this goes, also, to answer the grumbling "Native" Americans who were also NOT native, yes?
Siberia, Bering land bridge, ever heard of those? Do you not even know your own pre-history?!
What "America" was here when it was a sparse population of warring tribes of variously related
Indian groups? What did your forebears make of this continent?
Nothing. There would be no "America" where everyone wants to come and benefit by taking; because
ONLY the White settlers (not immigrants: SETTLERS!) were able to create America! And as all you
non-Americans (AND paperwork "Americans") continue to swamp and change America for your own benefit -- you will be losing the very thing you came here to take (unfair!) advantage of!
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks
that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country
of their choice.
Chip 'em and ship 'em! Microchip where they CAN'T 'dig it out' to prevent them from ever ever
ever returning! And ship 'em out! I'd pay a LOT to have this done!
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
They (we!) tried that years ago. The BLACK COPS SUED because they were working in the shittiest
places with the shittiest, most violent people -- and "the White cops had it easy."
NOT EVEN the blacks want to be with the blacks -- hence them chasing down every last White person,
to inflict their Dis-Verse-City on us!
The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them.
Alas, typical "paperwork American" lack of understanding! I wrote this to a (White) American
who wants to keep importing everyone ("save the children!") -- and, she insisted, they "could"
assimilate. However, here's what 'assimilate" means:
Suppose you and your family decided to move to, say, Cambodia. You go there intending to "get
your part of the Cambodian dream," you go there to become Cambodian citizens, to assimilate and
join them, not to invade and change them. You want to adopt their ways, to *assimilate.* Yes?
This is how you describe legal immigrants to OUR country (The United States.)
How long would it take for you and your children to be (or even just feel) "assimilated"? How
long would it take for you to see your descendants as "assimilated" -- AS Cambodians? Years? Decades?
Generations? Would you be trying to fit in -- and "become" Cambodians; or would you be trying to
not forget your heritage? ("Heritage"?! Like, Cinco de Mayo, which they don't even celebrate IN
Mexico? Or Kwanza -- a CIA-invented completely fake holiday!)
More important: since it's their country -- how long until THEY see you as "Cambodians" and
not foreigners. I know a man and family who have lived in Italy for over 20 years. To the Italians
in the village where they live, they are still "stranieri": strangers. After this long, to the
local Italians, they're not just "the Americans who moved here" -- they're " our Americans" -- but they are still seen as 100% not Italian, not local: not "assimilated"!
Would you and your children and grandchildren learn to speak, read, and write Cambodian -- and
stop trying to use English for anything much in your new homeland? Would you join their clubs -- would you join their NATIONAL RELIGION!? Does "becoming Cambodian" -- does "assimilating" -- not
actually include (trying to) become Cambodian (and, thus, ceasing to be American)? (If
that were even possible; and it's not.) "Assimilation" is a stupid hope, not a possible reality.
That is where my friend balked. She said: she and her family are very Christian, and no way
at all ever would they drop Christianity and pick up Cambodian Buddhism. So -- how can they EVER
"assimilate" when they (quite rightly) REFUSE to assimilate?!
Please stop buying into the lies the destroyers of OUR nation keep selling. There is no such
thing as "assimilation"; only economic parasitism, jihadi invasion, and benefiting from the systems
set up by OUR forebears for THEIR posterity!
In my origin state of Tamil Nadu, the effective anti-brahmin quota is 100% ( de-jure is just
69% )
Sundar Pichai or Indira Nooyi or Vish Anand ( former Chess champ ) or Ramanujam ( late math
whiz ), cant get a Tamil Nadu State Gov , Math school teacher job
Also, the US gets a biased selection of Indians in terms of caste, class and education
Of Tamil Speakers in USA, about 50% are Tamil Brahmins, vs just 2% in India
The bottom 40% in terms of IQ, such as Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals, are no more
than 10% in the US Indian diaspora
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
This is interesting, as it puts paid to the obsession that WN idiots have with 'whiteness'.
Pakistan is obviously much more Caucasoid than India and certainly Sri Lanka.
Afghanistan is whiter still. Many in Afghanistan would pass for bona-fide white in the US.
Yet Sri Lanka is richer than India, which is richer than Pakistan, which is richer than Afghanistan.
Either Islam is a negative factor that nullifies everything else including genetics, or something
else is going on.
What there is no doubt of is that Asia has been the largest economic region of the world by
far except for the brief 200-year deviation (1820-2020), as per that map I posted.
@Thomm Weissberg asks, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left
behind in the Hood?"
Why focus on the LEFT buttock? His point would be as relevant were he to ask, "Why would a
black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's RIGHT behind in the Hood?" Either way, I smell
kinkyness deep within Weissberg's question.
"Divide and Rule" said the Romans. Incorporate the potential leaders of those you intend to
rule into your hereditary upper class, and the vast majority will stay inert at the least. And
many will actively support you. See this post by a black woman:
Black Americans: The Organized Left's Expendable Shock Troops .
People like Cornel West are not only NOT rabble-rousing in the 'hood, they're telling blacks
to support the people who actively keep them poor. "Affirmative Action" is designed to sabotage
its alleged goals. Almost all who 'benefit' from it end up among people whose performance is clearly
superior to their own, thus fostering feelings of inferiority, subtly communicating that it doesn't
matter what the 'beneficiary' of AA does, they'll always fail. This is no accident.
Without AA, there might still be separation, (consider "ultra-orthodox" Jews), but the separate
groups would have to be treated with some respect. Really, viewed amorally, it's a marvelous system
for oppressing whites and minorities.
@Thomm Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I have data from California National Merit list, IQ-140 bar
Among Indian Punjabis ;
Jat Sikh peasants = 3 winners ( 75% of Punjabis in USA )
Khatri merchants = 18 winners ( 25% of Punjabis in USA )
Both are extremely caucasoid, both appear heavily among Indian bollywood stars ; genetically
very similar, just the evolutionary effect of caste selection for merchant niche vs peasant niche
@Russ NieliRacial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including
the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative.
But the admissions people immediately started using other dodges like "holistic" admissions
policies where they try and figure out if your are a minority from other inferences such as your
essay where you indicate "how you have overcome". They also wanted to get rid of the SAT or institute
a top X% at each school policy.
@rec1man I don't know . a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism
@Thomm I don't know.... a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism... Afghanistan was 33% Hindu,
66% buddhist before islam, but in actual practise lots of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism,
and many families had mixed Indic religions
Pakistan was 22% non-muslim in 1947, these 22% were higher caste Hindus and Sikhs – all got
driven out in 1947 ; Pakistan is low IQ islamic sludge residue of Punjabi society
I am Tamil speaking, 80% of Tamil brahmins ( 2% ) can be visually distinguished from the 98%
Tamil Dravidians ;
Thomm you take up too much oxygen in the room insisting on the importance your opinions, the
whole conversation is much more interesting when i skip past your stupid WN focused city boy sheltered
viewpoint. Big words and that retarded hehehe thing you do would get you wrastled to the ground
and your face rubbed in the dirt
@Thomm Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians
out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not? Moreover how are white males who want to escape SJW idiocy going to like a country
that still actively enforces all sorts of thought control policies of its own? You wannabe libertardian
analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.
Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out
of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not?
It would be, but WN retards don't think that far.
You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber
every time.
This is what WNs want, not want I want. It is easy to predict WN opinions.
Plus, being a libertarian is much more desirable than being a WN socialist. Talented people
thrive in a libertarian society. WN losers just want to mooch off of successful whites.
"Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner."
Really? All that does is give the man a bigger sanctioned soap box. In the ghetto he might
affect a couple of hundred people. Siting in academia he gets a lever than can affect tens of
thousands. Not a good trade.
Truth is often stranger than fictions. The real reason for discriminating against Asian Ams
is not to help make the other minority happy. It is to benefit the whites. The Ivy League schools
are using the diversity to give the white applicants an advantage of 140 pst in SAT points. Please
see below:
In Table 3.5 on p 92 of Princeton Prof. Espenshade's famous book, "No Longer Separate, Not
Yet Equal", the following shocking fact was revealed:
Table 3.5 (emphasis added)
Race Admission Preferences at Public & Private Institutions
Measured in ACT & SAT Points, Fall 1997
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Public Institutions Private Institutions
ACT-Point Equivalents SAT-Point Equivalents
Item (out of 36) (out of 1600)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Race
(White) -- –
Black 3.8 310
Hispanics 0.3 130
Asian -3.4 -140
Why are 140 SAT pts. taken away from AsAm applicants? To give the white applicants an advantage
of 140 SAT pts. over the historically disadvantaged AsAms by using the nobility of diversity as
a cover? This is the reverse of affirmative action. This is a gross abuse of affirmation action.
This is outrageous discrimination. If
the purpose is to give the blacks an advantages, why not add more SAT points to blacks and hispanics?
@Avalanche That's an interesting point you brought up, whether anyone can ever really be "assimilated".
Even after hundreds of years, blacks and Jews in this country remain very distinct groups. I think
for blacks the reason is skin color and culture, while for Jews it is the religion. Both groups
have had low out marriage rate until maybe the last couple of decades.
Assimilation is most successful when there's a high intermarriage rate, but intermarriage rate
and immigration rate tend to go in opposite directions. The higher the immigration rate, the lower
the intermarriage rate.
Hispanics and Asians have been in this country since the 1800s yet you rarely ever meet a hispanic
or Asian person who's been here for more than 3 or 4 generations. Why is that? I think it's because
many of these earlier groups, due to their small number at the time relative to the population,
had intermarried, blended in and disappeared. I would say these earlier immigrants have fully
assimilated. The ones who are unassimilated are the new arrivals, those who arrived in large numbers
since 2000.
But for some peculiar reason blacks who are mixed with whites often continue to identify as
blacks. We see this in Obama, Halle Barry, Vanessa Williams and many other black/white mixes.
Black identity is so strong even Indian-black mixed race people call themselves black, like Kamala
Harris.
My theory is that most white-hispanic and white-asian marriages are white males with hispanic/asian
females. In most cases the white males who married hispanic/asian women are conservatives who
prefer women in cultures that are perceived to be more traditional compared to white females who
are often selfish and want a divorce at the first sign of personal unhappiness. Many of them then
raise their children in full white traditions including as Christians and encourage them to identify
themselves as whites.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these
women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women
for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as
black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.
Education used to be the biggest tool for assimilation, but these days thanks to libtards running
amok, our schools are where racial identity is amplified rather than de-emphasized. Now all minority
groups are encouraged to take pride in their own cultural identity and eschew mainstream (white)
culture. Lured by affirmative action, more and more mixed race hispanic kids are beginning to
identify themselves as latino. Thankfully mixed race Asian kids are running in the opposite direction
and now mostly identify themselves as white so they are not disadvantaged by AA.
I think assimilation can occur when you have low immigration rate coupled with high intermarriage
rate and a smart education system that discourages racial and individual identity and focuses
on a single national identity. The biggest reason assimilation is failing now is a combination
of high immigration rate, and a failed education system that promotes identity politics and victimhood
narrative. The internet and easy air travels back to the homeland also make it much harder to
assimilate newcomers. For these reasons I'm in favor of a moratorium on immigration for the next
20 years. All those not yet citizens should be encouraged to return to their home countries. No
more green cards, work visas or even student visas should be issued.
@S. B. Woo That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances
these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children.
Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their
children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves
as black.
@Incontrovertible That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
So much for "smart Asians". But they still needed a lower score for admittance than Asians
I've had a thought, I wonder if someone has any ideas. We have a very in-depth understanding
of how Soros and other financial criminals fund liberal/leftist causes. So who is funding the
right?
I don't mean the Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers tennis-playing types, I mean the
Eurasianist/Trumpist popular right.
Peter Thiel has made no secret of his support for Trump and Ron Paul. Still, it's amazing
that the right-wing alternative media apparatus is seemingly so well-oiled and widely
circulated. Who is their secret sugar daddy. A lot of these folks present themselves as
"concernced patriots", but I'm not that naïve.
I've had a thought, I wonder if someone has any ideas. We have a very in-depth understanding
of how Soros and other financial criminals fund liberal/leftist causes. So who is funding the
right?
I don't mean the Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers tennis-playing types, I mean the
Eurasianist/Trumpist popular right.
Peter Thiel has made no secret of his support for Trump and Ron Paul. Still, it's amazing
that the right-wing alternative media apparatus is seemingly so well-oiled and widely
circulated. Who is their secret sugar daddy. A lot of these folks present themselves as
"concernced patriots", but I'm not that naïve.
"... The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations ..."
"... What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all. ..."
"... What we have are four parties: The mainstream Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders. ..."
"... White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect ..."
"... But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found. ..."
"... Threepenny Opera ..."
"... metteur en scene ..."
"... The Benedict Option ..."
"... I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service. ..."
"... As you get more towards the middle I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering this tendency. ..."
"... "And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference. " ..."
"... Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized. ..."
"... Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars, no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc. ..."
"... Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right. (Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.) ..."
"... It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of the establishment. ..."
"... M_Young , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm ..."
"... Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor' (untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former heroes will remain unscathed. ..."
"... Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives in the hall a statuary. ..."
"... You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel ..."
"... James Hartwick , says: August 19, 2017 at 12:33 am ..."
"... KevinS: As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. ..."
"... I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff? ..."
"... Also, while TAC doesn't seem to have had many articles about antifa (others have covered that topic more thoroughly), Rod did mention it back in January, when a masked antifa sucker punched white nationalist Richard Spencer on the street and The Nation's Natasha Lennard praised him . ..."
"... Hound of Ulster , says: August 19, 2017 at 4:33 am ..."
"... Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics. ..."
"... It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops. ..."
"... John , says: August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am ..."
"... It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down. ..."
"... The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society. The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville, Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign. ..."
"... The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his usual rallies at some midwestern venue. ..."
"... The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,) and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at stake. ..."
"... Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily happening. ..."
"... The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway. ..."
Making things more complicated is the fact that there are more than these two parties. Drutman
also found divisions within the Democrats. "To the extent that the Democratic Party is divided,
these divisions are more about faith in the political system and general disaffection than they
are about issue positions." The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton
is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies
that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations .
What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical
on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party
of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all.
Recent events have brought to light the distinction between the party of Trump and the GOP.
But it would be foolish for Democrats to believe that they are out of the woods, that America
has settled, for the moment, on a three-party system. What we have are four parties: The mainstream
Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders.
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal
American Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by
rejecting the mainstream Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements,
and infrastructure spending.
But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity
take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break
between left and right is found.
President Trump's isolation from the party whose nomination he wrested from insiders and scions
is just part of a larger trend in American society and politics. The widening divisions within
and between parties are symptoms of our
fractured republic , of the unbundling, disaggregation, and
dissociation
of our communal lives. Mounting political violence, too, is a consequence of the polarization
that estranges Americans from one another and turns every disagreement into an apocalyptic battle
royal. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, and Sanders are pulling the mystic cords of memory in four different
directions. And they won't quit doing so. Until the cords snap.
It is striking how so many people are eager to exacerbate our divisions for political gain. As
Continetti indicates, Steve Bannon has a theory that if he can get culture-war Democrats distracted
by race, he can forge a new coalition. He told the liberal editor Robert Kuttner that it makes him
happy to see all the fighting over statues, because in theory, it makes it possible for him to get
done what he wants to get done. The best spin you can put on that is that it's breathtakingly cynical.
But now we have this from the other side:
You do know, I trust, that in all the years that Nancy Pelosi was House speaker, she never said
a peep about those abominable Confederate statues. But now she can energize her base with it, so
here we are.
Trump will say or do something outrageous today that will ratchet up the tension. And then his
enemies will respond in kind. It's all starting to bring to mind this passage from the contemporary
German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, describing the Weimar Republic:
Theatricality appeared to be the common denominator of all manifestations of life – from Expressionism
to Marlene Dietrich's spectacular legs in Blue Angel ; from the bloody comedy of Hitler's
1923 putsch to Brecht's Threepenny Opera ; from the impressive funeral of Rathenau to
the calculated banditry of the Reichstag fire of 1933. The permanent crisis proved to be an excellent
metteur en scene , one who knew how to direct quite a few memorable effects.
Another Sloterdijk passage, which to me suggests Trump and what he stands for:
Fatally, the term "barbarian" is the password that opens up the archives of the twentieth century.
It refers to the despiser of achievement, the vandal, the status denier, the iconoclast, who refuses
to acknowledge any ranking rules or hierarchy. Whoever wishes to understand the twentieth century
must always keep the barbaric factor in view. Precisely in more recent modernity, it was and still
is typical to allow an alliance between barbarism and success before a large audience, initially
more in the form of insensitive imperialism, and today in the costumes of that invasive vulgarity
which advances into virtually all areas through the vehicle of popular culture. That the barbaric
position in twentieth-century Europe was even considered the way forward among the purveyors of
high culture for a time, extending to a messianism of uneducatedness, indeed the utopia of a new
beginning on the clean slate of ignorance, illustrates the extent of the civilizatory crisis this
continent has gone through in the last century and a half – including the cultural revolution
downwards, which runs through the twentieth century in our climes and casts its shadow ahead onto
the twenty-first.
We have not yet seen a left-wing Trump, but we will. That's because Trump is far less a producer
of this decadent culture than a product of the decadent culture. That's why I write in The Benedict
Option that he is no cure for the disease, but rather a symptom of it.
For quite some time now we have had the performative malice of right-wing talk radio hosts, manipulating
the emotions of their listeners for the sake of ratings and political success. (
John Derbyshire wrote well about this a few years ago, for TAC. ) Today we have Milo's campus
cabaret. On the Left, we have had for years to deal with the operatic rituals of political correctness,
which entered into a new, more hysterical stage in 2015. People on both sides are enjoying this hate.
With shared standards abandoned, people are reverting to tribalism, one aspect of which is finding
unity and purpose in rallying against a common enemy.
I suppose this is to be expected in a culture of emotivism, in which people come to think of truth
as what feels good to them. We didn't become emotivists the day before yesterday. This has
been building in our culture for decades, and it is a natural extension of a core quality of the
American character: individualism. On both the Left and the Right, we exalt the individual and his
preferences. We do this in our different ways, with emphases on different aspects of the individual.
But we all do it. Identity politics is what you get when people cease to try to get outside of their
heads, and strive to live by ideals of the common good, and instead limit their politics solely to
what's good for them and their tribe. It is perfectly ordinary politics to contend for one's own
interests, but what makes identity politics so toxic is that it distorts political reality by decontextualizing
the individual. That is to say, we stop thinking about how we, and our kind, relate to the whole,
and focus entirely on ourselves and our desires.
In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes
this farthest, of course, as we can see with its dogmatic insistence that if someone claims to be
a woman or a man, then they are, despite biology. We see this in the Left's obsession with race,
sex, and gender categories. Sometimes it seems that the only people in this country as obsessed with
whiteness as white nationalists is the campus Left.
But I think the identity politics curse affects all of us. To be an identitarian is to start statements
with formulations like, "Speaking as a Latinx lesbian ," and to believe that assertion is the same
thing as argument. To dispute them, they believe, is to deny their personhood. If that is true, then
democracy is impossible.
I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same
manner of thinking -- or rather, not thinking, emotion -- manifested often on the Right. It's as if
we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction that
keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and the Right,
what we want is what we deserve .
The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding
us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords.
And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference.
Mr Cosimano has a point. Every time I leave the confines of American reality as filtered by media,
I am struck by how normal and placid things and people seem. Flying somewhere, for example, you
witness huge groups of people undergoing enormous frustration–from crowding, delays, or just the
imperious incompetence of the airlines. And yet, the incidence of violence, or even speaking out,
is remarkably rare. The same for peoples' behavior on subways, in traffic jams, at most public
events. The occasional freakouts get all the attention, but if you spend enough time in crowded
cities or other environments where humans are exposed to near-torturous incitement, the really
amazing thing is not how much violence and lunacy there is, but given the circumstances how little.
Without doubt, this is Weimar Republic, and it probably cannot hold given the extreme deformations
of the American elite, which as always defines the Zeitgeist through ownership of media, entertainment,
and political propaganda. But the vast majority of Americans, in my experience, while dejected,
disoriented and increasingly angry, are not appreciably different from the Americans of the 1950s.
To a shocking degree, in day to day American life, normalcy still reigns.
As seems to be true of much history, the present West is both a very dark dark age and in other
ways the most dazzling of golden ages.
Eric Erickson is a public supporter of torture to gather intelligence. Now you may agree with
that or not agree, but his moral preening (and most of the warmongering GOP) vis-a-vis Trump is
nauseating to anyone who remembers the Bush years.
Hey, guys: y'all supported a war that killed thousands and screwed up all sorts of lives. I
know it isn't rude Tweets or something, but please realize that Trump's supporters find you obnoxious
hypocrites rather than merely obnoxious.
RE: It's difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals
seem to genuinely believe it is.
Well, follow the money. Who has most benefited from the last forty years of so of government
policy? It sure hasn't been the poor, the working people or the middle class.
What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling
in the heart for this Nation.
I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions
like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer
willing to die for this ruling class.
I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or
so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative
unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service.
The left has been arguing for my entire life that new arrivals and illegals are more American
than those of us who have been here for generations. They've convinced me. So now the new arrivals
and illegals can take of things. There's no way I'd want my children to join the military, and
I'm hard pressed to think of something that would inspire me to risk my life for the country.
In any event, why would the country want some white-privileged, patriarchal, heteronormative,
cis-gendered bigot like me defending it?
And on a different topic, I don't believe the people in these comments who claim they had never
heard of Antifa until last weekend. Anyone who has paid any attention to European news at all
in the past few decades has to have heard of them. They've been prominent for a long time. Either
all of these commentators have been living under various rocks, or they're being dishonest.
Unfortunately, Pence can't stay away from culture war divisiveness, because he's built his reputation
on it, as have so many of his fellow Republicans who might otherwise be able to "heal the wounds"
after the impeachment and/or resignation we all know is coming. The problem is, some 30+ years
ago, Republicans bound themselves to issues that, by nature, don't yield to compromise, which
means they've effectively ruled out any political resolution. Instead of "the art of the possible"
or just Trump's art of the deal, politics has become an ongoing war, which some Republicans fully
acknowledge yet most Democrats keep hoping will disappear once the Religious Right finally fades
away as leftwing pundits predict it is doing after every presidential election cycle, including
2016. Trump's been called a lot of things, but "religious" was never one of them.
The problem is, once Republicans claimed God's will, Democrats had to claim something at least
approaching that sort of high moral commitment, which became, in the case of abortion and related
matters, a Woman's Right to Control Her Own Body, and some other equally non-negotiable values
when the issue was something else. Since nobody compromises on absolutes, and yet compromise is
what politics is all about, American politics has reached stalemate. Literally, metaphorically,
we're not moving. The President might as well become an autocrat signing executive orders as Trump
sees the role, because as a democratic leader he'll just be stymied and obstructed at every turn
(witness Obama's experience from 2010 on).
No wonder no one's jumping to impeach Trump even with the many obstruction of justice possibilities
he's provided. I don't think many believe it's safe to leave an undisciplined amateur loose around
the nuclear codes, but taking the lead on Trump means cleaning up after, which requires politics
as usual, and those people haven't done that in a looong time, and I don't think Republican pols
even trust their uncompromising "base" to let them.
America has gone through crises far harder to manage than this, from Civil War and its aftermath
to world wars and a global economic depression, not to mention the "cultural" upheavals of the
1960s and 70s that in many ways led to the self-inflicted wounds our political parties are going
through right now. God himself has guided his people through religious conflicts far worse. The
main problem facing America right now is a little different from all the great issues swirling
through the world at large. Ours is a specifically political problem, an essential misunderstanding
of what exactly democratic politics can or should do, which Americans being far more religious
than we've ever given ourselves credit for being, tend to conflate with the Christian's vocation
on earth, which is something else again. Ironically, if all we really expected of a President
or our representatives in Washington was something as limited and parochial as Trump's so-called
"art of the deal," we might at least be able to dial down some of this existential angst and doomsday
talk about the end of civilization as we know it. Problem is these fears have allowed some of
the more religious among us to elect an irreligious "pharoah" whose personal dealings have likely
put him on the wrong side of the law. To deal with the real crisis this is bringing about, our
politicians really need to get back to politics as usual, and the best thing religious people
might do to facilitate that process would be to back off and stop conflating Caesar's business
with God's.
How was the "mass assassination attempt" materially different than the attempts on Gabby Giffords,
or Presidents Reagan, Ford, Kennedy, McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or candidate Wallace
(off the top of my head)? Seems to me that, in a nation of 500 million guns, with a gun policy
that holds every man has the right to build his own arsenal, and openly carry any part of that
arsenal on any trip to the local Walmart, or to his weekend white solidarity rally, that sort
of stuff simply is going to happen every so often, and it has .even before Trump was President.
And can anyone tell me when was that time in our past that national politicians didn't try
to spin current events to partisan advantage? I'd really like to know that, because it had to
be before my lifetime, and I'm 68.
No. I think what's different today is the internet, where we find out instantly every travesty
perpetrated by every nut in the world, and, within 15 minutes, a raftful of commentators compete
to tell us what it all means, with the competition most vigorous at the outsides of the opinion
continuum, where a sturm und drang sensibility grips both the left and right.
Eliavy: "His response when asked what he'll do if/when everything falls apart "
To some extent my point is that there will be no falling apart for your husband to worry about.
Maybe a way to define "the center" is as it being the place for people who are far from either
extreme, even though they happen to lean right or left. As you get more towards the middle
I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become
less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they
are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing
to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering
this tendency.
Time will tell but I doubt we'll be seeing any bomb-throwers emerging from the primaries in
the near future. One won't be able to talk of things like deconstructing administrative states
and win nominations"
The pollsters make a big deal out of the observation that there are fewer swing voters than
there used to be. IMO this isn't a product of our country producing some new breed of human, it's
because the sources filtering information to voters have become more fragmented and polemical,
which allows politicians to cling to positions that they would have been forced to abandon in
the past. Similar things have been happening overseas as well -- the starkest of course being Brexit -- but since that vote the trend hasn't continued as many predicted. Brexit rattled a lot of Europeans
in the same way that I think Trump has rattled a lot of folks over here.
Incidentally I don't see us ever finding our way back to the media environment we once had
but what we can begin to do is demand that our sources of information not lie to us. This current
obsession with media bias has masked the widespread growth of media deceit, a far more destructive
state of affairs than the bias problem ever was . IMO pushing back against that is the best way
to create a strong bulwark against things ever "coming apart."
M Young, both a Christopher Columbus statue and an MLK statue were vandalized Thursday
night in Houston. So I guess it's about how white supremacists feel , too?
"And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference.
"
Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some
part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized.
Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling
over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars,
no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc.
Re: likes President Trump better than President Obama (because Trump thus far hasn't affected
his life personally,
Question: How did Obama affect his life? Does your family purchase health insurance from the
individual market?\
Re: He laughs at the idea of getting politically involved.
This is very much someone who is part of the problem, not the solution. And what I am seeing
here is a classic "I got mine (screw you)" ethic. That is utterly reprehensible, and it goes a
long way to explaining why we are in the situation we are.
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American
Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by rejecting the mainstream
Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements, and infrastructure
spending.
For the record: a dubious proposition. The call was more likely either a fig leaf for Bannon's
impending departure, an effort to distance the White House from the nastier white nationalists
in Charlottesville, or both.
I discovered a five hour long radio series that is essentially just a curated interview with Rene
Girard about his work. His prescience grows every day. The Right scapegoats antifa, the Left scapegoats
the Klan.
(Also, before anyone gets excited, the fact that Klan is a genuinely evil organization of terrorists
with over a century of blood on their hands does not stop them from fitting the bill of a Girardian
scapegoat. As in, I'm not saying they're getting a bad rap. Screw the Klan.)
[NFR: I've been thinking that we are headed for a Girardian moment with the president. May
God spare us. Let the reader understand. -- RD]
"Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."
It only tears if both Left and Right pull on the cord with equal strength.
The leaders of the American conservative movement are basically rich boomers. They have given
in on gay marriage, given in on mass immigration, given in on civil war statues .and there is
really not much besides tax cuts they wont eventually give in on.
These boomer Republican just wont to keep the status quo until they die rich in their nice
neighborhoods.
There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to the
Left.
What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling in
the heart for this Nation.
I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions
like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer willing
to die for this ruling class.
There will be no civil war number 2 .but if some other outside massive economic collpase or
military earthquake happened .well who knows.
People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash
heap of history.
I've defended Trump here before, but now I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman
without the (capital-P) Plan.
At least before I could believe that his brashness and intemperate demeanor were in service
of some idea – a map towards economic nationalism and a repudiation of the stultifying political
correctness that has gripped this age. Now who is running this spectacle? Jared? Ivanka? McMaster
and his band of military-industrial globalists? Maybe he can replace Bannon with another Wall
Street bandit insider?
Now, in Trump's defense, we cannot judge this until we see what fruit this bears. Perhaps Bannon
can do more good working from the outside and perhaps Trump's commitment to the ideas that got
him elected are genuine. My biggest fear at this point is that the military-industrial globalists
in his ear will have all sorts of good ideas about how to get those poll numbers back up
Respectfully, Rod, drama queens in the media aren't helping things.
You were already blindsided by the disconnect between the media narrative of a nation in crisis
over Charlottesville and the collective shrug revealed by opinion polls. You and your bubble buddies
would do well to spend less time on Twitter and cable news and more time out talking with your
neighbors. As, indeed, would we all.
Are you really with Erick Erickson though? The problem with him, and the David Frums, and the
Jonah Goldbergs, and the rest of the #NeverTrump conservatives is that they think once Trump is
gone, they are going to slide back into power and everything is going to go back to the way it
was. That's why the obsession with 3.5 years, and with constantly asserting that, "Trump has to
step down after this latest of debacles."
It's like the people who kept saying, at the end of 2016, "I can't wait for this year to be
over." Really?! Do you think that 2017 is going be *better*?
I think contra Erickson, the general argument of this blog (and even this post) is, "there's
no going back," and "once Trump is gone, something worse will follow." That seems much more correct
to me.
[NFR: I don't know Erickson's inner thoughts, but my sense reading this column of his is
that he does not hope for any kind of restoration. I too believe that after Trump, worse will
come (though I don't know what form or forms it will take). -- RD]
"In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes
this farthest, of course, .."
Not sure. The right ( or parts of it) has been pushing the idea that our individual preferences
or desires are all that count ( in its support for an economic system that emphasizes a hollow,
formal notion of freedom). In fact, it's got worse since under the system the right has championed
there's hardly concern with an enduring idea of the person: just ' constantly moving happiness
machines' , really.
Rod, the opening chapter of Macintyre's new book has a brilliant discussion on desire.
Well, golly, Rod. There's another way forward here, too. I think there's a plausible future in
which:
1) Trump gets defenestrated via the 25th amendment;
2) Everyone takes a deep breath, and
3) President Pence behaves like a statesman -- the theme of his administration is to *actually
bind up* the wounds that divide us. So, in addition to trying to address the unease and unrest
of Trump's supporters, he stays away from culture-war nonsense of any stripe.
This last is probably the least likely link in this chain of events, which is unfortunate.
Trump's removal would act as a safety valve through which the built-up rage and pressure on the
left can slowly dissipate, but his successor has to avoid any actions that would build the pressure
right back up.
Most obviously, this means no rollback of LGBT protections by executive order (and of course
no ADVANCE of them, either -- call it a freeze-in-place). But it's not enough for Trump's successor
to say he wants a ceasefire in the culture war. He has to have a positive agenda -- has to have
talking points that emphasize good governance, common sense, and compromise.
And there's got to be follow-through, too. This means having legislative priorities like infrastructure
and tax reform. And it means, in the end, trying to govern a bitterly divided country with relentlessly
bland centrism *because that's what we need* right now -- slow, hard work to rebuild our trust
that America *works*.
I mean, I don't think this is especially LIKELY. But part of the reason I say this is that
everyone is breathing very rapidly into a paper bag right now, and talking about how we're almost
at a breaking point.
Well, maybe we ARE on the precipice, but you know the nice thing about standing on the edge
of a cliff? You can always choose to back away.
Great column, even though I basically disagree with it. Love seeing references to Brecht in a
column about modern America.
I straight up disagree with Continetti's skepticism that Bannon can't form a new coalition.
I don't know if Bannon is the man to do it, but I actually think that that coalition will come
together. Many on the left think that identitarianism is ridiculous. Many in the right think that
white supremacy is abhorrent. Many immigrants think that an open door policy is insanity.
That centrist coalition is just waiting to be built. Maybe the first brick is the Supreme Court
agreeing to hear a case on political (not racial) gerrymandering. That could be the first step
is sidelining the extremists of both sides.
Look the far right and far left matter only because the center is weak. There's no voice speaking
for issues matter to ciyizens who are a bit to left and right of the center.
Even the Repub establishment, with its agenda of tax cuts for the rich, smaller govt and deregulation,
is out of the step with the mass of the party. Voters want a govt that addresses their concerns.
This is why Trump and Sanders did so well last year.
Alt-right, SJW, antifa, Freedom Caucus -- none matter if the two major parties regain their
strength and relevance. That's the most important task before us. Repubs need to end the Hastert
rule and starting reaching across the aisle to allies in the Dem party. We need to end partisan
redistricting and have general elections feature the top two vote getters in the primary.
A moderate, centrist politics, with the extremists unable to gain traction is how this country
revives democracy.
I wish we would try to live with malice toward none, and charity toward all, and guided by the
better angels of our nature. As was once said when we were torn apart before.
"But Antifa is as violent and loved by the left, or at least tolerated."
As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do
not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. Not sure there
was any reference to Antifa in TAC more than two weeks ago. It's hard to love a group one did
not know even existed 300 hours ago.
I'll be honest: last night I went to the grocery store and, along with the usual groceries, I
bought a goodly amount of canned goods for the express reason that there is a madness in the air,
politically. Maybe nothing will happen almost certainly won't. But I don't want to put my family
at any more risk than necessary if there is some sort of massive disruption in society.
Mr. Dreher, This may come across as simplistic, however as a fellow Christian I will point out
a few tenants that you may reflect on. Obviously your work causes you to take sides. As you know
we are not to judge. Gods Commandments and Christs teachings show us how to live. It isn't easy
and we all fall short.The Beatitudes were preached for all who believe. We all have idols and
yet God loves us. Get back to the Word and stop flailing against the world. Thank you.
Don't get drawn into the panic. The mainstream media/instant internet culture thrive on the demand
that we take action now, without reflection. It's the way they compel your compliance.
Political violence is always very bad, but let's be honest it is very low level. We are not
seeing it break out all over. It's the same relatively isolated groups involved (or isolated loners
obsessed with some aspect of the instant media culture). At this point it is being used by people
blowing off steam, not as a threat to compel real political change.
I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman without the (capital-P) Plan
Trump was running on a nationalist platform for a year before hiring Bannon. Bannon can still
influence Trump in the media. For all we know Trump may continue converse directly with Bannon
over the phone, and that Bannon's formal departure from the administration may be merely a means
of appeasing Kelly, McMaster, Cohn, and other antagonists.
(Or Bannon may turn on Trump, or Trump on Bannon. We'll see.)
I am concerned what Bannon's departure means for Afghanistan, but even there, the President
himself is a skeptic of the whole enterprise, which is why the escalation Mattis and McMaster
want has been delayed.
'I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same
manner of thinking -- or rather, not thinking, emotion -- manifested often on the Right.'
Sure you have. Simply turn on your radio right now and on any one of a number of stations,
new vistas of identity politics are there for you to enjoy.
Re: There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to
the Left.
Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward? On social issues– well, maybe–
and really just on the gay stuff– public opinion on abortion has not budged significantly in my
adult life.
Meanwhile economically we've been pulled right– hard right, at least insofar as such policies
have benefited the 1% and their enablers in the upper middle class.
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something
will give. The nation cannot sustain this constant state of chaos and crisis drift for three and
a half more years. We will either see external or internal forces applied that will hurt the nation.
The idea that this can't last for 3.5 more years is simply not true. If you know anything of
history you know that there have been much longer periods of time lived under much greater social
stress. Yes, you can absolutely feel the pressure building. The principles that once bound us
have been abandoned. Liquid modernity has seemingly unmoored everything we thought we knew. The
elite are spectacularly corrupt. We seem to have no ability to confront national issues everyone
knows exist. Populist anger is rising on all sides. The tide is certainly rising, yet we could
very well go on like this for a very long time. However, once the wall has been breached, things
could spin out of control very quickly.
People often compare our time to the Weimar Republic. I think a better German analogy is the
Protestant Reformation/revolution. European society at the time was undergoing rapid change in
the form of the Renaissance. Corruption of the elites – very much including but not limited to
the clergy – had seemingly crystallized. Calls for reform of head and members of the Church went
on unceasingly for decades with no urgency from the elites. Nationalism was rising in all corners.
Enter the bombastic figure of Martin Luther. Much like Trump he was vulgar, hot temptered and
completely unable to accept criticism without responding with a vitriol that would make Steve
Bannon blush. He used the word papist much like Trump uses fake news. Most importantly he knew
how to work the populist crowd and how to use the communications revolution of his day (the printing
press) to speak directly to the people via countless pamphlets. The elites had both lost their
credibility and were slow to respond.
Luther blasted through the walls holding Christendom together. Will Trump be the cannon ball
shot through through the American system? It's impossible to know, but it's far from a sure thing.
Christendom healed itself countless times before those fateful events of 500 years ago.
"It's as if we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction
that keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and
the Right, what we want is what we deserve."
It seems to me that everyone is becoming so confident in the righteousness of their anger that
they are losing the ability to feel empathy for anyone else.
Trump is a drama queen but also a blowhard, and despite the efforts to manufacture panic and cynicism
actually has a middle of the road agenda. His agenda is khaki not zubaz.
The danger is not Trump, the danger is the establishment response to Trump. He's one guy, they
are many. He is an outsider, they consider 'our' government is theirs. He'll be gone one day,
they will stay. They are trying to provoke a crisis in every way possible to discredit him. The
real danger comes from inside the system because they will destroy rather than have it fall out
of their hand (like one of those African dictators who refused to accept the outcome of an election).
The correct way to deal with Trump would be to bore him by routine and wait out the time until
they can take over again and complete their final plan to sell us all as sex slaves to Arabs.
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something
will give.
I am sorry I see Erick Erickson as part of the problem saying Obama in 2014 "Hates America"
and called "The Left ISIS." Right wing identity politics has been around for a good long while
and went fairly wild during the Obama years.
In terms, it has gotten to point where the Left should follow the military and learn to ignore
our President. Let him say what he wants to get attention while we withdraw from his nonsense
and focus protesting on the right policy. (like Healthcare.)
Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right.
(Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.)
Bannon probably won Trump the election with Hillary "Evil In Her Heart!" Clinton campaign but
he was ineffective (like Trump) at governing because the EVIL HRC had diminishing returns after
November.
"People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash
heap of history." Actually by 1970 we knew the Soviet Union was going to fall. We just did not
know when or by what mechanism. I would not worry too much. It's a big country and the bulk of
the people are too busy enjoying summer to get very excited about any of this. It's like murders
on the South Side of Chicago, something that gets on the news but really has no impact on your
life.
I really like what JZ said. Remember, the Protestant Revolution was the best thing that happened
to the west since Romulus looked at the Sabines and said, "Rome needs women!"
Following Luther, the West became more powerful than ever. Along with kicking the Papal elite
from their pedestal and smashing their faces into the mud, the Turkish Menace was crushed, Western
armies spread Western civilization across the world and western science has done unimaginable
things.
We have stood upon the Moon and sent our message to the stars.
I still say everything will remain relatively quiet as long as pro sports, college sports, and
giant American vehicles are around. Don't forget, Rod, your job is monitoring this stuff, so it
looms larger to you than to many of us. I would venture to say that at least half the people I
know don't know what Antifa is.
That said, go ahead and stockpile water and canned goods. If all turns out well, you'll end
up with a nice big donation to a food drive, and if all doesn't go well
I will start taking Antifa and the Nazi wanna-bes seriously when the ruling class does. So
far, they have done little or nothing to stop or to encourage either side.
I was wrong about Bannon yesterday -- was it only yesterday? -- so get your salt out.
I don't think we're necessarily headed for worse. The failure of Trump, of which there's much
more to come, is more likely to be a cautionary tale on the Republican side. The question 'what
have we got to lose' has been answered: anything worth having.
Is Gov Kasich the front-runner for 2020 right now? Why not?
On the Dem side, none of the contenders are going to be even close to the rails, much less
off them. Here again, Trump is the cautionary tale: we were right about snake oil, so, what, we're
going to try buying our own next time? Don't bet on it.
(IMO, it's a bad idea to try to predict Democratic positioning based on the utterances of people
who (a) wouldn't be caught dead identifying as a Democrat and (b) don't vote anyway.)
Watch the red state Dem senators in 2018. Watch the Dem governors.
redbrick: "I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I
and millions like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts.
No longer willing to die for this ruling class."
This is one of the saddest comments I have heard recently from anyone left or right.
If a significant mass of hard-working, everyday people are so dis-spirited they believe their
fellow Americans don't care about protecting their future, and give up on the idea of defending
the idea of America, we're already finished.
The Left will congratulate itself as it carves up the pieces, paving the way for a new dictatorship.
I hope you're wrong, Rod. And redbrick, please don't lose hope completely.
To blame Trump or think he's causing the decline, even if he is in some ways representative of
it, is completely false. Trump was elected because the interests of the greedy staus quo elites
no longer align with those of a huge swathe of the population. A Clinton victory would have merely
been a delusion for the ruling class that even if not all is well, they had managed to put a lid
on it and could continue, unsteady as she goes. There are the real philistines and barbarians,
responsible for the Goldman Sacking of the Empire. And to a large degree, they are intentionally
fomenting the chaos with their own brand of fake news, in the hopes to impose their unchallenged
rule.
Bannon gone? Wonder who else is left who doesn't want to expand all the wars and fix domestic
infrastructure.
Trump as that "scoundrel" Luther? Gimme a break! It's definitely Weimar, with all the churches
compromised. Attend an RC church in The Castro and see what I mean.
What a nostalgia trip! Nothing like a forecast of societal collapse or civil war to send me right
back to '69. Such forecasts got into print fairly regularly back then, including some by Marxists
who salivated at the thought of literal, armed class war the way a certain strain of white supremacist
salivates at the thought of race war. Nobody on any side predicted that the whole thing would
simmer down by 1975.
The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status
quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon
Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations.
That's right on target, and it was the most disappointing thing about Barack Obama. Some of
us Sanders voters would like just a select bit of Ron Paul grafted in. You know, the kind of commies
who are also lifetime members of the NRA. (I'm not, but I've known some.) Actually I'm thinking
more of bitter clingers who DID vote for Obama.
It is also possible that much, if not all of the cultural angst detailed on this site is the result
of a single phenomenon. Namely, a relatively affluent society where individuals can spend vast
amounts of time online demanding validation for every single opinion, thought and whimsy without
even the slightest twinge of humor or circumspection. Nothing done while angry usually amounts
to anything constructive. Voting and tweeting especially.
Computer Mediated Paranoia is indeed a thing. Resist both it and the urge to stock canned goods.
Unless they contain chili, pork n' beans and other items that you can utilize for a tailgate party
during the upcoming college and pro football season. An event which will once again unite all
Americans regardless of race, religion or creed.
In the election of 2016 American voters hated both of the candidates of the major parties. Since
both could not lose, Trump achieved victory by such a thin margin he lost the popular vote. This
was perhaps a pity because Clinton may be closer to sane than Trump. But right now Democrats see
a wonderful opportunity to take back control of Congress next year, and perhaps dump Trump in
2020.
When the illiberal NeoBolshevik left gets the reigns of power you and I will be practicing your
Benedict Option in a Gulag in Death Valley while our children are taught the joys of diversity
and why they should hate their Christian parents in Reeducation camps with rainbow flags flying
out front. The Revolution is not coming it is here. Arm yourselves and prepare to fight to for
the Kingdom of God and for your children whom He gave you authority over and a duty to protect
with your life.
Only one thing to quote, here, again, as often as it has been quoted before, from the Sword of
Honour trilogy by Evelyn Waugh; its appositeness may not be immediately apparent, but I think
it will become so:
'"Is there any place that is free from evil? It is too simple to say that only the Nazis wanted
war. These Communists wanted it too. It was the only way in which they could come to power. Many
of my people wanted it, to be revenged on the Germans, to hasten the creation of the national
state. It seems to me there was a will to war, a death wish, everywhere. Even good men thought
their private honour would be satisfied by war. They could assert their manhood by killing and
being killed. They would accept hardships in recompense for having been selfish and lazy. Danger
justified privilege. I knew Italians-not very many perhaps-who felt this. Were there none in England?"
"God forgive me," said Guy. "I was one of them."'
All the buzzards are gathering around to grab at the corpses, watching with interested eyes.
To clarify, we cannot worry that the Republic will be undone by loopy 80s b-grade pseudo-celebrity
any more than we would believe that a guy who called himself "Barry" as as teenager and, by some
accounts, had a pretty decent jumpshot, was/is the antichrist.
The founding fathers are surely not weeping, but are instead looking down/up/askance at us
and chuckling a bit. The system was intentionally structured in a manner that did indeed allow
for the election of an idiot in certain circumstances, and conversely, the removal of said idiot
in due time. We will survive.
JZ, your equating Trump with Luther is just inane at best. I would prefer not to believe you're
truly that dishonest.
Luther was passionate for God, while Trump cares only about himself. Luther was a "man on fire,"
but Trump is as lifeless looking a human being as anyone I've ever seen. Luther was indeed vulgar,
as the Lord Jesus could be, but Trump is vile.
Most important, Luther exalted the Bible as the Word of God, while Trump acknowledges only
himself as a point of reference.
I never see anything from Protestants in these comments which comes close to equalling the
animosity toward Catholics which Catholics direct so easily toward Protestants.
As well, Eastern Orthodox commenters are always respectful.
This is the most splenetic I've ever been in a comment on Rod's blogs, but I'm really tired
of it.
Catholic theology holds that we Protestants are "separated brethren." Why don't you heed your
theologians and stop insulting your brothers?
Pelosi wants the Confederate statues in the Capitol removed. That's just priceless! Why didn't
she have them removed when she was Speaker of the House? If I'm Paul Ryan, I just say, "That's
your problem Nancy – all of those Confederate statues are Democrats. You clean up your own mess."
Again I ask – what mindset dominates on the Left? Is it constitutional democrats? Socialist Revolutionaries?
Mensheviks? Bolsheviks? Do Bolsheviks in the end always win, because they lead the leftist reasoning
to its rational conclusion, but it only takes them more time with the West than it did with Russia?
And what is the "alt-right" answer to this? Just white racism and a desire for a white ethno-state?
Is there any common vision among counter-revolutionaries on what to do? Because the Left I think
is very united by its usual vision – destruction and anti-culture
RD: " I too believe that after Trump, worse will come (though I don't know what form or forms
it will take)."
Rod forgive the snark but really, isn't that a pretty good summation of the Dreher Worldview?
(I actually tried to put a "TM" after that like you do but couldn't figure out hie to do it.)
"The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding
us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."
I would challenge that this way: how much do you really know about the center? The people in
the center? Because that's what we're really talking about here, millions and millions of moderate
and decent American people. Hundreds of millions actually. And they haven't gone anywhere. But
what has happened to them is that they've been shellshocked by this Trump mess. In fact most are
probably still in denial that this has happened to this great country.
What this Trump scare likely portends for the future is a frustratingly long run of moderate
voting, eventually begetting lots and lots of moderate politicians. The pendulum always swings
back.
"Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward?"
This is what I view as the biggest problem in America today. We all believe we're losing. I,
and most conservatives I know, genuinely feel that the country is moving ever leftwards. It's
difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals seem to
genuinely believe it is.
I think that part of it is that we tend to see the other side as monolithic (ignoring the differences
between Obama and the radical left, or between a Marco Rubio type and Donald Trump). We also tend
to focus on the areas where we don't get our way. Also, we tend to overemphasize the importance
to our opponents of their own victories.
It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory
for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against
the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of
the establishment.
Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor'
(untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former
heroes will remain unscathed.
Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized
as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been
a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives
in the hall a statuary.
You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they
are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel
KevinS: As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do
not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not.
I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at
Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks
thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff?
Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left
middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics.
It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because
of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral
College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures
like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops.
It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down.
The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the
left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society.
The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville,
Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really
major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating
in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign.
The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his
usual rallies at some midwestern venue.
The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically
radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially
the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,)
and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice
of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will
be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at
stake.
Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict
chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the
air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres
of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the
evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed
with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has
done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and
brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily
happening.
The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming
widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency
consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership
must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there
will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes.
Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.
Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy
initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the
Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides
from freelancing.
"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.
Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve
political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes.
Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.
Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy
initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the
Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides
from freelancing.
"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.
Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve
political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.
"... The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations ..."
"... What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all. ..."
"... What we have are four parties: The mainstream Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders. ..."
"... White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect ..."
"... But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found. ..."
"... Threepenny Opera ..."
"... metteur en scene ..."
"... The Benedict Option ..."
"... I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service. ..."
"... As you get more towards the middle I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering this tendency. ..."
"... "And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference. " ..."
"... Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized. ..."
"... Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars, no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc. ..."
"... Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right. (Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.) ..."
"... It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of the establishment. ..."
"... M_Young , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm ..."
"... Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor' (untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former heroes will remain unscathed. ..."
"... Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives in the hall a statuary. ..."
"... You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel ..."
"... James Hartwick , says: August 19, 2017 at 12:33 am ..."
"... KevinS: As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. ..."
"... I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff? ..."
"... Also, while TAC doesn't seem to have had many articles about antifa (others have covered that topic more thoroughly), Rod did mention it back in January, when a masked antifa sucker punched white nationalist Richard Spencer on the street and The Nation's Natasha Lennard praised him . ..."
"... Hound of Ulster , says: August 19, 2017 at 4:33 am ..."
"... Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics. ..."
"... It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops. ..."
"... John , says: August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am ..."
"... It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down. ..."
"... The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society. The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville, Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign. ..."
"... The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his usual rallies at some midwestern venue. ..."
"... The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,) and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at stake. ..."
"... Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily happening. ..."
"... The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway. ..."
Making things more complicated is the fact that there are more than these two parties. Drutman
also found divisions within the Democrats. "To the extent that the Democratic Party is divided,
these divisions are more about faith in the political system and general disaffection than they
are about issue positions." The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton
is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies
that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations .
What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical
on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party
of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all.
Recent events have brought to light the distinction between the party of Trump and the GOP.
But it would be foolish for Democrats to believe that they are out of the woods, that America
has settled, for the moment, on a three-party system. What we have are four parties: The mainstream
Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders.
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal
American Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by
rejecting the mainstream Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements,
and infrastructure spending.
But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity
take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break
between left and right is found.
President Trump's isolation from the party whose nomination he wrested from insiders and scions
is just part of a larger trend in American society and politics. The widening divisions within
and between parties are symptoms of our
fractured republic , of the unbundling, disaggregation, and
dissociation
of our communal lives. Mounting political violence, too, is a consequence of the polarization
that estranges Americans from one another and turns every disagreement into an apocalyptic battle
royal. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, and Sanders are pulling the mystic cords of memory in four different
directions. And they won't quit doing so. Until the cords snap.
It is striking how so many people are eager to exacerbate our divisions for political gain. As
Continetti indicates, Steve Bannon has a theory that if he can get culture-war Democrats distracted
by race, he can forge a new coalition. He told the liberal editor Robert Kuttner that it makes him
happy to see all the fighting over statues, because in theory, it makes it possible for him to get
done what he wants to get done. The best spin you can put on that is that it's breathtakingly cynical.
But now we have this from the other side:
You do know, I trust, that in all the years that Nancy Pelosi was House speaker, she never said
a peep about those abominable Confederate statues. But now she can energize her base with it, so
here we are.
Trump will say or do something outrageous today that will ratchet up the tension. And then his
enemies will respond in kind. It's all starting to bring to mind this passage from the contemporary
German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, describing the Weimar Republic:
Theatricality appeared to be the common denominator of all manifestations of life – from Expressionism
to Marlene Dietrich's spectacular legs in Blue Angel ; from the bloody comedy of Hitler's
1923 putsch to Brecht's Threepenny Opera ; from the impressive funeral of Rathenau to
the calculated banditry of the Reichstag fire of 1933. The permanent crisis proved to be an excellent
metteur en scene , one who knew how to direct quite a few memorable effects.
Another Sloterdijk passage, which to me suggests Trump and what he stands for:
Fatally, the term "barbarian" is the password that opens up the archives of the twentieth century.
It refers to the despiser of achievement, the vandal, the status denier, the iconoclast, who refuses
to acknowledge any ranking rules or hierarchy. Whoever wishes to understand the twentieth century
must always keep the barbaric factor in view. Precisely in more recent modernity, it was and still
is typical to allow an alliance between barbarism and success before a large audience, initially
more in the form of insensitive imperialism, and today in the costumes of that invasive vulgarity
which advances into virtually all areas through the vehicle of popular culture. That the barbaric
position in twentieth-century Europe was even considered the way forward among the purveyors of
high culture for a time, extending to a messianism of uneducatedness, indeed the utopia of a new
beginning on the clean slate of ignorance, illustrates the extent of the civilizatory crisis this
continent has gone through in the last century and a half – including the cultural revolution
downwards, which runs through the twentieth century in our climes and casts its shadow ahead onto
the twenty-first.
We have not yet seen a left-wing Trump, but we will. That's because Trump is far less a producer
of this decadent culture than a product of the decadent culture. That's why I write in The Benedict
Option that he is no cure for the disease, but rather a symptom of it.
For quite some time now we have had the performative malice of right-wing talk radio hosts, manipulating
the emotions of their listeners for the sake of ratings and political success. (
John Derbyshire wrote well about this a few years ago, for TAC. ) Today we have Milo's campus
cabaret. On the Left, we have had for years to deal with the operatic rituals of political correctness,
which entered into a new, more hysterical stage in 2015. People on both sides are enjoying this hate.
With shared standards abandoned, people are reverting to tribalism, one aspect of which is finding
unity and purpose in rallying against a common enemy.
I suppose this is to be expected in a culture of emotivism, in which people come to think of truth
as what feels good to them. We didn't become emotivists the day before yesterday. This has
been building in our culture for decades, and it is a natural extension of a core quality of the
American character: individualism. On both the Left and the Right, we exalt the individual and his
preferences. We do this in our different ways, with emphases on different aspects of the individual.
But we all do it. Identity politics is what you get when people cease to try to get outside of their
heads, and strive to live by ideals of the common good, and instead limit their politics solely to
what's good for them and their tribe. It is perfectly ordinary politics to contend for one's own
interests, but what makes identity politics so toxic is that it distorts political reality by decontextualizing
the individual. That is to say, we stop thinking about how we, and our kind, relate to the whole,
and focus entirely on ourselves and our desires.
In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes
this farthest, of course, as we can see with its dogmatic insistence that if someone claims to be
a woman or a man, then they are, despite biology. We see this in the Left's obsession with race,
sex, and gender categories. Sometimes it seems that the only people in this country as obsessed with
whiteness as white nationalists is the campus Left.
But I think the identity politics curse affects all of us. To be an identitarian is to start statements
with formulations like, "Speaking as a Latinx lesbian ," and to believe that assertion is the same
thing as argument. To dispute them, they believe, is to deny their personhood. If that is true, then
democracy is impossible.
I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same
manner of thinking -- or rather, not thinking, emotion -- manifested often on the Right. It's as if
we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction that
keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and the Right,
what we want is what we deserve .
The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding
us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords.
And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference.
Mr Cosimano has a point. Every time I leave the confines of American reality as filtered by media,
I am struck by how normal and placid things and people seem. Flying somewhere, for example, you
witness huge groups of people undergoing enormous frustration–from crowding, delays, or just the
imperious incompetence of the airlines. And yet, the incidence of violence, or even speaking out,
is remarkably rare. The same for peoples' behavior on subways, in traffic jams, at most public
events. The occasional freakouts get all the attention, but if you spend enough time in crowded
cities or other environments where humans are exposed to near-torturous incitement, the really
amazing thing is not how much violence and lunacy there is, but given the circumstances how little.
Without doubt, this is Weimar Republic, and it probably cannot hold given the extreme deformations
of the American elite, which as always defines the Zeitgeist through ownership of media, entertainment,
and political propaganda. But the vast majority of Americans, in my experience, while dejected,
disoriented and increasingly angry, are not appreciably different from the Americans of the 1950s.
To a shocking degree, in day to day American life, normalcy still reigns.
As seems to be true of much history, the present West is both a very dark dark age and in other
ways the most dazzling of golden ages.
Eric Erickson is a public supporter of torture to gather intelligence. Now you may agree with
that or not agree, but his moral preening (and most of the warmongering GOP) vis-a-vis Trump is
nauseating to anyone who remembers the Bush years.
Hey, guys: y'all supported a war that killed thousands and screwed up all sorts of lives. I
know it isn't rude Tweets or something, but please realize that Trump's supporters find you obnoxious
hypocrites rather than merely obnoxious.
RE: It's difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals
seem to genuinely believe it is.
Well, follow the money. Who has most benefited from the last forty years of so of government
policy? It sure hasn't been the poor, the working people or the middle class.
What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling
in the heart for this Nation.
I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions
like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer
willing to die for this ruling class.
I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or
so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative
unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service.
The left has been arguing for my entire life that new arrivals and illegals are more American
than those of us who have been here for generations. They've convinced me. So now the new arrivals
and illegals can take of things. There's no way I'd want my children to join the military, and
I'm hard pressed to think of something that would inspire me to risk my life for the country.
In any event, why would the country want some white-privileged, patriarchal, heteronormative,
cis-gendered bigot like me defending it?
And on a different topic, I don't believe the people in these comments who claim they had never
heard of Antifa until last weekend. Anyone who has paid any attention to European news at all
in the past few decades has to have heard of them. They've been prominent for a long time. Either
all of these commentators have been living under various rocks, or they're being dishonest.
Unfortunately, Pence can't stay away from culture war divisiveness, because he's built his reputation
on it, as have so many of his fellow Republicans who might otherwise be able to "heal the wounds"
after the impeachment and/or resignation we all know is coming. The problem is, some 30+ years
ago, Republicans bound themselves to issues that, by nature, don't yield to compromise, which
means they've effectively ruled out any political resolution. Instead of "the art of the possible"
or just Trump's art of the deal, politics has become an ongoing war, which some Republicans fully
acknowledge yet most Democrats keep hoping will disappear once the Religious Right finally fades
away as leftwing pundits predict it is doing after every presidential election cycle, including
2016. Trump's been called a lot of things, but "religious" was never one of them.
The problem is, once Republicans claimed God's will, Democrats had to claim something at least
approaching that sort of high moral commitment, which became, in the case of abortion and related
matters, a Woman's Right to Control Her Own Body, and some other equally non-negotiable values
when the issue was something else. Since nobody compromises on absolutes, and yet compromise is
what politics is all about, American politics has reached stalemate. Literally, metaphorically,
we're not moving. The President might as well become an autocrat signing executive orders as Trump
sees the role, because as a democratic leader he'll just be stymied and obstructed at every turn
(witness Obama's experience from 2010 on).
No wonder no one's jumping to impeach Trump even with the many obstruction of justice possibilities
he's provided. I don't think many believe it's safe to leave an undisciplined amateur loose around
the nuclear codes, but taking the lead on Trump means cleaning up after, which requires politics
as usual, and those people haven't done that in a looong time, and I don't think Republican pols
even trust their uncompromising "base" to let them.
America has gone through crises far harder to manage than this, from Civil War and its aftermath
to world wars and a global economic depression, not to mention the "cultural" upheavals of the
1960s and 70s that in many ways led to the self-inflicted wounds our political parties are going
through right now. God himself has guided his people through religious conflicts far worse. The
main problem facing America right now is a little different from all the great issues swirling
through the world at large. Ours is a specifically political problem, an essential misunderstanding
of what exactly democratic politics can or should do, which Americans being far more religious
than we've ever given ourselves credit for being, tend to conflate with the Christian's vocation
on earth, which is something else again. Ironically, if all we really expected of a President
or our representatives in Washington was something as limited and parochial as Trump's so-called
"art of the deal," we might at least be able to dial down some of this existential angst and doomsday
talk about the end of civilization as we know it. Problem is these fears have allowed some of
the more religious among us to elect an irreligious "pharoah" whose personal dealings have likely
put him on the wrong side of the law. To deal with the real crisis this is bringing about, our
politicians really need to get back to politics as usual, and the best thing religious people
might do to facilitate that process would be to back off and stop conflating Caesar's business
with God's.
How was the "mass assassination attempt" materially different than the attempts on Gabby Giffords,
or Presidents Reagan, Ford, Kennedy, McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or candidate Wallace
(off the top of my head)? Seems to me that, in a nation of 500 million guns, with a gun policy
that holds every man has the right to build his own arsenal, and openly carry any part of that
arsenal on any trip to the local Walmart, or to his weekend white solidarity rally, that sort
of stuff simply is going to happen every so often, and it has .even before Trump was President.
And can anyone tell me when was that time in our past that national politicians didn't try
to spin current events to partisan advantage? I'd really like to know that, because it had to
be before my lifetime, and I'm 68.
No. I think what's different today is the internet, where we find out instantly every travesty
perpetrated by every nut in the world, and, within 15 minutes, a raftful of commentators compete
to tell us what it all means, with the competition most vigorous at the outsides of the opinion
continuum, where a sturm und drang sensibility grips both the left and right.
Eliavy: "His response when asked what he'll do if/when everything falls apart "
To some extent my point is that there will be no falling apart for your husband to worry about.
Maybe a way to define "the center" is as it being the place for people who are far from either
extreme, even though they happen to lean right or left. As you get more towards the middle
I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become
less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they
are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing
to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering
this tendency.
Time will tell but I doubt we'll be seeing any bomb-throwers emerging from the primaries in
the near future. One won't be able to talk of things like deconstructing administrative states
and win nominations"
The pollsters make a big deal out of the observation that there are fewer swing voters than
there used to be. IMO this isn't a product of our country producing some new breed of human, it's
because the sources filtering information to voters have become more fragmented and polemical,
which allows politicians to cling to positions that they would have been forced to abandon in
the past. Similar things have been happening overseas as well -- the starkest of course being Brexit -- but since that vote the trend hasn't continued as many predicted. Brexit rattled a lot of Europeans
in the same way that I think Trump has rattled a lot of folks over here.
Incidentally I don't see us ever finding our way back to the media environment we once had
but what we can begin to do is demand that our sources of information not lie to us. This current
obsession with media bias has masked the widespread growth of media deceit, a far more destructive
state of affairs than the bias problem ever was . IMO pushing back against that is the best way
to create a strong bulwark against things ever "coming apart."
M Young, both a Christopher Columbus statue and an MLK statue were vandalized Thursday
night in Houston. So I guess it's about how white supremacists feel , too?
"And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference.
"
Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some
part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized.
Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling
over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars,
no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc.
Re: likes President Trump better than President Obama (because Trump thus far hasn't affected
his life personally,
Question: How did Obama affect his life? Does your family purchase health insurance from the
individual market?\
Re: He laughs at the idea of getting politically involved.
This is very much someone who is part of the problem, not the solution. And what I am seeing
here is a classic "I got mine (screw you)" ethic. That is utterly reprehensible, and it goes a
long way to explaining why we are in the situation we are.
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American
Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by rejecting the mainstream
Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements, and infrastructure
spending.
For the record: a dubious proposition. The call was more likely either a fig leaf for Bannon's
impending departure, an effort to distance the White House from the nastier white nationalists
in Charlottesville, or both.
I discovered a five hour long radio series that is essentially just a curated interview with Rene
Girard about his work. His prescience grows every day. The Right scapegoats antifa, the Left scapegoats
the Klan.
(Also, before anyone gets excited, the fact that Klan is a genuinely evil organization of terrorists
with over a century of blood on their hands does not stop them from fitting the bill of a Girardian
scapegoat. As in, I'm not saying they're getting a bad rap. Screw the Klan.)
[NFR: I've been thinking that we are headed for a Girardian moment with the president. May
God spare us. Let the reader understand. -- RD]
"Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."
It only tears if both Left and Right pull on the cord with equal strength.
The leaders of the American conservative movement are basically rich boomers. They have given
in on gay marriage, given in on mass immigration, given in on civil war statues .and there is
really not much besides tax cuts they wont eventually give in on.
These boomer Republican just wont to keep the status quo until they die rich in their nice
neighborhoods.
There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to the
Left.
What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling in
the heart for this Nation.
I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions
like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer willing
to die for this ruling class.
There will be no civil war number 2 .but if some other outside massive economic collpase or
military earthquake happened .well who knows.
People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash
heap of history.
I've defended Trump here before, but now I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman
without the (capital-P) Plan.
At least before I could believe that his brashness and intemperate demeanor were in service
of some idea – a map towards economic nationalism and a repudiation of the stultifying political
correctness that has gripped this age. Now who is running this spectacle? Jared? Ivanka? McMaster
and his band of military-industrial globalists? Maybe he can replace Bannon with another Wall
Street bandit insider?
Now, in Trump's defense, we cannot judge this until we see what fruit this bears. Perhaps Bannon
can do more good working from the outside and perhaps Trump's commitment to the ideas that got
him elected are genuine. My biggest fear at this point is that the military-industrial globalists
in his ear will have all sorts of good ideas about how to get those poll numbers back up
Respectfully, Rod, drama queens in the media aren't helping things.
You were already blindsided by the disconnect between the media narrative of a nation in crisis
over Charlottesville and the collective shrug revealed by opinion polls. You and your bubble buddies
would do well to spend less time on Twitter and cable news and more time out talking with your
neighbors. As, indeed, would we all.
Are you really with Erick Erickson though? The problem with him, and the David Frums, and the
Jonah Goldbergs, and the rest of the #NeverTrump conservatives is that they think once Trump is
gone, they are going to slide back into power and everything is going to go back to the way it
was. That's why the obsession with 3.5 years, and with constantly asserting that, "Trump has to
step down after this latest of debacles."
It's like the people who kept saying, at the end of 2016, "I can't wait for this year to be
over." Really?! Do you think that 2017 is going be *better*?
I think contra Erickson, the general argument of this blog (and even this post) is, "there's
no going back," and "once Trump is gone, something worse will follow." That seems much more correct
to me.
[NFR: I don't know Erickson's inner thoughts, but my sense reading this column of his is
that he does not hope for any kind of restoration. I too believe that after Trump, worse will
come (though I don't know what form or forms it will take). -- RD]
"In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes
this farthest, of course, .."
Not sure. The right ( or parts of it) has been pushing the idea that our individual preferences
or desires are all that count ( in its support for an economic system that emphasizes a hollow,
formal notion of freedom). In fact, it's got worse since under the system the right has championed
there's hardly concern with an enduring idea of the person: just ' constantly moving happiness
machines' , really.
Rod, the opening chapter of Macintyre's new book has a brilliant discussion on desire.
Well, golly, Rod. There's another way forward here, too. I think there's a plausible future in
which:
1) Trump gets defenestrated via the 25th amendment;
2) Everyone takes a deep breath, and
3) President Pence behaves like a statesman -- the theme of his administration is to *actually
bind up* the wounds that divide us. So, in addition to trying to address the unease and unrest
of Trump's supporters, he stays away from culture-war nonsense of any stripe.
This last is probably the least likely link in this chain of events, which is unfortunate.
Trump's removal would act as a safety valve through which the built-up rage and pressure on the
left can slowly dissipate, but his successor has to avoid any actions that would build the pressure
right back up.
Most obviously, this means no rollback of LGBT protections by executive order (and of course
no ADVANCE of them, either -- call it a freeze-in-place). But it's not enough for Trump's successor
to say he wants a ceasefire in the culture war. He has to have a positive agenda -- has to have
talking points that emphasize good governance, common sense, and compromise.
And there's got to be follow-through, too. This means having legislative priorities like infrastructure
and tax reform. And it means, in the end, trying to govern a bitterly divided country with relentlessly
bland centrism *because that's what we need* right now -- slow, hard work to rebuild our trust
that America *works*.
I mean, I don't think this is especially LIKELY. But part of the reason I say this is that
everyone is breathing very rapidly into a paper bag right now, and talking about how we're almost
at a breaking point.
Well, maybe we ARE on the precipice, but you know the nice thing about standing on the edge
of a cliff? You can always choose to back away.
Great column, even though I basically disagree with it. Love seeing references to Brecht in a
column about modern America.
I straight up disagree with Continetti's skepticism that Bannon can't form a new coalition.
I don't know if Bannon is the man to do it, but I actually think that that coalition will come
together. Many on the left think that identitarianism is ridiculous. Many in the right think that
white supremacy is abhorrent. Many immigrants think that an open door policy is insanity.
That centrist coalition is just waiting to be built. Maybe the first brick is the Supreme Court
agreeing to hear a case on political (not racial) gerrymandering. That could be the first step
is sidelining the extremists of both sides.
Look the far right and far left matter only because the center is weak. There's no voice speaking
for issues matter to ciyizens who are a bit to left and right of the center.
Even the Repub establishment, with its agenda of tax cuts for the rich, smaller govt and deregulation,
is out of the step with the mass of the party. Voters want a govt that addresses their concerns.
This is why Trump and Sanders did so well last year.
Alt-right, SJW, antifa, Freedom Caucus -- none matter if the two major parties regain their
strength and relevance. That's the most important task before us. Repubs need to end the Hastert
rule and starting reaching across the aisle to allies in the Dem party. We need to end partisan
redistricting and have general elections feature the top two vote getters in the primary.
A moderate, centrist politics, with the extremists unable to gain traction is how this country
revives democracy.
I wish we would try to live with malice toward none, and charity toward all, and guided by the
better angels of our nature. As was once said when we were torn apart before.
"But Antifa is as violent and loved by the left, or at least tolerated."
As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do
not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. Not sure there
was any reference to Antifa in TAC more than two weeks ago. It's hard to love a group one did
not know even existed 300 hours ago.
I'll be honest: last night I went to the grocery store and, along with the usual groceries, I
bought a goodly amount of canned goods for the express reason that there is a madness in the air,
politically. Maybe nothing will happen almost certainly won't. But I don't want to put my family
at any more risk than necessary if there is some sort of massive disruption in society.
Mr. Dreher, This may come across as simplistic, however as a fellow Christian I will point out
a few tenants that you may reflect on. Obviously your work causes you to take sides. As you know
we are not to judge. Gods Commandments and Christs teachings show us how to live. It isn't easy
and we all fall short.The Beatitudes were preached for all who believe. We all have idols and
yet God loves us. Get back to the Word and stop flailing against the world. Thank you.
Don't get drawn into the panic. The mainstream media/instant internet culture thrive on the demand
that we take action now, without reflection. It's the way they compel your compliance.
Political violence is always very bad, but let's be honest it is very low level. We are not
seeing it break out all over. It's the same relatively isolated groups involved (or isolated loners
obsessed with some aspect of the instant media culture). At this point it is being used by people
blowing off steam, not as a threat to compel real political change.
I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman without the (capital-P) Plan
Trump was running on a nationalist platform for a year before hiring Bannon. Bannon can still
influence Trump in the media. For all we know Trump may continue converse directly with Bannon
over the phone, and that Bannon's formal departure from the administration may be merely a means
of appeasing Kelly, McMaster, Cohn, and other antagonists.
(Or Bannon may turn on Trump, or Trump on Bannon. We'll see.)
I am concerned what Bannon's departure means for Afghanistan, but even there, the President
himself is a skeptic of the whole enterprise, which is why the escalation Mattis and McMaster
want has been delayed.
'I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same
manner of thinking -- or rather, not thinking, emotion -- manifested often on the Right.'
Sure you have. Simply turn on your radio right now and on any one of a number of stations,
new vistas of identity politics are there for you to enjoy.
Re: There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to
the Left.
Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward? On social issues– well, maybe–
and really just on the gay stuff– public opinion on abortion has not budged significantly in my
adult life.
Meanwhile economically we've been pulled right– hard right, at least insofar as such policies
have benefited the 1% and their enablers in the upper middle class.
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something
will give. The nation cannot sustain this constant state of chaos and crisis drift for three and
a half more years. We will either see external or internal forces applied that will hurt the nation.
The idea that this can't last for 3.5 more years is simply not true. If you know anything of
history you know that there have been much longer periods of time lived under much greater social
stress. Yes, you can absolutely feel the pressure building. The principles that once bound us
have been abandoned. Liquid modernity has seemingly unmoored everything we thought we knew. The
elite are spectacularly corrupt. We seem to have no ability to confront national issues everyone
knows exist. Populist anger is rising on all sides. The tide is certainly rising, yet we could
very well go on like this for a very long time. However, once the wall has been breached, things
could spin out of control very quickly.
People often compare our time to the Weimar Republic. I think a better German analogy is the
Protestant Reformation/revolution. European society at the time was undergoing rapid change in
the form of the Renaissance. Corruption of the elites – very much including but not limited to
the clergy – had seemingly crystallized. Calls for reform of head and members of the Church went
on unceasingly for decades with no urgency from the elites. Nationalism was rising in all corners.
Enter the bombastic figure of Martin Luther. Much like Trump he was vulgar, hot temptered and
completely unable to accept criticism without responding with a vitriol that would make Steve
Bannon blush. He used the word papist much like Trump uses fake news. Most importantly he knew
how to work the populist crowd and how to use the communications revolution of his day (the printing
press) to speak directly to the people via countless pamphlets. The elites had both lost their
credibility and were slow to respond.
Luther blasted through the walls holding Christendom together. Will Trump be the cannon ball
shot through through the American system? It's impossible to know, but it's far from a sure thing.
Christendom healed itself countless times before those fateful events of 500 years ago.
"It's as if we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction
that keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and
the Right, what we want is what we deserve."
It seems to me that everyone is becoming so confident in the righteousness of their anger that
they are losing the ability to feel empathy for anyone else.
Trump is a drama queen but also a blowhard, and despite the efforts to manufacture panic and cynicism
actually has a middle of the road agenda. His agenda is khaki not zubaz.
The danger is not Trump, the danger is the establishment response to Trump. He's one guy, they
are many. He is an outsider, they consider 'our' government is theirs. He'll be gone one day,
they will stay. They are trying to provoke a crisis in every way possible to discredit him. The
real danger comes from inside the system because they will destroy rather than have it fall out
of their hand (like one of those African dictators who refused to accept the outcome of an election).
The correct way to deal with Trump would be to bore him by routine and wait out the time until
they can take over again and complete their final plan to sell us all as sex slaves to Arabs.
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something
will give.
I am sorry I see Erick Erickson as part of the problem saying Obama in 2014 "Hates America"
and called "The Left ISIS." Right wing identity politics has been around for a good long while
and went fairly wild during the Obama years.
In terms, it has gotten to point where the Left should follow the military and learn to ignore
our President. Let him say what he wants to get attention while we withdraw from his nonsense
and focus protesting on the right policy. (like Healthcare.)
Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right.
(Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.)
Bannon probably won Trump the election with Hillary "Evil In Her Heart!" Clinton campaign but
he was ineffective (like Trump) at governing because the EVIL HRC had diminishing returns after
November.
"People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash
heap of history." Actually by 1970 we knew the Soviet Union was going to fall. We just did not
know when or by what mechanism. I would not worry too much. It's a big country and the bulk of
the people are too busy enjoying summer to get very excited about any of this. It's like murders
on the South Side of Chicago, something that gets on the news but really has no impact on your
life.
I really like what JZ said. Remember, the Protestant Revolution was the best thing that happened
to the west since Romulus looked at the Sabines and said, "Rome needs women!"
Following Luther, the West became more powerful than ever. Along with kicking the Papal elite
from their pedestal and smashing their faces into the mud, the Turkish Menace was crushed, Western
armies spread Western civilization across the world and western science has done unimaginable
things.
We have stood upon the Moon and sent our message to the stars.
I still say everything will remain relatively quiet as long as pro sports, college sports, and
giant American vehicles are around. Don't forget, Rod, your job is monitoring this stuff, so it
looms larger to you than to many of us. I would venture to say that at least half the people I
know don't know what Antifa is.
That said, go ahead and stockpile water and canned goods. If all turns out well, you'll end
up with a nice big donation to a food drive, and if all doesn't go well
I will start taking Antifa and the Nazi wanna-bes seriously when the ruling class does. So
far, they have done little or nothing to stop or to encourage either side.
I was wrong about Bannon yesterday -- was it only yesterday? -- so get your salt out.
I don't think we're necessarily headed for worse. The failure of Trump, of which there's much
more to come, is more likely to be a cautionary tale on the Republican side. The question 'what
have we got to lose' has been answered: anything worth having.
Is Gov Kasich the front-runner for 2020 right now? Why not?
On the Dem side, none of the contenders are going to be even close to the rails, much less
off them. Here again, Trump is the cautionary tale: we were right about snake oil, so, what, we're
going to try buying our own next time? Don't bet on it.
(IMO, it's a bad idea to try to predict Democratic positioning based on the utterances of people
who (a) wouldn't be caught dead identifying as a Democrat and (b) don't vote anyway.)
Watch the red state Dem senators in 2018. Watch the Dem governors.
redbrick: "I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I
and millions like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts.
No longer willing to die for this ruling class."
This is one of the saddest comments I have heard recently from anyone left or right.
If a significant mass of hard-working, everyday people are so dis-spirited they believe their
fellow Americans don't care about protecting their future, and give up on the idea of defending
the idea of America, we're already finished.
The Left will congratulate itself as it carves up the pieces, paving the way for a new dictatorship.
I hope you're wrong, Rod. And redbrick, please don't lose hope completely.
To blame Trump or think he's causing the decline, even if he is in some ways representative of
it, is completely false. Trump was elected because the interests of the greedy staus quo elites
no longer align with those of a huge swathe of the population. A Clinton victory would have merely
been a delusion for the ruling class that even if not all is well, they had managed to put a lid
on it and could continue, unsteady as she goes. There are the real philistines and barbarians,
responsible for the Goldman Sacking of the Empire. And to a large degree, they are intentionally
fomenting the chaos with their own brand of fake news, in the hopes to impose their unchallenged
rule.
Bannon gone? Wonder who else is left who doesn't want to expand all the wars and fix domestic
infrastructure.
Trump as that "scoundrel" Luther? Gimme a break! It's definitely Weimar, with all the churches
compromised. Attend an RC church in The Castro and see what I mean.
What a nostalgia trip! Nothing like a forecast of societal collapse or civil war to send me right
back to '69. Such forecasts got into print fairly regularly back then, including some by Marxists
who salivated at the thought of literal, armed class war the way a certain strain of white supremacist
salivates at the thought of race war. Nobody on any side predicted that the whole thing would
simmer down by 1975.
The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status
quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon
Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations.
That's right on target, and it was the most disappointing thing about Barack Obama. Some of
us Sanders voters would like just a select bit of Ron Paul grafted in. You know, the kind of commies
who are also lifetime members of the NRA. (I'm not, but I've known some.) Actually I'm thinking
more of bitter clingers who DID vote for Obama.
It is also possible that much, if not all of the cultural angst detailed on this site is the result
of a single phenomenon. Namely, a relatively affluent society where individuals can spend vast
amounts of time online demanding validation for every single opinion, thought and whimsy without
even the slightest twinge of humor or circumspection. Nothing done while angry usually amounts
to anything constructive. Voting and tweeting especially.
Computer Mediated Paranoia is indeed a thing. Resist both it and the urge to stock canned goods.
Unless they contain chili, pork n' beans and other items that you can utilize for a tailgate party
during the upcoming college and pro football season. An event which will once again unite all
Americans regardless of race, religion or creed.
In the election of 2016 American voters hated both of the candidates of the major parties. Since
both could not lose, Trump achieved victory by such a thin margin he lost the popular vote. This
was perhaps a pity because Clinton may be closer to sane than Trump. But right now Democrats see
a wonderful opportunity to take back control of Congress next year, and perhaps dump Trump in
2020.
When the illiberal NeoBolshevik left gets the reigns of power you and I will be practicing your
Benedict Option in a Gulag in Death Valley while our children are taught the joys of diversity
and why they should hate their Christian parents in Reeducation camps with rainbow flags flying
out front. The Revolution is not coming it is here. Arm yourselves and prepare to fight to for
the Kingdom of God and for your children whom He gave you authority over and a duty to protect
with your life.
Only one thing to quote, here, again, as often as it has been quoted before, from the Sword of
Honour trilogy by Evelyn Waugh; its appositeness may not be immediately apparent, but I think
it will become so:
'"Is there any place that is free from evil? It is too simple to say that only the Nazis wanted
war. These Communists wanted it too. It was the only way in which they could come to power. Many
of my people wanted it, to be revenged on the Germans, to hasten the creation of the national
state. It seems to me there was a will to war, a death wish, everywhere. Even good men thought
their private honour would be satisfied by war. They could assert their manhood by killing and
being killed. They would accept hardships in recompense for having been selfish and lazy. Danger
justified privilege. I knew Italians-not very many perhaps-who felt this. Were there none in England?"
"God forgive me," said Guy. "I was one of them."'
All the buzzards are gathering around to grab at the corpses, watching with interested eyes.
To clarify, we cannot worry that the Republic will be undone by loopy 80s b-grade pseudo-celebrity
any more than we would believe that a guy who called himself "Barry" as as teenager and, by some
accounts, had a pretty decent jumpshot, was/is the antichrist.
The founding fathers are surely not weeping, but are instead looking down/up/askance at us
and chuckling a bit. The system was intentionally structured in a manner that did indeed allow
for the election of an idiot in certain circumstances, and conversely, the removal of said idiot
in due time. We will survive.
JZ, your equating Trump with Luther is just inane at best. I would prefer not to believe you're
truly that dishonest.
Luther was passionate for God, while Trump cares only about himself. Luther was a "man on fire,"
but Trump is as lifeless looking a human being as anyone I've ever seen. Luther was indeed vulgar,
as the Lord Jesus could be, but Trump is vile.
Most important, Luther exalted the Bible as the Word of God, while Trump acknowledges only
himself as a point of reference.
I never see anything from Protestants in these comments which comes close to equalling the
animosity toward Catholics which Catholics direct so easily toward Protestants.
As well, Eastern Orthodox commenters are always respectful.
This is the most splenetic I've ever been in a comment on Rod's blogs, but I'm really tired
of it.
Catholic theology holds that we Protestants are "separated brethren." Why don't you heed your
theologians and stop insulting your brothers?
Pelosi wants the Confederate statues in the Capitol removed. That's just priceless! Why didn't
she have them removed when she was Speaker of the House? If I'm Paul Ryan, I just say, "That's
your problem Nancy – all of those Confederate statues are Democrats. You clean up your own mess."
Again I ask – what mindset dominates on the Left? Is it constitutional democrats? Socialist Revolutionaries?
Mensheviks? Bolsheviks? Do Bolsheviks in the end always win, because they lead the leftist reasoning
to its rational conclusion, but it only takes them more time with the West than it did with Russia?
And what is the "alt-right" answer to this? Just white racism and a desire for a white ethno-state?
Is there any common vision among counter-revolutionaries on what to do? Because the Left I think
is very united by its usual vision – destruction and anti-culture
RD: " I too believe that after Trump, worse will come (though I don't know what form or forms
it will take)."
Rod forgive the snark but really, isn't that a pretty good summation of the Dreher Worldview?
(I actually tried to put a "TM" after that like you do but couldn't figure out hie to do it.)
"The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding
us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."
I would challenge that this way: how much do you really know about the center? The people in
the center? Because that's what we're really talking about here, millions and millions of moderate
and decent American people. Hundreds of millions actually. And they haven't gone anywhere. But
what has happened to them is that they've been shellshocked by this Trump mess. In fact most are
probably still in denial that this has happened to this great country.
What this Trump scare likely portends for the future is a frustratingly long run of moderate
voting, eventually begetting lots and lots of moderate politicians. The pendulum always swings
back.
"Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward?"
This is what I view as the biggest problem in America today. We all believe we're losing. I,
and most conservatives I know, genuinely feel that the country is moving ever leftwards. It's
difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals seem to
genuinely believe it is.
I think that part of it is that we tend to see the other side as monolithic (ignoring the differences
between Obama and the radical left, or between a Marco Rubio type and Donald Trump). We also tend
to focus on the areas where we don't get our way. Also, we tend to overemphasize the importance
to our opponents of their own victories.
It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory
for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against
the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of
the establishment.
Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor'
(untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former
heroes will remain unscathed.
Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized
as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been
a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives
in the hall a statuary.
You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they
are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel
KevinS: As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do
not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not.
I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at
Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks
thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff?
Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left
middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics.
It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because
of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral
College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures
like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops.
It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down.
The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the
left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society.
The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville,
Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really
major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating
in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign.
The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his
usual rallies at some midwestern venue.
The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically
radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially
the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,)
and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice
of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will
be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at
stake.
Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict
chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the
air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres
of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the
evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed
with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has
done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and
brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily
happening.
The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming
widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency
consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership
must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there
will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"In
an article for Quillette.com on "Methods Behind the Campus Madness," graduate researcher
Sumantra Maitra of the University of Nottingham in England reported that 12 of the 13
academics at U.C. Berkeley who signed a letter to the chancellor protesting Yiannopoulos were
from "Critical theory, Gender studies and Post-Colonial/Postmodernist/Marxist background."
This is a shift in Marxist theory from class conflict to identity politics conflict;
instead of judging people by the content of their character, they are now to be judged by the
color of their skin (or their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, et cetera).
"Postmodernists have tried to hijack biology, have taken over large parts of political
science, almost all of anthropology, history and English," Maitra concludes, "and have
proliferated self-referential journals, citation circles, non-replicable research, and the
curtailing of nuanced debate through activism and marches, instigating a bunch of gullible
students to intimidate any opposing ideas.""
"... So, noting that on average, men have 90% more upper body strength than women, would I not be able to claim that any woman my height or less will not have my upper body strength? ..."
"... The problem is that PC is on the way to functioning like militant Islam with regard to unbelievers and apostates. ..."
"... "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them". ..."
"... "There are only two important days in the life of any person, the day that your are born and then day you find out why." ..."
"... The supreme irony of l'affaire Damore is that was a primary point of Damore's memo and the response was perhaps the best proof of the validity of that point possible. Hence my "inept thinkers" comment. ..."
"... Look how Canadian 'hate speech laws' began with silencing 'Neo-Nazis' (fake ones, btw) and then spread to going after those who don't use proper pronouns. Self-Righteous Addiction created all these Self-Righteous Junkies. ..."
"... The bigger question is why Homo Sapiens is the only primate on the planet where The female is expected to be equal to the male ..."
"... The whole argument "for equality" is fundamentally flawed – it is the wrong goal. As individuals we humans want to be different – not equal. We want to bring something different to the table of social interaction. People who are equal have nothing to give to each other. ..."
"... P.S. No matter our intellectual capabilities, for 99% of us – doing a good job of raising our children – is the most lasting thing that we can ever do. They are our true legacy – what we do on the job is all too soon lost in the evolution of business. ..."
"... it is quite likely that variation is bigger in males, as usual with many other traits. ..."
This argument makes me smile. Hyde seems to take as granted that males have an advantage
on "tightly timed tests for mathematical and spatial tasks". Is it simply my male point of
view that to do well on any test, in the sense of getting things right, and doing so
quickly, would be considered a double advantage? Why regard speedy thinking as a complexity
of interpretation? Why is speed in correctly completing a task judged to be "speed as much
as skill"? Absurdly, the prompt and correct completion of a task seems to be cast as mere
male impetuosity. Furthermore, any employer reading this argument would be justified in
thinking "On difficult tasks involving maths and spatial analysis, women need more time"
so, given a chance, it might be better not to employ them.
Agreed, but the timing issue for spatial tests actually strikes me as even more important
than that. I am good at typical spatial tests, but one thing I have noticed is that for the
hardest items I find myself going through a very working memory loaded process of checking
whether a rotation works for a variety of details (number of details being limited by WM). I
am pretty sure this process is more g loaded than spatial (have to find, remember, and
analyze these differences). It is also slow at my WM limits (I trial and error choose which
details to focus on for the hardest items). I am certain I could improve my performance by
making pen and paper notes, but consider that cheating on those tests. It would be
interesting to explore differences in solution speed and style both within and between groups
(e.g. do similar scoring men and women differ in technique?).
Thus I tend to think the need for more time indicates a relative deficit in "real" spatial
skill in favor of g. Whether this "real" spatial skill is what drives the relationship of
spatial skills with programming is unclear, but I think it might be. I would hypothesize that
it might not be easy for someone like me to emulate the reasoning a higher spatial ability
person might use to solve real world problems (rotations are a relatively simple special case
problem). If so, presumably this problem would be even worse for someone with even less
"real" spatial ability.
Part of what I base my self assessment on is my sense that some people just immediately
see the answer to hard spatial problems. Another part of this is my experience with tasks
like navigating in complex topographical environments (I suspect that is a related skill). I
routinely encounter people who I think are much better at navigation than I am (especially
considered in tandem with more g loaded differences). My sense is that this instant
recognition correlates with g but is a separate ability (perhaps more separate than the
spatial
test
correlations indicate given my substitutability observation above). I
would be very interested in either anecdotal observations or research discussing this!
Overall, my takeaways from the whole l'affaire Damore (surprised I haven't seen this pun
used yet, just searched and
here is a
use
, though I disagree with it that post and the comments are worth a look) are:
Preferences are important and should be the first differences mentioned in this
discussion.
Relevant measurable trait and preference differences exist and the magnitudes seem in
the right ballpark (given tail effects) to explain the representation differences we
observe.
The evidence for biological vs. cultural explanations for these differences is not
definitive and therefore is controversial. This controversy provides much of the heat
underlying the overall debate IMHO.
Sexism and discrimination probably exist. In both directions (Google's hiring practices
are clearly discriminatory in intent, the reason for Damore's memo!). I am not sure which
direction is greater in effect in the Current Year
There are an astonishing number of inept thinkers out there (not a surprise, but rarely
is ineptness displayed so proudly). More than a few call themselves scientists.
@Peripatetic
commenter
Perhaps a good start is to read (or at least skim)
Intelligence, Genes, and
Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve
as a collection of critiques of
The Bell
Curve
which seem better than most. Then look for critiques of that book and its
papers.
Another approach would be to look at Linda Gottfredson's work, most notably:
Mainstream
Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography
The Note makes it very clear that men and women "differ in part due to biological
causes", that many such differences are small, with significant overlaps, and that you
cannot say anything about an individual on the basis of population level distributions.
So, noting that on average, men have 90% more upper body strength than women, would I not
be able to claim that any woman my height or less will not have my upper body strength?
@Peripatetic
commenter
Short answer, no. Though it arguably depends on where you fall in the male
range and the population size (which controls how much of an outlier one can expect to
occur). If you want to make this more concrete, here is a paper on strength differences which
seems to imply (though I don't see it stated) a Cohen's d of about 3 for upper body strength:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756754/
Plugging that into the visualizer here (3 is the maximum value supported) you see only 13%
overlap:
http://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/
Worth noting that these analyses don't account for size differences (so your equal height
condition skews things).
To answer your question a different way, try looking at world championship weightlifting
results. Can you lift more than the strongest woman there less than or equal to you in
height (or weight as a proxy)?
I don't do weight training but if I did, I think I could and I would assert that world
championship male weight lifters could.
The more we learn about nonhuman intelligence, however, the more we find that abilities
previously thought to be uniquely human are not. For example, it was thought until the
1960s that humans alone make tools. But then Jane Goodall (1963) found wild chimpanzees
making them. Later, several other species were found making tools too (Beck, 1980). Thus,
ideas about what marks the boundary between human and nonhuman intelligence have undergone
repeated
What is the use of making such statements? Chimps are not going to suddenly start making
screw drivers or knives or bows and arrows etc. Is it thought that all other tool making is
layered on top of the neural support Chimps use for making their very primitive tools?
I suspect that no one with enough intelligence to think clearly understands what all the
fuss is about. I have never been particularly successful at anything, despite my IQ of over
160 (according to Mensa). The only clearcut effect this has had, as far as I can make out, is
that most people find my conversation obscure and boring.
If an IQ 60% above average confers no apparent practical advantage, what is the point in
squabbling heatedly about hypothetical differences on the order of 1%? It is surely well
established, even if it weren't glaringly obvious to common sense, that while pure
intelligence is vital in some fields of work, its effects are usually swamped by those of
other characteristics such as persistence, enthusiasm, charisma and empathy.
Indeed, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the very most intelligent
people are disproportionately prone to mental disorders, existential horror, and despair.
There is a lot to hate and fear in the world, and most people seem to be spared the worst
consequences by the simplest of defence mechanisms – a sheer failure to notice.
@Peripatetic
commenter
"Is it thought that all other tool making is layered on top of the neural
support Chimps use for making their very primitive tools?"
Yes. Although of course we are not chimps, nor are we directly descended from chimps. The
human brain is immensely flexible and adaptable, and once the practice of solving problems by
making tools became established, a whole vast new world opened up. Note that people were
making stone tools for a very, very long time before the first metals were discovered. Note
also that many of the human race's greatest discoveries may have been made only once or twice
before spreading worldwide.
One serious weakness that most humans suffer from is an inability to visualize long
periods of time. Just as, to the average citizen, a million, a billion, and a trillion are
all more or less just "lots and lots", most of us really cannot conceive of a million years
or what might happen in such a time. At about three generations per century, a million years
represents about 30,000 generations. A mere 50 generations ago the Roman Empire was still
flourishing.
@res
Thanks for your
thoughtful and detailed comments.
On the speed issue, for all tasks, I was objecting to Hyde's implied distinction between
speed and ability, because ability is related to speed. I think that W.D.Furneaux was onto
this issue years ago, and progressed it well. From memory, I have classified his key insight
as saying that intellectual achievement depended on: speed, accuracy and persistence.
The first two are often a trade-off, though of course the brightest people are both speedy
and accurate. Persistence is often an ignored characteristic, though it is a key part of most
great intellectual achievements.
As regards g, at higher levels of ability it account for less variance.
1. Furneaux, W. D., Nature, 170, 37 (1952). | ISI |
2. Furneaux, W. D. "The Determinants of Success in Intelligence Tests" (paper read to Brit.
Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1955).
3. Furneaux, W. D., Manual of Nufferno Speed Tests (Nat. Found. Educ. Res., London,
1955).
4. Furneaux, W. D., in Intellectual Abilities and Problem Solving Behaviour in Handbook of
Abnormal Psychology (edit. by Eysenck, H. J.) (Pergamon Press, London, 1960)
@Peripatetic
commenter
I think you are right if we alter it from "any woman" to "almost any woman",
simply because the difference in body strength (in the paper Res references, and in the
others) is a d of 3.5 so I wouldn't bother with further calculations to correct for height.
What would make a difference is the small numbers of elite women athletes, as shown in the
paper Razib posted.
If one simplifies the whole issue to look at height, weight and body strength together, then
women are at risk in any physical encounter with men, even old ones. This has been noticed
before, resulting in kind societies paying extra respect to and showing more consideration
for women, and in less kind societies to their abuse.
I find the ferocity of some of the replies to Damore extreme. The vehemence of the
opposition is coruscating, and absolute. These issues should be matters of scholarly
debate, in which the findings matter, and different interpretations contend against each
other.
Or maybe it's not for ferocious attacks or scholarly debate. It's just a difference of opinion (remember "diversity") – not something to get so
excited about.
The problem is that PC is on the way to functioning like militant Islam with regard to
unbelievers and apostates.
@Tom Welsh
Dear
Tom,
An IQ of 160 is only found in 1 in 31,560 persons, being higher than 99.9976142490% of the
population. This is more than a 60% advantage over the average citizen. IQ points are not
percentages.
The work of Benbow and Lubinski shows that the higher the intelligence the greater the
achievement. While other personality factors may be involved, they have yet to be shown to be
as important.
Typically, high ability people are shown to be more balanced than average, with lower rates
of mental disorder.
@James Thompson
Not
to worry. We have Hollywood providing young women with all the confidence necessary that,
should she walk down a dark alley and be accosted by a man, she will likely strike him a few
times in the face and walk away unscathed.
/sarc off.
If women grasped even vaguely just how great is the gulf between them and the overwhelming
majority of men, I suspect we'd see a lot fewer women using their divorce attorney to torment
their soon-to-be (or already) ex-husband. I've watched women metaphorically poke the most
dangerous animal on Planet Earth, an adult male human, as he sits in a cage that lacks
bars.
The only time I've seen the "Entertainment Industry" show what can really happen in a
confrontation between a typical woman and a typical (in this case viciously predatory) man,
it was in a foreign-made film titled "Irreversible," available on Amazon Video. It was
without a doubt the most horrifying rape-beating ever put on film, and watching it would
scare the living daylights out of women. It ran rings around any horror film ever made.
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious
things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either
of them".
– Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, Ch. XX
@Tom Welsh
Sam
Clemens was sui generis. And I love this one of his:
"There are only two important days in
the life of any person, the day that your are born and then day you find out why."
Well, I was looking for people-vs-things preference differences expressed in easily
calculable terms (i.e. something in terms of "men are rated as 10 on this trait, with SD 2,
while women as 8, with SD 1.8″) but I couldn't; Can anyone help?
The best I could found was the study which claimed that in people-vs-things rating, within
the top 25% of topc scorers – which would be, if I understood correctly, people who are
the most interested in things (as contrasted with "interested in people") ratio of women to
men is 0.287. That would mean there would be around 78% men, 22% women.
Now, the question is what is the cutoff for going to STEM, ie. what is average "things"
preference for people to decide to follow career in STEM (or, more specifically, in
engineering and computer science). Depending on value of this cutoff, the gap in CS and
engineering might be, indeed, completely explained away by difference in people-vs-things
interest, or even might imply men are discriminated against, HOWEVER, seeing as some of those
preferences are calculated, I wonder whether it is not a kind of circular argument, kind of
"there are more men into computer-related work, because more men are interested in
computers".
Also, it seems that i saw in one study taht this difference decreases with age, which is
strange. This would contradict the theory that the preference is driven by the social
expectations (because, then "sexist" expectations would cause is to go up with age) but this
could be explained by "it is caused by biology" theory; HOWEVER, the bad thing and the
weakness is that "it's caused by biology" could be used to justify BOTH increasing and
decreasing the gap – a realisation which leaves bad taste in my mouth.
Anyway I'd love to see
(1) studies quantifying the differences on a scale, not saying "the effect is large with
Cohen's d=1.23″
(2) studies looking at specifically computer science and comparing their preferences with
general population
(3) studies measuring the trait in very early age
This book (The Measurement of Intelligence, edited by Michael? Eysenck, copyright 1973, I
actually have a copy but am having trouble finding it, I think that chapter would be a good
starting point for me):
https://books.google.com/books?id=wjLpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236
gives a title for your first reference:
Some Speed, Error and Difficulty Relationships
within a Problem-solving Situation
From which I find:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v170/n4314/abs/170037a0.html
It is nice that Nature assigns DOIs to its old papers. That appears to be a two page letter.
Interesting, but I am having trouble drawing inferences from it.
I am not sure I communicated my agreement with your earlier speed, accuracy, and
persistence comments. I was trying to extend the idea to consider that slow speed might be an
indicator of the substitution of skills (other than persistence, though that is certainly
critical there) for the skill nominally being tested for. In my earlier example, g for
spatial ability. For another example, I took an online autism test a while ago (identifying
emotions from pictures). I scored above average (in a good way ; ), but found myself again
using a more "logical" (g based IMHO) process for the harder items. I doubt that is the way
most people approach that test (though I could be wrong) and my result might overstate my
ability on the skill
they are trying to test
.
The fundamental distinction I am trying to make is between solving a problem in the same
way (or sufficiently similar) just more slowly and solving the problem using a fundamentally
different approach (or skill/ability?!). The former could be viewed as changing the clock
speed on a computer and I think corresponds with the point you make about persistence. For
the latter envision a case where one person solves a problem using visual intuition and a
quick mathematical check while another person uses an extended mathematical derivation. I
think this kind of substitutabiltity could be a problem in subtests intended to measure a
specific skill (e.g. spatial!). And g is a very useful Swiss army knife ; ).
Perhaps this is a second order effect relative to the basic speed/persistence issue and
should (could?) not really be considered until that has been solved? I guess I am just
interested in anyone who has thought about this substitutability idea in the more general
form. Furneaux seems focused on the speed side. In particular, Furneaux limits his
consideration to the 10-85% range of difficulty while my personal experience is much more
about the hard end of the difficulty scale.
This seems like a fairly obvious idea to me so I presume it has been considered. Perhaps
some combination of "second order effect" and "hard to test" prevents something having been
done about it?
One other thought that occurs to me. Does Furneaux's deemphasis of higher D(ifficulty)
items say something about the difficulty of creating high ceiling tests? Is it possible that
the combination of substitutability and more idiosyncratic skill profiles at the high end are
part of that problem?
It's just a difference of opinion (remember "diversity") – not something to get so
excited about.
The supreme irony of l'affaire Damore is that was a primary point of Damore's memo and the
response was perhaps the best proof of the validity of that point possible. Hence my "inept
thinkers" comment.
@dc.sunsets
"No one
is insuring your foods are safe".
Actually, Western governments have for decades been going out of their way to recommend
actively unhealthy foods and drinks. In 1865, in 1910 and in 1939 it was clearly understood
everywhere that meat, fish, poultry, eggs, vegetables, and nuts, together with some dairy and
fruit, were the essential dietary items. Carbohydrates, sugars and grains in particular, were
clearly understood to be fattening and probably causative of many diseases.
Yet since the US government led the charge with its McGovern Committee Report in the
1970s, Western governments have been warning against meat, saturated fat, and other healthy
foods while urging consumption of more foods made from sugars and grains. We all require
about 20% of daily energy from protein, and the rest is a mixture of fats and carbs. Cut out
the fats, and that means 70-80% carbs, which leads inexorably to weight gain, metabolic
syndrome, and for many people eventual diabetes.
Did I mention that Senator McGovern represented a grain-producing state?
I would like, in
this context, to repeat my quotation of Alfred Korzybski's declaration.
"I have said what I have said. I have not said what I have not said".
Intelligent, let alone constructive, discourse will not be possible until everyone
understands that saying and takes care to make sure they understand what others mean.
@res
Good points.
Sorry about the references: I took the first ones to hand, and should have searched through
my own posts. Have done that now, and found this:
This will add some content, but I agree that I did not properly answer your question. I
think the question you raise would be considered a task solving strategy problem: "I have
tried shape, as I did on the easier items, but that doesn't work for this more difficult
problems, so I will try feature categorization". That is, you went from a modular solution to
a g-loaded general strategy when the module seemed to fail you.
My first point is that if we can find someone who solves even the difficulty problem easily,
we hire them because their module does the job for us!
Second, and more interestingly, most problem solving approaches fail when the problem is both
novel and very difficult. (I cannot say what makes a problem difficult, but it probably
relates to the number of items and the number of operations involved in solving it). At that
point in the act of creation, people try all manner of re-framings and re-descriptions, in
the hope that an analogy might open up a new line of attack. For example, I cannot assist
anyone with finding new elements. Despite that, out of ignorance I can make some suggestions.
For example, would anything be gained by taking the target close down to absolute zero? Would
it make it easier to hit something?
So, problem-solving strategies often become the real test. That also involves working out
what problems you don't have to solve. During the Manhattan project one group started
worrying that in focusing the charges they would get wear in the system which would throw out
their very crucial calculations about the critical mass required. After a while a team member
pointed out the obvious fact that the firing mechanism would only be used once.
You are right that a different approach is what we generally need for very difficult
problems.
Sorry that I cannot answer all your interesting questions.
@Tom Welsh
That is a
good quote. Perhaps I am being a bit dense, but I don't see the applicability to my comment
32. Especially given that I was not responding to you. Perhaps you could elaborate?
If anything the obligation to understand lies first with those criticizing Damore's
memo.
I don't mind
DS not existing. The question is IF they can go after DS, where does it end?
Look how Canadian 'hate speech laws' began with silencing 'Neo-Nazis' (fake ones, btw) and
then spread to going after those who don't use proper pronouns. Self-Righteous Addiction created all these Self-Righteous Junkies.
@Tom Welsh
What? 3
generations a century? That would mean people are having kids in their 30s . Which didn't
happen until this last century. Its more like 4-5, maybe even 6, generations a century.
I agree humans can't visualize large spans of time. Plus, a very large minority think the
world was created 2017 years ago, so that doesn't help.
I find the ferocity of some of the replies to Damore extreme. The vehemence of the
opposition is coruscating, and absolute. These issues should be matters of scholarly
debate, in which the findings matter, and different interpretations contend against each
other. Expressing different opinions should be a cue for debate, not outrage.
The whole argument "for equality" is fundamentally flawed – it is the wrong
goal. As individuals we humans want to be different – not equal. We want to bring
something different to the table of social interaction. People who are equal have nothing to
give to each other.
Our goal is to find a niche for ourselves – there is room for all different
capabilities in a rational society. There is only so much need for rocket scientists.
Proving that men and women are equal is fools work.
Smart people will endeavor to prove that all work is of value – and deserving of a
living compensation.
Peace -- Art
P.S. No matter our intellectual capabilities, for 99% of us – doing a good job of
raising our children – is the most lasting thing that we can ever do. They are our true
legacy – what we do on the job is all too soon lost in the evolution of business.
Cspan
had an excellent two hour or so interview of the guy on one of their weekend book shows a
decade or so ago.
Worth the search and a download of at least the audio.
@res
Thanks a lot for
a link to "interpretating cohen's d"! FInally I understood the concept
However, the problem with COhen's d is that it assumes – if I am not mistaken
– the equal standard deviations, while I think
it is quite likely that variation is
bigger in males, as usual with many other traits.
That would mean that using "d" would not
truly reflect the ratios of population over some cutoff, am i right?
@szopen
My
understanding is the official definition of Cohen's d uses the pooled SDs of the
subpopulations, but I am not sure how rigorously that subtlety is observed. For example, this
page gives them as alternate definitions:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cohen%27s_d
I am not sure how much of a difference that makes in practice. That might be a good thing
to investigate with some simulations.
"... Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent the same talking points memo. ..."
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
"... I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash of identities. ..."
"... Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters on UVA campus. ..."
"... There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence, and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people. ..."
"... Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think so. ..."
"... Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities. ..."
I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear
that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash
was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means
the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die
a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing
out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the
black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash
of identities.
President Trump was not wrong when he said that there were violent protesters on both sides of
the clash, and that many of the protesters were not there to show their racism, but to protest the
tearing down of a statue of a figure in American history who cannot be airbrushed out of our nation's
story. Is the next step to burn down the campus of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia,
because it was co-named after Robert E. Lee after the Civil War?
Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help
but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators
were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched
and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were
defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between
their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters
on UVA campus.
There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence,
and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people.
And there is the matter of George Soros spending millions of dollars to help launch that movement
after Ferguson. Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division
and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting
of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization
of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think
so.
Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined
attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened
the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities.
Brennan Gilmore, Tom Perrielo, Michael Signer, and other friends of Podesta arranged the Charlottesville
violence. This isn't just a bunch of college-age leftists getting excited about Derrida. The Charlottesville
violence was the result of a conspiracy by well-connected insiders.
I quote the "Signs of the Times" website linked below:
The STOP KONY 2012 psyop was all about using the Joseph Kony boogieman to justify letting Barack
Obama send Special Operations troops into Africa to run around and squash any and all resistance
to our new imperialism campaign. It was a fraud. A show. And Brennan was part of it.
He was also part of the campaign of Tom Perriello's in Virginia to become the next governor.
End quote.
"Signs of the Times" dot net has a story on this that I will link in the third field below.
I fear that we are approaching a season of disintegration. September 11 at Texas A&M and September
16 on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia will be indicators. pl
On June 6, 1944, a bunch of "protesters" attacked Nazis and did so violently. Was there a moral
equivalency then too? You have to reach rather low to accept Nazis, et al, and try to deflect
blame for what they stand for. What the defenders of the Confederacy has managed to do is to thoroughly
discredit their cause by associating with these despicable groups. It is again a lost cause and
again, they only have themselves to blame.
We may be watching the end of the Trump era come nearer. By association, he is rapidly losing
the moral stature of the office that he holds. A lot of people near him are losing their reputations
forever.
Of course Sweden did not fight the Nazis at all. Was there a moral equivalence there or was
it just self-interest? In fact there were many Swedish volunteers in the 5th SS Panzer Division.
What is the factual basis for saying that the people who would not have the statues moved are
Nazi-associated or supporting? Do you think the UDC and SCV (of whom I am not qualified to be
a member) are Nazi-associated? pl
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White
men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of
modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender
stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our
addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our
sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our
own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine
algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a
central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that
shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the
company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so.
Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and
aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's
Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the local network of Google. The author
lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This
policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint
a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them
fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based
advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber"
within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through
this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that
matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency,
with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the
company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a
morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals
are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the
Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares
all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs.
bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto
gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed
women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US
presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing
the "diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to
conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this
Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best
there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies,
disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness,
if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic,
Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the
alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating
Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be
protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a
focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct
America.
End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with
non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not
only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company.
Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating
sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of
oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to
formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is
to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the
methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with
status
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are
still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to
them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the
greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes,
and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving
him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was
fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the
memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in
our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a
unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a
"free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all
claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian
Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired
Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in
discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing
the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make
history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own
views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western
thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are
biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into
account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for
being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate
"biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore
"arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically
correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice
for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main
Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for
creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of
stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth
reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a
colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works
most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost
invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo
Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram
user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we
could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue
of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is,
that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their
efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of
the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and
cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad
assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore
claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing
with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a
whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them
down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical
determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without
any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is
tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of
tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men
into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the
polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as
"superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility
during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women
but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the
historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural,
biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is
defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a
rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where
adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles –
the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and
females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and
talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave
a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet
it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the
more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater
reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of
the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is
the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West:
men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as
members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile
relations, it's probably for the better.
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature
of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring
its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its
person of the year
. In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all
those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.
Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself
the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of
American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric
at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of
the Apocalypse
, his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine,
and Death will just have to wait.
The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be
this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective
sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him.
Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed
him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him
in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to
bemoan the injustice of it all).
Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy
lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status
quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his
promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.
Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves.
To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump
is not cause, but consequence.
For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama
staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing
as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those
worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.
How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox
News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a
more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum
on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying
consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members
of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of
the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.
Rabbit Poses a Question
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle
was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century
Everyman
, pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory
consultation, did his fellow citizens.
The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it
turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have
matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to
keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist
takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a "
single
superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was
for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.
Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade
of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held
the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning
norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of
personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States
held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.
Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness:
these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the
1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution,"
gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce
that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.
The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new
modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet,
however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only
as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information
technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions.
Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.
More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and
reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels
of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking
to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself
something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information
revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities.
That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted;
that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values
and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.
The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our
42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities
greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they
presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War
consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing
so, however, it greatly
exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working
class and underclass.
The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to
discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair
pervading a society suffering from epidemics of
chronic substance abuse ,
morbid obesity ,
teen suicide
, and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's
highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for
porn
, urban school systems
mired in permanent crisis, and
mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than
the profile of a healthy society.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting
richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United
States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As
for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been
ambiguous
at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being
offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.
In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus
signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture
taking its
motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S.
military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the
election of Donald Trump.
The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the
extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting
government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing
military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained
in their recently unveiled (and
instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum
wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed
will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.
In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally
bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis
in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.
First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the
circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics.
The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California
and New York will elect our President well into the future.
If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.
I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman
who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is
anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings
and puppet-strings.
The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish
Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss
and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides.
Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and
free speech.
California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive
of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against
it. What does that tell you?
Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along
with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media
that feed that lies 24/7.
What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus
processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals
to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic
minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.
AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about
what she intended to do ."promote world peace".
Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding,
but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with
the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never
do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended
on it.
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being
an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children
and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for
Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment.
Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined
freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may
win a lawsuit against Google.
Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut
its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined.
Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs
to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget
even more than Trump!
It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used
a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds
to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in
2020 to prove that is simple.
@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College
by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate
their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors
meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.
Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth
it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.
"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of
the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics."
Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal)
majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to
the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision
can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and
I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the
game, so to say.
Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many
more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are
picking up litter or emptying bed pans.
More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results
as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake,
and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating
for those who do not achieve them?
Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain
societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in
their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through
employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.
Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees
and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which
will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.
Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any
of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than
fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.
Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.
I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran,
Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult
for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another.
As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis
of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.
Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians,
Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the
same people that Obama had to hate.
In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't
have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes
or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE
whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse
others of hate.
Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold,
revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?
@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by
3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their
role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is
interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their
leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.
But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided
by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral
college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?
Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .
1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening
the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;
2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public
financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)
3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and
restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader
of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..
@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two
Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population.
This is a good thing.
@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as
their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.
@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives.
From Wikipedia:
"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators
and representatives."
Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less
populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes
for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.
@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same
as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect
of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of
543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per
cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent
author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure
fantasy.
"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal
branches of government."
Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.
No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how
often the phrase is repeated.
The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united
and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.
The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers,
but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution,
is very limited indeed.
In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways
to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution
has none of that.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.
@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about
the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"
Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.
@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same
essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either
a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.
@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively
only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.
Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically,
and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed
at iSteve).
The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for
power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").
What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution.
It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes
all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.
Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.
Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state,
county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed
so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even
the commodities themselves–but brands of them.
Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion
research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies,
forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.
The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that
go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those,
among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas,
then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of
value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence
is drowned in a sea of mass communications.
If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access
to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative
sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.
And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully
selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.
Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these
people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The
Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.
The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government
solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that
all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global,
they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have
their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major
metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating
the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their)))
doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really
think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who
are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites
have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today.
There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question
at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets
to emerge?
If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from
the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off
the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation
occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed
in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this
task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a
lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus
from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that
has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected
children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges
in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their
fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way
to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their
present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.
Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W
Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his
opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney.
Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the
"slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic
Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's
wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who
could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White
House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently,
with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while
producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.
@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman
became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as
the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but
perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions.
Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.
The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else
to the extent possible.
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature
of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring
its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its
person of the year
. In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all
those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.
Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself
the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of
American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric
at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of
the Apocalypse
, his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine,
and Death will just have to wait.
The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be
this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective
sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him.
Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed
him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him
in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to
bemoan the injustice of it all).
Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy
lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status
quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his
promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.
Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves.
To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump
is not cause, but consequence.
For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama
staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing
as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those
worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.
How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox
News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a
more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum
on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying
consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members
of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of
the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.
Rabbit Poses a Question
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle
was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century
Everyman
, pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory
consultation, did his fellow citizens.
The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it
turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have
matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to
keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist
takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a "
single
superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was
for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.
Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade
of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held
the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning
norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of
personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States
held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.
Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness:
these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the
1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution,"
gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce
that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.
The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new
modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet,
however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only
as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information
technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions.
Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.
More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and
reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels
of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking
to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself
something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information
revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities.
That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted;
that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values
and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.
The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our
42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities
greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they
presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War
consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing
so, however, it greatly
exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working
class and underclass.
The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to
discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair
pervading a society suffering from epidemics of
chronic substance abuse ,
morbid obesity ,
teen suicide
, and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's
highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for
porn
, urban school systems
mired in permanent crisis, and
mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than
the profile of a healthy society.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting
richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United
States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As
for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been
ambiguous
at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being
offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.
In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus
signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture
taking its
motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S.
military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the
election of Donald Trump.
The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the
extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting
government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing
military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained
in their recently unveiled (and
instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum
wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed
will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.
In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally
bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis
in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.
First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the
circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics.
The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California
and New York will elect our President well into the future.
If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.
I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman
who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is
anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings
and puppet-strings.
The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish
Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss
and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides.
Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and
free speech.
California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive
of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against
it. What does that tell you?
Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along
with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media
that feed that lies 24/7.
What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus
processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals
to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic
minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.
AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about
what she intended to do ."promote world peace".
Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding,
but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with
the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never
do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended
on it.
"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being
an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children
and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for
Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment.
Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined
freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may
win a lawsuit against Google.
Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut
its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined.
Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs
to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget
even more than Trump!
It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used
a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds
to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in
2020 to prove that is simple.
@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College
by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate
their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.
As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors
meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.
Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth
it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.
"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of
the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections
and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American
politics."
Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal)
majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to
the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision
can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and
I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the
game, so to say.
Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many
more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are
picking up litter or emptying bed pans.
More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results
as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake,
and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating
for those who do not achieve them?
Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain
societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in
their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through
employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.
Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees
and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which
will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.
Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any
of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than
fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.
Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.
I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran,
Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult
for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another.
As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis
of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.
Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians,
Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the
same people that Obama had to hate.
In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't
have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes
or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE
whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse
others of hate.
Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold,
revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?
@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by
3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their
role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is
interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their
leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.
But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided
by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral
college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?
Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .
1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening
the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;
2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public
financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)
3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and
restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader
of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..
@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two
Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population.
This is a good thing.
@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as
their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.
@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives.
From Wikipedia:
"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators
and representatives."
Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less
populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes
for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.
@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same
as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect
of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of
543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per
cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent
author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure
fantasy.
"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal
branches of government."
Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.
No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how
often the phrase is repeated.
The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united
and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.
The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers,
but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution,
is very limited indeed.
In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways
to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution
has none of that.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.
@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about
the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"
Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.
@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same
essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either
a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.
@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively
only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.
Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically,
and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed
at iSteve).
The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for
power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").
What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution.
It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes
all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.
Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.
Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state,
county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed
so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even
the commodities themselves–but brands of them.
Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion
research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies,
forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.
The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that
go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those,
among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas,
then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of
value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence
is drowned in a sea of mass communications.
If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access
to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative
sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.
And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully
selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.
Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these
people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The
Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.
The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government
solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that
all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global,
they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have
their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major
metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating
the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their)))
doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really
think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who
are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites
have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today.
There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question
at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets
to emerge?
If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from
the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off
the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation
occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed
in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this
task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a
lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus
from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that
has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected
children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges
in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their
fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way
to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their
present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.
Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W
Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his
opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney.
Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the
"slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic
Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's
wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who
could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White
House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently,
with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while
producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.
@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman
became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as
the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but
perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions.
Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.
The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else
to the extent possible.
"... Not that I believe that there is much of a difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats (Pepsi vs Cola, really), but this simply illustrates two basic facts of the US political system: ..."
"... The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House ..."
"... In a way, the USA is very similar to the bad old Soviet Union: it is ruled by a Nomenklatura , an " Inner Party " to use Orwell's expression, which keeps the rest of the 99% in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom ("semi" because the modern serf can legally leave his place of labor and move to another one). And while the real "deep state" is only a small sub-section of the US Nomenklatura, the entire Nomenklatura is bound to it by a deep sense of class solidarity. ..."
Not that I believe that there is much of a difference between the Demoblicans
and the Republicrats (Pepsi vs Cola, really), but this simply illustrates two basic facts of the
US political system:
The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
The US "deep state" is equally embedded in both factions of the "1% Party" in power
In a way, the USA is very similar to the bad old Soviet Union: it is ruled by a
Nomenklatura , an "
Inner Party " to use Orwell's
expression, which keeps the rest of the 99% in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom
("semi" because the modern serf can legally leave his place of labor and move to another one). And
while the real "deep state" is only a small sub-section of the US Nomenklatura, the entire Nomenklatura
is bound to it by a deep sense of class solidarity.
This is what primarily explains the collective blindness of quite literally all the US elites
about 9/11: just like everybody now knows that Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman, most people
by now suspect that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a stupid load of hogwash – but they just
don't see what difference it makes for them and the world they live in.
"... Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee. ..."
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the
voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost
never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not
here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members
of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.
What if it wasn't Russia's fault?
In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group
to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons
of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't
read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating
the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee
files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence
to the contrary.
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted
in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names.
But their findings and doubts are only being aired by
non-mainstream
publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation.
The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their
findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather
than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.
The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as
the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other
things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General
Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly
and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced
on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the
DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse
any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer
2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of
Russian metadata in his files and his
use of a Russia-based virtual private network.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers
who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former
found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on
July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second
-- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second,
a speed not
commonly
available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly
over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would
have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which
the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.
However, as Forensicator has
pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something
only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content
of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates
that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and
his answers to numerous critics in a
long post earlier
this month.
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable
technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director
for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former
technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence
officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group
is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive.
Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter,
has
pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's
material constitute the spoils of a hack.
VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions
in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used
to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency,
has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies.
While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about
Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the
past.
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the
discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since
no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike,
the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment,
had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the
Atlantic Council
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as
a hostile power.
One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on
hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not
transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still
focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is
to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it,
to the public.
Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to
increased hostility toward Russia...
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you
would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor
here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's
easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem
more intent on
noting Putin's bare-chested physique and
accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not
need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its
social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line
last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold
on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to
recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made
one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to
gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home.
In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.
( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board
or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
Simply because the immediate reaction to the Google Memo concentrated on
sex differences I gathered together some posts on sex differences, showing that
the sexes differ somewhat in their abilities: not very much, but enough to make
a difference at the extremes, and it is the extremes which make a difference
to technology based societies, and to a technology dependent world. I left out
any mention of the notion that a "diverse" workforce is better than better than
a workforce selected purely on ability to do the task in question. My mistake,
which I will try to repair now.
I wondered, some years ago, what evidence there was for the proposition that
diversity was a good thing. I would like to collect more proposals, because
the ones sent to me proved unconvincing. You may have heard a claim that having
women in the workforce boosts profits by 40%. This turns out to be a misunderstood
joke.
Now to the general claim that having women in a group boosts anything, or
that having a variety of intellectual levels in a group boosts anything. That
was taken apart in a set of experimental studies by Bates and Gupta.
So, if you want a problem solved, don't form a team. Find the brightest
person and let them work on it. Placing them in a team will, on average,
reduce their productivity. My advice would be: never form a team if there
is one person who can sort out the problem.
Perhaps Damore was a guy who could sort out problems, until the last problem,
that is.
I repeat my January 2015 request: if you have any good studies showing that
having a sexually or racially diverse workforce boosts profits over a workforce
selected on competence alone, please send me send them to me in a comment to
this item.
Some of the findings of our initial report are confirmed – greater diversity
in boards and management are empirically associated with higher returns
on equity, higher price/book valuations and superior stock price performance.
However, new findings emerge from this added management analysis – we find
no evidence that female led companies reflect greater financial conservatism
where leverage is concerned. Also, dividend payout ratios have been shown
to be higher. Female CEOs have proven to be less acquisitive than men when
assuming the leadership position. The analysis makes no claims to causality
though the results are striking.
Diversity and inclusion are buzzwords made up by Gramscian marxists to
rationalize group rights made up by the courts after not being satisfied
with equality under the law. Those buzzwords do nothing to resolve the existential
and morals issues raised by group rights. Whose diversity and inclusion
are the best anyways? What if I think I would be enriched by this rather
than that diversity and inclusion?
An Example: Talented Individuals vs. Mediocre Groups
In the late 1990s, I was in charge of a regional office of a high tech
company that had a problem. We had delivered a complex air defense system
but the command module could not communicate with the missile batteries.
This was serious stuff. The company put teams of software developers on
the problem back at the main campus. They worked for over a month without
result. The customer was getting antsy, which is a euphemism for nasty.
Then, the company deployed Burt (not his real name) to the customer location
to see what he could do. Burt sat at the conference table in my outer office
reading reams of code printed in large binders like a novel (I'm not kidding)
no notes, just reading and noticing. Burt didn't even bother with a computer
screen or debugging software.
Then, he exclaimed, "I've got it!" (I'll always remember that moment.)
Burt noticed that the date format for the commands being sent from the command
module was in a different format than the date format expected by the missile
batteries.
QED a technical problem that had been plaguing the company for months,
that had immobilized a major air defense system, and that had put the company's
product line at risk solved by an individual with a few hours of work. I
made sure that Burt got a big bonus.
The point: If you ran a startup hoping to bring "creative destruction"
to a sector in a high-tech society, would you want (1) a politically correct
software development team carefully tailored to meet affirmative action
quotas for males, females, Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, lesbians, and
the transgendered in spite of their IQs and personal qualities or,
as James Damore argues, would you want (2) a group of "Burt's" acting alone
or in concert because of their IQs and unique personal qualities?
The histories of Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and Google suggest the latter.
The former brings with it progressively higher social and financial "carrying
costs" that prejudice the success of any bleeding-edge high-tech endeavor.
When the "diversity" is strictly cosmetic and all points of view are
basically identical, what you have is not diversity, it's as Damore described
it, an "echo chamber." Google should be smart enough to know this. I would
guess that this kind of non-diverse diversity hinders productivity because
there are no new ideas, just regurgitations of the party line.
In a recent article disentangling what researchers have learned over
the past 50 years, Margaret A. Neale finds that diversity across dimensions,
such as functional expertise, education, or personality, can increase
performance by enhancing creativity or group problem-solving. In contrast,
more visible diversity, such as race, gender, or age, can have negative
effects on a group!at least initially.
Of course viewpoint diversity is never what is actually meant by "diversity."
We used to abhor meetings back in the days before the US military was
feminized and subject to collaborative group think. So much to do so little
time.
We called meetings and other collaborative exercises "circle jerks".
From Wikipedia:
A circle jerk is a sexual practice in which a group of men or boys
form a circle and masturbate themselves or each other. In the metaphorical
sense, the term is used to refer to self-congratulatory behavior or
discussion amongst a group of people, usually in reference to "boring
time-wasting meetings or other events".
I suspect that "circle jerks" will become more frequent as Google transitions
to a more female-friendly, collaborative organizational structure.
@Roast beef Thanks. Reading it now. Makes good points, but hard to find
appropriate comparison companies for longitudinal comparisons. As authors
say, it could be bigger companies doing the "female quota" thing while smaller
companies are less inclined or less able to do so. Still reading it, and
mostly thinking about the methods .
This is definitely an important question to tackle directly. My two bits
is that we should try to disentangle causality if possible. It's not enough
just to find correlations between high valuation and racial diversity. It
might be like finding correlations between high valuation and having Michelin-star
chefs in the company cafeteria. I bet the correlation exists, but it happens
because already-successful companies get money to blow on inessential nice
things. Diversity is a nice thing that already-successful companies can
buy when they have money to spare, but just because they end up with it
doesn't mean that it helped them succeed. I mean, it might – I don't know
the data – but mere correlations could mislead us. Correlations across time
would impress me more. If individual companies grow faster when more diverse
and slower after they lose diversity, then the findings would be harder
to dismiss.
I think the "50% of the population must have degrees" brigade are
to blame for this. It was always going to devalue the worth of an academic
degree by attempting to have half of the population wandering the job
centres armed with a useless (but very costly) scrap of parchment.
What on earth were successive governments thinking?
But even if the degrees are not as valuable as the salesman (who came
to your school and persuaded you, age 17, to sign up for a £60k loan with
hefty interest rates) told you, at least you've had three years of leftie
indoctrination (e.g. "no borders, no nations" or "Farage is a racist") which
will stand our elites in good stead over your lifetime. And you've paid
for it yourself!
Novels are written by one person – (as Steve Sailer mentions here
and there, novels, especialy the really good ones, are very complex things).
Great works of art or compositions, – mostly the same thing as in the novels-example.
Pop-music (Rock etc. too) might be an exception: Here, groups
yield very interesting results.
(On usually not that high intellectual levels – is that the reason
for this exception?)
@epochehusserl Diversity and inclusion are buzzwords made up by Gramscian
marxists to rationalize group rights made up by the courts after not being
satisfied with equality under the law. Those buzzwords do nothing to resolve
the existential and morals issues raised by group rights. Whose diversity
and inclusion are the best anyways? What if I think I would be enriched
by this rather than that diversity and inclusion? Diversity and Inclusion
are euphemisms when employed by leftist (i.e. Democrats and Neocons) .
The federal government recognizes Diversity as a number of protected
class groups that self-identify as being underprivileged, oppressed, disadvantaged,
underutilized, and underserved.
Protected class groups identify the Nazi and white supremacist as their
common oppressor.
The federal government recognizes Inclusion as federal entitlements for
protected class groups.
Here's an example of several federal protected class groups recognized
and entitled by the University of Nebraska:
The following five groups are considered "Protected Classes" under various
federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires
reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities,
which are traditionally underutilized.
"... Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee. ..."
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the
voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost
never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not
here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members
of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.
"... Neuroscientist Debra W. Soh, writing at Quillette, observes that ..."
"... It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness. ..."
...Damore has joined an increasing number of people from the worlds of business and academia
to be sacrificed at the altar of diversity. In an unsurprising public relations move, Google
has succeeded in saving some face by appeasing the partisans of political correctness and of
so-called equality. Meanwhile, those who don't subscribe to the progressive delusion may feel
more anxious at the prospect of failing to play the coward's game correctly. Can one sneeze
these days without offending the HR department?
Google CEO Sundar Pichai, in a memo laden with incoherence and hypocrisy, says that
we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in
that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with
it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing
harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users
that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that
make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to
our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do their utmost to
create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful
discrimination."
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged
based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn't have to worry that each time they open their
mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states,
being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress tolerance," or being
"neurotic."
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express
their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel
under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be
clear again, many points raised in the memo!such as the portions criticizing Google's
trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs
for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all!are important topics. The
author had a right to express their views on those topics!we encourage an environment in
which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for
prompting these discussions.
What were those "harmful gender stereotypes," so "offensive" to the good team members at
Google? Let's take a look at the first paragraph of the memo that has so many people worried
about the white patriarchal obstacle that, now as ever, stands cruelly in the progressive
path.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse
using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to
look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion
about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on
mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation
is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers
expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with
but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the
possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
Surely no
unbiased
reader can fail to find Damore's words eminently reasonable.
Though recently fired, the man is no enemy of diversity and inclusion, nor does he say sexism
is not a real problem. There is nothing here (or elsewhere in the memo) to suggest he is not
fair-minded. Indeed, if you read his memo, you will surely see!so long, again, as you are not
biased!that as people go, Damore is exceptionally fair in his perceptions and reasoning, though
it is well to remember Emerson's maxim: "To be great is to be misunderstood." Damore is
concerned to give some nuance to understanding the issues since, after all, it is not
prima
facie
evident that men and women are utterly the same; with the result that, where a
corporation's representation of gender does not wholly reflect the national population, sexism
is present by definition. The crucial phrase is "differences in distribution." Though
feminists, progressives and Leftists generally are keen to deny it, men and women are not mere
blank slates on which the "unequal" environment imprints its ink; we should not assume as a
matter of course that something is awry if the workplace reflects!
as it inevitably must
!those gender differences which we all seem to notice the moment we leave it.
Neuroscientist Debra W. Soh, writing at Quillette, observes that
within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men!when it comes to
brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational
preferences!are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies)
is strong. This is not information that's considered controversial or up for debate; if you
tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you'd be laughed at.
Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism
or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have
chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we
have to have this conversation at a public level. Some of these ideas have been published in
neuroscientific journals!despite having faulty study methodology!because they've been deemed
socially pleasing and "progressive." As a result, there's so much misinformation out there
now that people genuinely don't know what to believe.
Also at
Quillette
, eminent evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller remarks that
"almost all of the Google memo's empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they
are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are
especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and
history."
Steven Pinker himself!he of the very solid liberal credentials!has published much rigorous
work on natural gender differences, in both intelligence and personality traits. Here he is on
YouTube, giving a talk which might be used to support James Damore's case:
Note, what is so revealing, that Pinker takes care to appease the dogmatic academic crowd
via the usual trite and simplistic reduction of human history to patriarchal oppression, lest,
like Ibsen's Dr. Stockmann, he be thought an enemy of the people. It can't be that man simply
found himself in a harsh world in which his superior brute strength was an immense advantage.
It can't be that a severe division of labor was for most of history inevitable for the sexes.
Like the Jews, man has always been behind the scenes, conspiring to oppress everyone. Well, at
least Pinker was prudent. After all, those aggressive, broad-shouldered feminists have been
known to body slam many an hysterically logical speaker.
Like Geoffrey Miller's, Pinker's work helps us to see better what ordinary people already
know well enough from everyday life (and which, thankfully for them, they feel no need to deny,
outside of the increasingly touchy workplace, anyway): that men and women are indeed different;
nor is it obvious, in a sane world, why that should be such a scandal. For these differences,
qua
differences, are value neutral. My working-class mother, who never finished high
school, is not obviously
inferior as a person
to Heather MacDonald, despite my own
admiration for that excellent and courageous scholar-journalist.
It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on
average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness.
Many if not most
Google employees surely do have exceptionally high IQs. That men should so excel at the Google
corporation!as they do at so many other things at the highest level!reflects Nature itself and
is consistent with a massive amount of empirical findings. It is also consistent with many
traditional stereotypes, for the most part. The psychologist Lee Jusim, among others, has done
excellent work on the overwhelming accuracy (though typically, much suppressed) of stereotypes.
If you want to see a humorous example of the truth of stereotypes, see the exceedingly
emotional reactions by the female Google employees!who have made their disgust well-known on
Twitter!that Pichai describes in the second paragraph where I quote him above. It is reported
that many female Google employees stayed home from work on Monday, triggered into melancholy by
Damore's truthful words. Tragically, the feminist quilting bee soon degenerated into a wild
intersectional tizzy, the rotund blue and pink-haired ladies of various races and gender
identities squabbling over whose cat should first be allowed to peck at Damore's soon to be
flayed carcass. Looking at the photos and social media accounts of Google's Diversity-rabble,
one is struck by how stereotypical they are; virtually everyone looks fresh from a Judith
Butler conference at Bryn Mawr college: trans-this, queer-that, communist,
ad nauseam
. Defective specimens of divorce culture, therapy culture, and human folly and degeneration
generally. Persons who, hardly ever having been around traditional masculinity, cannot but
misunderstand it, and with the all-too-human fear and hatred of the unknown. Perusing pictures
of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, one perceives, quite palpably, a typical skinny, weak, effete
twenty-first century Last Man: born to take orders from nasty women and resentment-pipers
generally
Gender differences may be bad news for Feminist Dogma, yet as Pinker says in his talk, the
truth cannot be sexist, nor should it be "harmful"!to an adult mind, at least. Of course, like
Lawrence Summers, who was obliged to step down from the Harvard Presidency a while back for not
going along with Feminist Dogma, Pinker has caught fire from feminists!increasingly nasty
women, as it were. Sundar Pichai, like our feminists, says all the right things about diversity
and the like, but when it comes to the reality of one gender being better, on average, at, say,
engineering, he goes in for cant about "harmful gender stereotypes." If, though, anybody was to
say, what there is also much evidence to support, that women, on average, are better at
language skills than men, nobody would be troubled. Such hypocritical intolerance by the
partisans of tolerance should be expected to continue apace, unless we others make a principled
stand. Looking at the academy and at our intellectuals in general, we may wonder how so many
people can manage to walk upright without a spine. Alas, more vital work for the
deplorables.
The Diversity Idol is confused and inherently self-defeating. As Debra W. Soh puts it in the
The Globe and Mail
,
research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences
when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their
occupations based on what they enjoy.
As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is
unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect
to see this gender gap widen.
The Diversity Idol also reeks of hypocrisy. Where are all the calls for more women in
bricklaying and coal mining, fields in which there are hardly any women?
As for women's relative lack of leadership positions, at Google and elsewhere, much the best
explanation is that by Jordan Peterson. The issue is not so much lack of ability as (sensible)
lack of interest. Why, Peterson asks, should women want anything to do with what is commonly
called leadership, seeing as it is generally a quite mad and foolish affair (endless work and
stress, all for wealth that does not make happy)? Women's relative lack of interest in
so-called leadership!which ultimately, today as yesterday, amounts in the main to men vying to
outdo one another in order to win the favor of women in the sexual marketplace!signifies their
greater good sense, which certainly is of a piece with their greater psychological and
emotional discernment generally, and quite a long way from man's lunatic competitiveness and
zeal for mammon. It is well to reflect on just what women are really missing out on by not
exercising the power that men do, all in all. Is it a power worth having, most of the time? Do
we not find our highest good when we are free to pursue that which has
inherent
value?
Then too, there is the reality, hardly recognized in our time, that, as G.K. Chesterton put it,
"feminism is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers
but slaves when they help their husbands." For my own part, though an awful cook, I should
rather be a house husband at home tending to my children than live a professional death-in-life
at some touchy, humorless office.
In our status-obsessed society, there are constant gripes about how women are "excluded"
from exercising power in the workplace. Meanwhile nobody says anything about the enormous
psycho-biological power women possess simply by virtue of being women. This power, of course,
is essentially determined by a woman's attractiveness, which is closely associated with youth
and good health. No surprise, then, that women all over the world are forever trying to appear
as attractive as possible, to the cost of billions every year. Such power, though inevitably
prevalent in the workplace itself, far transcends it: it is a law of Nature itself, and indeed
one of the strongest. As noted above, the endless male struggle for status mostly comes down to
being able to obtain a desirable woman.
Today we see countless attractive young women spending vast amounts of time uploading photos
of themselves on social media. How many wish to be a star! Hence that increasingly common
phenomenon the duck face, which some might take for a kind of strange medical affliction:
"Pucker up," thinks the generic young beauty in her vanity; "everybody's watching!" Like women
on the many dating websites and apps, these social media darlings find that they can hardly
keep up with all the male attention!surely an intoxicating pleasure, although doubtless often
corrupting. No matter their intentions, and whether they are aware of it or not, such women are
extremely powerful. The notion that a woman like Emily Ratajkowski is "oppressed" because of
her "objectification" is absurd beyond description. Hers is a most willful objection; there is
massive power in it; and even if the stunner was not affluent through her modeling and other
endeavors, she would still not have to work: countess men would get in line to provide for her,
now as ever. On the other hand, take away Bill Gates' billions, and how many women would even
give that unattractive, uncharming fellow the time of day?
Google and other corporations, to maximize their profits, feel obliged to keep the diversity
crowd happy. Yet there is, ironically, nothing the diversity crowd opposes more than diversity
itself. To see this, consider that to effect "social justice," we must all become
thesame
, like a mad God who chooses to bungle His creation. For, so long as I differ
from you in some way or other, it will always be possible to make a value judgment!of
inferiority, of superiority, or of whatever!concerning that difference. And this would be true
even if everyone had the same amount of money, even if there were no private property, and so
on. For the most part, the social justice crowd is not motivated by benevolent justice, but by
wicked resentment: that is why it wants not universal economic sufficiency (which I strongly
support, insofar as it is achievable), but equality of outcome; with the result that
comparative value judgment will be impossible.
Now equality of outcome derives from human psychology, from the permanent truth that there's
nothing we children of pride detest more than the thought: "That person is
better
than
me." Seeing other people perceive that superiority induces the same burning, violent envy, like
a child who wants to destroy his parent's favored sibling. Indeed, from childhood on, man!the
esteeming animal!defines himself in terms of competition, of rank, of hierarchy. No artist or
athlete wants to be
equal
to another. Not every person, waxing indignant about
inequality, wants to make
the same
income as
every
neighbor; very few do, in
fact. Like suffering and death, this extreme competiveness is a law of Nature, from which we
merely issue. Try to get rid of it, and see what mediocrity, corruption and degeneration
follow. I say, look around you.
Biographical note: Christopher DeGroot is a writer and independent scholar in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
already argues that truth does not matter any more.
The field of Optometry is increasingly dominated by women. I have served on the admissions
committee for an optometry school, and we'd like a better balance between male and female,
but if most of the best applicants are female, well that's that and nobody whines. Many of
these applicants are quite up-front about choosing optometry because it offers a better
work-life balance than, say, ophthalmic surgery, and again, so what?
New enrollment in US medical schools is now 50/50 between men and women, and will likely
become majority female before too long. Where is the angst?
And I remind you that, on average, people with degrees in medicine and optometry have
significantly larger salaries than people with degrees in engineering, and significantly
longer careers. On balance, I'd not say that professional women are doing all that bad. It's
just that, for whatever reasons, the smart women tend to choose medicine over engineering. I
fail to see a problem here.
The Pope, Emerson an Chesterton quotes are great. Especially the Pope-quote.
Thanks for putting Pinker, Peterson and Soh at the right place in the big picture.
These lines are a little bit misleading, because siblings rivlary is nothing exclusively
boyish. There are women-athletes who want to win too, aren't there?
Seeing other people perceive that superiority induces the same burning, violent envy,
like a child who wants to destroy his parent's favored sibling. Indeed, from childhood on,
man!the esteeming animal!defines himself in terms of competition, of rank, of hierarchy. No
artist or athlete wants to be equal to another. Not every person, waxing indignant about
inequality, wants to make the same income as every neighbor; very few do, in fact.
How come noone is discussing the role that Pinchai is himself a product of affirmitive
action plays in this? Do people really believe an Indian immigrant would serve as CEO of
Google, as CEO of Microsoft if not for affirmitive action? Being CEO is not an engineering
position. There are plenty of native-born mainstream Americans that could do these jobs. Most
large American companies would never give the job of CEO to an immigrant from a 3rd-world
country. Some of the business men that founded large companies may be immigrants, but it's
different if they built the company. They're in control. Pinchai is just a hired hand, like
Damore was.
"Science is an odd sort of pursuit, way off the beaten track of human intellection There
were theologians and politicians long, long, long before there were scientists. In dark
moments I am inclined to think the former will still be with us long after the latter have
been eliminated, probably via mass lynching Scientists themselves tend to forget this because
they associate mainly with other scientists."
"It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on
average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness."
First time I'm hearing that claim. I've heard about the flatter, wider Bell Curve for men
but the average IQ was either the same or even higher. That's also more logical since men
need higher IQs to both prove themselves as providers and charm the pants off their mates.
Women love intelligence + health in their mates while men look for beauty + health. A highly
stratified, unequal and un-meritocratic (old money, castes or arranged marriages) system can
distort the choices quite a bit but that's the baseline.
This is also interesting if true:
Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today's
human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get
that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of
the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
@The
Alarmist
Damone is somebody's shill. Nobody with two functioning brain cells would
publish that memo in that environment without some expectation of losing his job; either he
is looking for fame and a payout, or he is simply insane.
Damone [sic] is somebody's shill.
.So exposing the reality of liberal-leftist bigotry, bullying and discrimination is proof
that you're "sombody's shill"? What kind of bullshit argument is that?
Nobody with two functioning brain cells would publish that memo in that environment
without some expectation of losing his job; either he is looking for fame and a payout, or
he is simply insane.
Which reveals what a scoundrel mentality you have. Exposing corruption, bigotry, and
manipulation of the public mind through the control of information is something you think a
sane person would do, only for fame or money.
The idea of blowing the whistle on a bunch of dirty manipulators, bigots, bullies and
scumbags who routinely misdirect the public for both political ends or to boost profits
because you no longer wish to work with them, or because you think the public should know
what such people are doing, or because you believe in propagating truth not using the most
powerful tools for the enlightenment of humanity for the purpose of pushing some grotesque
leftist agenda is, apparently, to a moral numbskull such as yourself, unintelligible.
What a sick society America has become, that it can produce individuals who not only think
as you do, but who think anyone who thinks otherwise is insane.
But the cherry on the cake is that Damore did not blow the whistle on anyone. He merely
circulated a memorandum among what Pichai, Google's idiot savant CEO, calls "Googlers". It
was Pichai, confirming his own idiocy, who blew the whistle on himself by firing Damore.
What delicious irony. The shit CEO of the dirty search engine company, dicked himself.
@jilles
dykstra
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of
Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
already argues that truth does not matter any more. Thanks for referencing this book. Read it
when it was first published. As such it served as my introduction to Lasch, who was a very
prescient thinker (read "The True and Only Heaven"). And here's what's disturbing: Lasch, as
I recall, pointed out that narcissism is in fact a mental disorder which is considered to be
so deep-seated as to be impossible to cure.
The most stupid thing to do was to fire this guy. The paper raises an important question
-- at what point affirmative action becomes discrimination. But the author does not
understand that gender bias is an important part of identity wedge -- a powerful tool under
neoliberalism to split and marginalized opposition to neoliberal fat cats adopted and polished by
Clintonized Democratic Party (DemoRats).
Notable quotes:
"... ( Editor's note: The following is a 10-page memo written by an anonymous senior software engineer at Google.) ..."
"... This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. ..."
"... [1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries. ..."
"... [2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations. ..."
"... [3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering. ..."
"... [4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. ..."
"... [5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. ..."
"... [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. ..."
"... [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy." ..."
"... [8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy. ..."
"... [9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. ..."
"... [10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak." ..."
"... [11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians. ..."
( Editor's note: The following is a 10-page memo written by an anonymous senior software
engineer at Google.)
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using
stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at
population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about
this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual
respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is
disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing
their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would
never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of
being fired. This needs to change.
TL:DR
Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety,
but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to
be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this
ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal
representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Background [1]
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us.
Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots
and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest
discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no
means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at
Google.
Google's biases
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we
rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral
preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or,
in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly
hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will
constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests
(ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and
competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and
inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its
hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching
extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the
extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the
authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal
representation.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding
women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole
story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just
socially constructed because:
They're universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify
and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these
differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities
of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain
why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these
differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say
anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also
have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as
empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or
artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within
SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and
aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises,
speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there's overlap
between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women's issue. This leads to exclusory
programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher
levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress
jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that
"greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men's and women's
personality traits." Because as "society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate
dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that
exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider." We need to stop assuming that
gender gaps imply sexism.
Men's higher drive for status
We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we
see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not
be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher
paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead
men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and
dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of
work-related deaths.
N on-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women
that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's
representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making
strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more
collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and
Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of
our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be
doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. This doesn't mean that we should
remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable
traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done
in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less
stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and
benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status
on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men
may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our
culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men
are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more
"feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech
and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to
make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need
principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google!with
Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra
hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it
may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep
in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally
acknowledged.
The Harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.
However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several
discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually
increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is
both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled
left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
Why we're blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our
internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God >
humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny
science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).
Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about
95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains
myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us
blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly
politicized programs.
In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased
towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are
biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men.
We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms
to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's
labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is
interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences
are often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google
money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which
constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use
violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists
protests that we're seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has
created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100%
fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same
experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas
and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict
people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as
individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and
benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains
to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things
differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need
to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different
ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because
conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the
drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the
non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity
programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and
biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and
violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There's currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs
which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of
discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal
discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should
(hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.
I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly
support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective
empathy!feeling another's pain!causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to
us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us
better reason about the facts.
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our
sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to
take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without
the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can
remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and
isn't backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is
necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven't been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has
the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the
political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples
shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are
much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I'm not
advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what's
said in the training).
[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View
campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.
[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In
terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value
individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide
more citations.
[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.
[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and
women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google
funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase
representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups
(which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is
illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and
create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but
every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the
working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist
oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race
politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white,
straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."
[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant
helping the victims of the aristocracy.
[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of
reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend
more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more
hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men
needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on
their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due
to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues
(whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or
weak."
[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action
that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially
disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left
and a tool of authoritarians.
That reminds my witch hunt against Summers after his unfortunate speech (although there were other,
much more valid reasons to fire him from his position of the president of Harvard; his role in Harvard
mafia scandal (
Harvard
Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia ) is one ).
Notable quotes:
"... Google's Ideological Echo Chamber - How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion ..."
memo about " Google's Ideological Echo Chamber - How bias clouds our thinking about diversity
and inclusion ":
At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace
differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole story. On average,
men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed
because:
- ...
- ...
Google company policy is in favor of "equal representation" of both genders. As the existing representation
in tech jobs is unequal that policy has led to hiring preferences, priority status and special treatment
for the underrepresented category, in this case women.
The author says that this policy is based on ideology and not on rationality. It is the wrong
way to go, he says. Basic differences, not bias, are (to some extend) responsible for different representations
in tech jobs. If the (natural) different representation is "cured" by preferring the underrepresented,
the optimal configuration can not be achieved.
The author cites scientific studies which find that men and women (as categories, not as specific
persons) are - independent of cultural bias - unequal in several social perspectives. These might
be life planning, willingness to work more for a higher status, or social behavior. The differences
evolve from the natural biological differences between men and women. A gender preference for specific
occupations and positions is to be expected, Cultural bias alone can not explain it. It therefore
does not make sense to strive for equal group representation in all occupations.
From there he points to the implementation of Google's policy and concludes:
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Google
fired
the engineer. Its 'Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance' stated:
We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a
company. [..] Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which
those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions.
But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code
of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.
(Translation: "You are welcome to discuss your alternative policy views - unless we disagree with
them.")
The current public discussion of the case evolves around "conservative" versus "progressive",
"left" versus "right" categories. That misses the point the author makes: Google's policy is based
on unfounded ideology, not on sciences.
The (legal) "principle of equality" does not imply that everyone and everything must be handled
equally. It rather means that in proportion with its equality the same shall be treated equally,
and in proportion with its inequality the different shall be treated unequally.
The author asks: Are men and women different? Do these differences result in personal occupation
preferences? He quotes the relevant science and answers these questions with "yes" and "yes". From
that follows a third question: What is the purpose of compelled equal representation in occupations
when the inherent (natural gender) differences are not in line with such an outcome?
Several scientist in the relevant fields
have
stated that the author's scientific reasoning is largely correct. The biological differences
between men and women do result in observable social and psychological differences which are independent
of culture and its biases. It is to be expected that these difference lead to different preferences
of occupations.
Moreover: If men and women are inherently equal (in their tech job capabilities) why does Google
need to say that "diversity and inclusion are critical to our success"? Equality and diversity are
in this extend contradictory. (Why, by the way, is Google selling advertising-space with "male" and
"female" as targeting criteria?)
If women and men are not equal, we should, in line with the principle of equality, differentiate
accordingly. We then should not insist on or strive for equal gender representation in all occupations
but accept a certain "gender gap" as the expression of natural differences.
It is sad that Google and the general society avoid to discuss the questions that the author of
the memo has asked. That Google fires him only confirms his claim that Google's policy is not
based on science and rationality but on a non-discussible ideology.
Posted by b on August 8, 2017 at 01:41 PM |
Permalink
Thanks, b, for the change in academic realms from geopolitics to anthropology. You wrote:
"The biological differences between men and women do result in observable social and psychological
differences which are independent of culture and its biases."
I disagree. From an anthropological perspective, biological differences form the basis for
all cultures and thusly cannot be independent of culture since they form its core. Yes, Google's
policy is ideological, but what policy can claim to be ideologically neutral? IMO, the answer
is none. Here I invoke Simon de Beauvoir's maxim that females are "slaves to the species" that
she irrefutably proves in The Second Sex . Fortunately, some societies based upon matrilineal
cultures survived into the 20th century thus upending the male dominated mythos created to support
such culturally based polities.
Social engineering is what it is. Social engineering is what it does.
It's an elite corporate project to androgynise humanity, a la 1984.
Simply put, women will not achieve their full potential outside the family.
The corporate project will continually have to put in place special discriminatory measures
to pretend they're equal in the SMET areas when all the evidence shows they're not, other than
in very special cases.
It's a project that's doomed to failure in the end, but much misery will be caused to both
men and women as this elite project continues.
Thankfully, the rest of the world isn't as brainwashed as Westerners.
You can disagree with B's science, and you can disagree with James' science. James was fired for
expressing his opinions and beliefs. This is so little about sexism and so much about freedom
of speech and freedom to consider other ideas. Bias shut that down at Google. These comments are
in line with shutting down independent thinking. I'm a little surprised to see that sort of ideology
here. When people - like B, like James - put their own circumstances at risk for the sake of open
mindedness, they deserve as much support as culture and society can offer.
Ivan Illich wrote a very interesting and controversial book "Gender" on the difference between
Gender and Sex. I do recommend every one to read this book (and all of other Illich's writings).
thanks b... this is more politically correct material.. it is what canada and probably many western
countries have been doing for some time.. google is a piece of crap corporation as far as i am
concerned, so this is in keeping with their neo-liberal agenda..
@7 bruce... i agree it is about freedom of speech, something sorely missing in the politically
correct realm of western society at this point in time..
'non-discussible ideology'.....great phrase b. None of it much matters because in 10-20 everybody
will be bi-sexual or trans-gender anyway. Any hold outs will be required to attend re-education
courses.
he says men are better than women - women are "neurotic" and can't handle stress and don't do
as much hard work as men and spend more money and on and on and on....
his level of argument and citation is about that of a teenager. he makes a lot of statements
with no support, such as men are better coders than women because women like social interaction
more. and even if men really are more cutthroat than women, his assumption is that being cutthroat
in management makes better companies. (Microsoft made great money, not great products.)
furthermore, his definition of 'left' and 'right' are narrowed to probably his entire life
experience which appears to be just out of college?
"Simply put, women will not achieve their full potential outside the family.
The corporate project will continually have to put in place special discriminatory measures
to pretend they're equal in the SMET areas when all the evidence shows they're not, other than
in very special cases."
I really wonder how someone can go through life interacting with women every day, and most
likely having wives, daughters, nieces, etc, and still hold the opinion that "by the way, you're
inferior shit and stupid and only good for producing babies". I would think first of all that
actual interaction with women would reveal this not to be the case, but if nothing else I would
think not being a freaking sociopath with a bleak worldview would prevent someone from being ending
up as such a douchebag.
I also love stuff like this: "It's an elite corporate project to androgynise humanity, a la
1984."
Good god, masculinity is the most fragile thing in existence. Anything, absolutely anything,
that in any way threatens its privileged position brings forth the waves of hyperbolic whinging.
Talk about being triggered. How about you stop defining your manliness by subjugating women. Efforts
to correct inequalities do not mean men are being turned into women, or whatever gibberish you're
complaining about.
With respect to the commenter alias "karlof1", you seem to have drifted off-topic somewhat.
Please point out specifically where the author of the now infamous Google memo seeks to in
any way denigrate women to a position in any way resembling slavery.
You have signally failed to refute anything in the memo as you have resorted to the lazy straw
man of sexism.
You can doubtless try harder and probably do better -- 0/10, for now, and see me at the end...
And while you're at it, why is feminism preferable to chauvinism - do please explain clearly
and try to stay on point.
I was a pilot for Lufthansa and really had no problems with our
ladypilots. Of course they had and have the same salary as males. But what was interesting:only
a few chose to apply for the job, with LH this meant to pass a test then enter the pilotschool
and passt al checks, incl. licencing. But:the percentage of the few who reallly passed all this
was around 90 percent, I mean, a girl who wants this real tech job and is intelligent will get
it. Boys tend to overestimate their abilities and therefor fail. Only about 10 percent who try
the test actually pass it. That is pne typical gender difference. PS:I am male ;)
Completely agree with poster "Anti-Soros" -- "Merasmus" is twisting this obtusely beyond all recognition,
read the memo, "Merasmus", and make your own mind up, so as you don't come over so utterly lopsided
and brainwashed in your awareness of sexual politics. And, on that note, as to "Dafranzl", is
your comment not verging on real, like genuine, sexism in that you are expressing some kind of
shock horror that women can actually pass a couple of tests and fly a plane?
I'm pretty sure it should be up to the women to decide what they want to do with their lives.
Some may want to be housewives, others don't. It's about freedom of choice (you know, that thing
conservatives are always claim they care so much about). You really don't see any problem with
men telling women what women truly want in life, and ensuring that that one thing is the only
option available to them, do you? It's amazing how men will declare that the different sexes have
different natural spheres, and then put family in the women's column, and literally everything
else, and the freedom to choice from all those other things, in the men's column.
You seem to think that the family and children are some sort of lower form of achievement.
Where'd you get that idea?
As I said, female creativity is the closet thing to godliness any human can get.
Don't trade that for poor male efforts at creativity.
There only sadness and frustration lie.
So much so indeed that the elite project in creativity is currently engaged in attempting to
undermine God and Female creativity with its own version of androids, robots and all the rest
of the cheap Frankenstein tricks for which frustrated males and their ersatz creativity are famous.
When will a bridge or an app, a poem, a book, a piece of music, ever come close to creating
and nurturing life itself.
There is a big cultural problem that keep women out of technical fields. In the west, the striving
to a career leads to a sudden mid 30s realization that maybe they do want a family. My experience
with west Africans is that they marry younger, have their families and get on with careers. This
also has the benefit of them going into the work force when they are a bit more mature, and have
actual life responsibilities.
The Mismeasure of Man is a 1981 book by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The book
is both a history and critique of the statistical methods and cultural motivations underlying
biological determinism, the belief that "the social and economic differences between human groups!primarily
races, classes, and sexes!arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this
sense, is an accurate reflection of biology."[2]
The principal assumption underlying biological determinism is that, "worth can be assigned to
individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity." This argument is analyzed
in discussions of craniometry and psychological testing, the two methods used to measure and establish
intelligence as a single quantity. According to Gould, the methods harbor "two deep fallacies."
The first fallacy is "reification", which is "our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities"[3]
such as the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the general intelligence factor (g factor), which have
been the cornerstones of much research into human intelligence. The second fallacy is that of
"ranking", which is the "propensity for ordering complex variation as a gradual ascending scale."[3]
The revised and expanded second edition (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy
of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Gould said the book re-presented
the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as "the abstraction
of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number
for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness,
invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups!races, classes, or sexes!are innately
inferior and deserve their status."[4]
For starters, good coding is not a male characteristic, because most of the gender is quite terrible.
So the question is: are "good coders" a more sizable minority among men or women? Both percentages
are culture related, and they probably have a gender component.
A weird thing is the gender ratio of women/men students of computer science seems quite even
in some Asian cultures, like Iranian, and very lopsided (1-9, 2-8) in American culture that has
a "feminity ideals" like "girls are not good at math". That is overlayed with relatively meager
rewards in American society for engineering fields, compared to law and medicine. I suspect that
the ratio of male jurists in Iran is very lopsided, so girls, for the want of good legal jobs,
go for engineering and math. (That is not a serious theory.)
Ah, benevolent sexism. Putting women on a pedestal and making it their prison.
"Women are not an inferior thing."
It would help in convincing others that you actually believe this if you hadn't literally opened
with (and then reiterated later) saying that women are generally too stupid to work in STEM fields.
"Who truly believes that women prefer coding all day long."
You could start by asking some women programmers. Though I really should point out the false
dichotomy you're engaging in here: women can be mothers or they can be something else, in your
mind they can never be both.
"So much so indeed that the elite project in creativity is currently engaged in attempting
to undermine God"
Because I'm sure the (supposed) creator of the entire universe can be undermined by a hairless
chimpanzee. "And I would have gotten away with it too, if hadn't been for you meddling humans!"
@T-Sixes
I don't particularly care about the memo or its asinine content. I'm responding to what people
have said in these comments.
As for the memo itself, neither side comes out looking particularly good. The engineer's memo
essentially boils down to "girlz r stoopid, and need to get out of my workplace" (he's not attempting
to engage in debate, which some of his defenders have claimed, as in 'he's just asking questions
and the PC police are too scared to engage him'), and Google's response was "you voiced an unacceptable
opinion so we're going to fire you" (they aren't interested in debate either, but he wasn't offering
one in the first place). It also has a lot of the inane 'both sides have good points, the best
answer is in the middle' centrist faux wisdom I've come to expect from the type of idiot who makes
up most of the Silicon Valley echo-chamber. Ah yes, the right is 'pragmatic'. They're pragmatically
destroying their economies by forever seeking tax cuts and the reduction of a national 'debt'
they don't even understand the nature of. Spare me.
Convenient that we just ignore the substantial body of research on gender bias in professional
fields, particularly tech.
Abstract
Biases against women in the workplace have been documented in a variety of studies. This paper
presents a large scale study on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions
from men versus women in an open source software community. Surprisingly, our results show that
women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, for contributors who
are outsiders to a project and their gender is identifiable, men's acceptance rates are higher.
Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against
them exists nonetheless.
The explanation for Iran I've heard is that STEM fields simply aren't held in high esteem in
Iran, so at a minimum it's a dearth of male interest in the area that has created a lot of openings
for women. On top of that there may be cultural/social pressure for women to go into less prestigious
fields while all the 'more important' areas are dominated by men. It's certainly fun to think
about how projects like Iran's recent ballistic missile test are in large part facilitated by
female input. If Iran is to hold the US at bay (or punish it heavily should it actually attack),
it's going to be with weapons created by people working in fields that are apparently held in
low esteem.
one thing women can do that men can't? that's right.. some things are factual.. a lot of stuff
is culturally and socially imposed though... women working doing coding.. have at it.. forcing
equal numbers being hired sure seems like 'politically correct thinking' to me... give the job
based on the qualifications.. skip with the politically correct bullshit..
@okie farmer
Perhaps different types of intelligence exist, but if they do, they are highly correlated, hence
the emphasis on (the mathematically dubious) g .
FWIW, I advocate a modified lead/iodine deficiency model to explain most variation in IQ. Unlike
older studies, more recent studies have found a small IQ gap between men and women, and women
having a narrower IQ range (standard deviation) than men, i.e. fewer outliers high and low. If
you look at US blacks, they have a narrower standard deviation of IQ than whites as well as a
lower mean IQ. This may be understood quite readily:
Healthy pubertal brain development adds to the standard deviation e.g. 9 points standard deviation
in my proposed model---12^2+9^2=15^2, where 15 is the defined std deviation over population of
IQ. Poor environment e.g. poison or lacking nutrition cause mean to differ as well.
The environmental argument is usually attacked on the basis of twin studies, e.g. using the
Falconer equations. That is because the equations are not usually derived from first principles.
To wit, one has mean environmental effect, deviation from mean environmental effect correlated
with gene, and uncorrelated with genes, which might not even be environmental, but simple developmental
noise. Those arguing that twin studies show the environmental effect to be small, ignore that
means are subtracted in calculating the Pearson correlation.
For women, especially after bromide replaced iodine in preparing dough for bread, late 70s
or early 80s, the need for iodine will not be met sufficiently during puberty, as both breasts
and the brain require iodine for development, in large quantities, and with feminising endocrine
disruptors in greater quantities in the environment, breast sizes have risen on average (cup size
inflation). Note deviation from previous generations' size should matter for same genes, not deviation
from population mean, so if daughter is bigger than mother, e.g., then lower IQ expected, but
not because daughter is bigger than agemate, as the environmental mean is shared (but does not
enter Falconer equations' correlations, being subtracted)...
With US blacks, lead poisoning is still an issue, albeit much smaller than during the 90s.
Look at the NHANES III data---the histogram of blood lead is nearly inverse, which suggests sporadic
poisoning (lead paint, with dBLL/dt=R-BLL (ln 2)/\tau_{1/2} where R is the rate of intake (function
of time, zero most of the time under sporadic poisoning). Also, sub-Saharan Africa largely avoided
the Bronze Age, going straight to iron work---the Bantu used a bit of copper but not much evolutionary
pressure to develop resistance to lead uptake. If you read e.g. Unz review, I did previously argue
that blacks in US are more likely to live in lead painted housing, based on BLL, but US data show
whites as likely to live in such housing---blacks take up more lead for same environment.
I find it fascinating that the liberal snowflake SJWs claim to promote diversity except diverse
opinion. There's a reason that the neocons were liberals.
And the communist heroes of the left including Lenin & Mao are comparable to the fascists with
my way or the highway to death.
depends entirely on the type of jobs applied for. If one can pass the physical and mental tests
for the job applied for, gender or race shouldn't matter. That's assuming the employer's requirements
are reasonable.
According to Unesco, 29% of people in scientific research worldwide are women, compared with
41% in Russia. In the UK, about 4% of inventors are women, whereas the figure is 15% in Russia.
Is engineering destined to remain a male-dominated field? Not everywhere. In China, 40% of
engineers are women, and in the former USSR, women accounted for 58% of the engineering workforce.
Women get these jobs when they are needed, if not, they are expected to stay at home. It is
not about free speech, feminism, ability or choice.
This plateau is of concern to policy experts. For the last decade, the European Commission
has highlighted the risks related to the shortage of engineers and has called on member states
to draw more widely on the pool of female talent. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics warned
last year that the demand for computer engineers in the U.S. would see an increase of 36% by
the year 2012. It seems urgent in these conditions to train more women. So what are the obstacles?
Google needs those female engineers. As simple as that.
I didn't address the content of the memo, if you had read more carefully. I quoted a sentence
b wrote and went on from there. Seems your knee-jerk hit you I the head.
The same thing had been said in 2011 by a Norwegian documentary, "Brainwash" (highly recommended
viewing, it can be found on Youtube with English subtitles).
The Norwegian government cut its funding for "Gender studies" after its airing.
I am a woman, and its seems to me the politically correct comments here all have one thing
in common: they confuse two distinct notions, difference and inferiority.
I feel different from men, I know I am, but in no way do I feel inferior. I am not interested
in sports, cars or coding. I am interested in psychology, childhood and fashion. Sorry, it's not
cultural, since it's the same the world over. I will add it cannot be cultural, because
the sex roles are differentiated in the animal kingdom too. Take a male lion and a female - the
male naps, she hunts. All the other animals equally show different patterns of behaviour according
to their sex, save ants, amoebae, viruses and other microbes, bugs or non-mammals. So, pretending
that there are no differences between men and women, when all it takes is two minutes of observation
of nature (let alone a clothes shop during sales) is sheer gaslighting.
Men and woman are complementary, which is way more beautiful, diverse and life-enhancing than
that drab uniformity/sameness that, it seems to me, emanates from people who are so narcissistic
they are scared stiff of anything that is not their mirror image.
As for me, I love men, and I love the fact we are different. With men's abilities and women's,
there is nothing we can't accomplish together.
"I don't particularly care about the memo or its asinine content. I'm responding to what people
have said in these comments."
-- OK, so be a good girl and make yourself useful: you can start with the housework. Please
explain how can you comment so vitriolically upon specific matters you admit that know almost
nothing about?
"As for the memo itself, neither side comes out looking particularly good. The engineer's memo
essentially boils down to "girlz [sic] r stoopid [sic], and need to get out of my workplace""
-- You are mistaken, as usual: the points are societal, biological and anthropological in their
character and not AT ALL driven by chauvinism, which your bitter and ill-informed input, certainly,
is.
"(he's [sic] not attempting to engage in debate, which some of his defenders have claimed,
as in 'he's just asking questions and the PC police are too scared to engage him'), and Google's
response was "you voiced an unacceptable opinion so we're going to fire you" (they aren't interested
in debate either, but he wasn't offering one in the first place)."
-- Absolute nonsense, as usual: the guy's gripe seemed to be that there's no oxygen in which
to engage with certain subject matter. There's a stultifying, stifling, suffocating, oppressive
atmosphere perpetuated and sustained by people just like you, "Merasmus".
"It also has a lot of the inane 'both sides have good points, the best answer is in the middle'
centrist faux wisdom I've come to expect from the type of idiot who makes up most of the Silicon
Valley echo-chamber."
-- You mean, it's balanced and considered? Have you finally read it now, then?
"Ah yes, the right is 'pragmatic'. They're pragmatically destroying their economies by forever
seeking tax cuts and the reduction of a national 'debt' they don't even understand the nature
of. Spare me."
-- Are we drifting tediously away from the salient points, due to your total lack of knowledge
or awareness of what you are talking about?
@karlof1 - so, to be clear, you are commenting on an article regarding a memo you haven't read?
Do you not think it might be an advisable next step for you to take the time to read the memo,
in order to better inform yourself, so that you don't keep jerking and hitting yourself in the
head?
I worked under a lady CEO. It was so refreshing compared to life under men. There was open
dialogue, I felt I could voice ideas safely.
I think all CEO's would be females. It's like their social approaches to inclusion is unilaterally
better than (white) men.
Is that sexist?
Your experience says more about your boss as an individual and has little or nothing
to do with her gender. The worst boss I have had was a woman and so was the best boss I have worked
for.
The myth of the "kinder, gentler" female leader has been thoroughly debunked. Hillary Clinton
and Margaret Thatcher were both women. Thinking woman are morally and ethically "purer" than men
is ridiculous.
As for Google vs. the engineer...of course he was fired. Corporations are not democracies.
They are top-down dictatorships.
Sorry, but you miss a or perhaps 'the' crucial point here.
So let's say that men & women are indeed different, and this also influences their job preferences,
independently of societal influence. I have my doubts, but let's just assume it for now.
Now if an employer thinks that men and women have different qualifications and strengths, s/he
might come to the conclusion that they complement each other. It would thus make perfect sense
to build teams with a balanced gender mix, in order to optimize results for the company. Whether
or not each individual employee is the best possible hire is secondary - it's overall performance
that counts.
Actually the first commenter TSP pretty much confirms this thesis, albeit only anecdotally.
@40 lea. thanks.. i see it much the same way as you..
@45 smuks... as i mentioned - hire people, regardless of sex, race, and etc - based off merit
and qualifications.. skip with the politically correct bs.. yes, i agree with @1, however anecdotal
is it and i got a laugh from @4 too!
as for a lack of engineers and etc in the west.. i always think back to the joke about their
being 30 engineers for every 1 banker in japan, verses 30 banker types for 1 engineer in the usa..
it was something like that... i guess you could throw in real estate sales people instead of bankers
if you want... it paints a picture that probably has a good degree of relevance to the changing
fortunes of countries, or cultures that pursue a certain path, over other ones also available.
What awful discussion here. Says a lot that the most adult and mature commentators here are those
that I find myself somewhat in disagreement with.
Looking forward to your next piece though as always Bernard. Not that I don't like this either
per se - but I'd be lying if I didn't say I find your non-geopolitical work to result in the silliest
and most ideological of discussions and commentators. Though I still encourage you to keep doing
what fufils you regardless.
I agree with his ultimate conclusion:
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Forced equality is not the way to go. It winds up twisting society in bad ways. Is this the
number one problem facing the US and American businesses? Isn't group think bad whether from the
inside or the outside? Playing one group (sex, race, etc) off against the other does make a good
distraction.
I'm not a woman, you idiot. And I never said I hadn't read it, I said I wasn't addressing it,
only responding to things said in these comments.
>various [sics]
Good job! It's almost like I was mocking the memo-maker as a grown up version of the kind of
boy who puts 'No Girls Allowed' signs outside his treehouse. A kind of manchild, if you will.
"Absolute nonsense, as usual: the guy's gripe seemed to be that there's no oxygen in which
to engage with certain subject matter. There's a stultifying, stifling, suffocating, oppressive
atmosphere perpetuated and sustained by people just like you, "Merasmus"."
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
The part about centrism is in relation to the memo explicitly talking about Left and Right
politics, and how each side supposedly has valid points. This is precisely the type of centrism
that is a. destroying the US and the EU, and b. rapidly disintegrating, especially in America.
@Lea
One key difference would be that humans are (ostensibly) a higher lifeform that isn't driven
entirely by instinct. So appealing to how things work in the wider natural world is something
of a non-starter. Regardless, even if you were going to do that, there are creatures far more
closely related to us than lions we could draw comparisons to. For some *strange* reason people
appealing to nature never have much to say about the Bonobo...
"So, pretending that there are no differences between men and women, when all it takes is two
minutes of observation of nature"
Literally no one is making this claim though. I have literally never met a feminist who claimed
sexual dimorphism didn't exist in humans. What I seen is a whole lot of people who absolutely
refuse to differentiate between sex and gender, however.
"Men and woman are complementary [...] With men's abilities and women's, there is nothing we
can't accomplish together."
Nice sentiment. The problem is I have never met anyone who, while complaining about women in
the workplace and talking about how there's some natural division of labor, then suggested anything
like a 50/50 split. Or even 60/40, or 70/30. Instead, they do what Anti-Soros above does, and
relegate women to breeding and housekeeping, making the divide more like 90/10 or 95/5 or some
similar extremely lopsided value. They give to men by far the greater share of opportunity and
freedom, and claim this is a natural and fair division, while telling the women they shouldn't
even desire more, and should be content with a 'woman's unique happiness'.
Nailed it. And I believe the purpose of b's foray into gender and/or lgbtq discrimination is
that, currently, it is intrinsically tied to the empire's tactics of subversion and infiltration.
It upsets me to no end that fomenting discord between the yin and the yangs of the world is the
lockstep modus operandi of the bringers of chaos. "Linear" thinking a la "women can't do it" or
"women must do it" are really just distractions, and they are important architectural designs
of the true believers in the uniparty who are trying to crush the way to peace.
Any meddlesome actions taken by any entity, whether affirmative action or discrimination against
men due to preferencing female hires, is sure to end in disaster anyway. Look at the US and tell
me it is not a powder keg. Russia, in the wisdom of ages, saw the ngos in their country for what
they were. Eliminating these meddlesome devices is best by nipping them in the bud.
The female always overcomes the male anyway by weakness and stillness. Water over rock. When
women want to be rock (Hillary Clinton), you've got problems.
Lea @ 40: Very thoughtful and insightful comment, thanks..
Unfortunately, most men can't get by the second strongest drive in human existence, the drive
to pro-create, and it clouds our thinking. History gives credence to this theory.
I haven't seen the term patriarchy introduced to this discussion. I think patriarchy is a good
term for the historical attitudes that assert innate/generic/gender related qualitative differences
between female/male capabilities.
I posit that women are better at gestating children than men and any other comparison is mostly
self serving conjecture because of woefully inadequate science.
And I agree with NemesisCalling that ".....it is intrinsically tied to the empire's tactics
of subversion and infiltration. It upsets me to no end that fomenting discord between the yin
and the yangs of the world is the lockstep modus operandi of the bringers of chaos. "Linear" thinking
a la "women can't do it" or "women must do it" are really just distractions, and they are important
architectural designs of the true believers in the uniparty who are trying to crush the way to
peace."
...
..."Dafranzl", is your comment not verging on real, like genuine, sexism in that you are expressing
some kind of shock horror that women can actually pass a couple of tests and fly a plane?
Posted by: T-Sixes | Aug 8, 2017 3:42:57 PM | 21
There was nothing ambiguous about what Dafranzl wrote. He expressed genuine respect and explained
why he is NOT surprised by their success.
I read the memo. Compare the tone of the memo to the misogyny and sexism of the miners in the
movie North Country starring Charlize Theron - the racism of the segregated South of the 50s.
There were a number of statements he definitely should have left out even if he thinks they are
true. "Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees
sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around
power." or "Women are more prone to stress" (although I would agree with him if he had said -
women who are mothers worry more than men) "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower
number of women in high stress jobs." He could have left out his poor analysis of left-right.
It is true for me that suffocating and/or just silly political correctness is found more often
on the left liberal side. Of many conservatives it can be said, "The totally convinced and the
totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." Robert Anton Wilson
He did show a bias when discussing the differences between men and women. Maybe because I'm an
older white man I didn't find them so much insulting as debatable.
There are many other statements that I found correct "men take undesirable and dangerous jobs
like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."
"Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make
it appealing to equal portions of both men and women." It certainly is true that many of the problems
that diverse peoples or women have are equally true of many white men not in the upper crust.
"This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be
honestly discussed." (Have I found this to be true - revisionist Holocaust history for example)
I certainly think he shouldn't have been fired for bring up these issues. The differences between
men and women as they relate to employment should be considered and studied. His firing, in fact,
proves one of the points he was trying to make.
So this is what they call identity politics. And this is how it drives out issue-based discussion
- in this case freedom of expression within the corporation.
Got it, thanks.
ps.. @ 37 somebody - thanks for that slice of real life.
observable biological diffs (karlof1); womanless females (AntiSoros). google perks (thegenius);
thought blockouts (Ballai); neo-liberal agenda (james); non-discussible ideology (dh); a unique
corporate category-classified androgine (Merasmus); blinder-enhanced directed-answer response
(T-Sixes); amazing test results (Dafranzl); the (statistically) mature woman (Hohan Meyer); determinism
(okie farmer); absolutes (ab initio); train more women (somebody); different but not inferior;
even complimentary (Lea); top down dictators (Sane); flaws (Hoarsewhisperer); discriminatory (Curtis);
rocking women are problems (NemesisCalling);
please consider the following http://www.unz.com/jman/the-five-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
@59 I actually referred to that piece obliquely, by calling variation not correlated with genes,
'noise,' in particular his last point, from Emil Kierkegaard. Btw if the latter is reading, Mr
Kierkegaard, in our last email exchange, in references to a paper by Debes, you interpreted his
beta (-2.2) times his proxy (blood lead level's base 10 logarithm) naively, to wit that the logarithm
of blood lead level predicts IQ. A simple problem, involving that same ODE---maternal leave, paid
or not---expectant mothers' exposure to lead during the pregnancy, under the frequent poisoning
regime (gasoline/petrol) will roughly stop upon taking maternal leave, and thus the (linear) dose
during the pregnancy will be linearly related to the logarithm of the cord (birth) blood lead
level. There is more to say, and I shall email a more detailed commentary shortly...
The memo actually said something similar about using the complementary traits of men and women
in teams. He mentioned how women's traits were good for the design of user interfaces and men's
traits were good for the back end. What made Steve Jobs so distinctive wasn't that he was a great
engineer or inventor (he wasn't). He thought about user experience like a woman. Apple was great
on the "female" side of software engineering while Microsoft was great on the "male" side. Microsoft
did, and still does, better on the back end but, as Jobs famously criticized them for about 25
years ago, their products lacked culture and taste.
IQ is not biological determinism. Saying that it is strictly hereditary is. There is a strong
correlation between IQ and ability to perform intellectual tasks, and with social performance
up to about IQ 120. The correlation drops away above that because the extremely profound thinking
at which higher IQ provides an advantage is less tied to social performance. I see no contradiction
between saying IQ is a valid measure of cognitive ability and saying that it is culturally influenced.
Some cultures do not foster the development of cognitive ability.
The real question is who controlled Imram Awan and who planted him into Congress (as a mole). The level of criminal negligence
demonstrated during his hiring is atypical for the
USA government. And especially for government IT. Which is staffed by very security conscious people, as a rule. So he
definitely should have a "sponsor" among intelligence agencies to accomplish such a feat and suppress all the "flash
lights" that lighted during evaluation of his candidacy. I think that "I want this guy" request from Debbie Wasserman
was not enough. She is no Hillary Clinton ;-) But to which country this intelligence agency belong is an open question,
but most probably this was a USA intelligence agency. I doubt that Mossad would use Pakistani as their agent.
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between 30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees." ..."
"... At one point, Imran brought into the House as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being recently fired by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000. ..."
"... To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees, Imran also hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman. ..."
"... The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff. Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014. ..."
"... It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial reporting on the investigation of the Awans family, repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff. ..."
"... As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested. ..."
"... Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan. ..."
"... Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments. ..."
"... [An earlier version of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ] ..."
There has been surprisingly little media follow-up on the story about the July 25 th Dulles Airport arrest of House
of Representatives' employed Pakistani-American IT specialist Imran Awan, who was detained for bank fraud while he was allegedly
fleeing to Pakistan. The mainstream media somewhat predictably produced
minimal press coverage before the story died. The speed at which the news vanished has prompted some observers,
including Breitbart, to sound the alarm over a suspected cover-up of possible exposure of classified information or even espionage
that just might be part of the story that we are now calling Russiagate.
To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and
two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between
30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were
their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than
time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees."
At one point, Imran brought into the House
as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being
recently fired
by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications
at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he
went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee
as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000.
To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees,
Imran also
hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and
kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana
routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman.
The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service
level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff.
Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014.
The process of granting security clearances to Congressional staff is not exactly transparent, but it is not unlike the procedures
for other government agencies. The office seeking the clearance for a staff member must put in a request, some kind of investigation
follows, and the applicant must then sign a non-disclosure agreement before the authorization is granted. Sometimes Congress pushes
the process by demanding that its staff have access above and beyond the normal "need to know." In March 2016, for example, eight
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee requested
that their staffs be given access to top secret sensitive compartmented information.
It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been
involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial
reporting on the investigation of the Awans family,
repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer
network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely
ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff.
Congress paid the Awans
more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources suggest to be
three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at the same level of
alleged competency. Four of the Awans were among the
500 highest paid of the 15,000 congressional staffers. The considerable and consistent level of overpayment has not been explained
by the congressmen involved. In spite of all that income being generated, Imran Awan declared bankruptcy in 2010 claiming losses
of $1 million on a car business that he owned in Falls Church Virginia that ran up debts and borrowed money that it failed to repay.
The business was named
Cars International A, abbreviated on its business cards as CIA
The Awans family also was noted for its brushes with the law and internal discord, though it is doubtful if the congressional
employers were aware of their outside-of-the-office behavior. The brothers were on the receiving end of a number of traffic citations,
including DUI, and were constantly scheming to generate income, including what must have been a
hilarious phone conversation to their credit union in
which Imran pretended to be his own wife in order to wire money to Pakistan. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother,
including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not see
their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government
owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer
network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed
to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem.
Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after
he was actually arrested.
Some of those defending the Awans, to include Wasserman-Schultz and the family lawyer, have insisted that he and his family were
the victims of
"an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job," though there is no actual evidence to suggest that is the case. They also claim that
the bank fraud that led to the arrest, in which Imran obtained a home equity loan for $165,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit
Union based on a house that he owned and claimed to live in in Lorton Virginia, was largely a misunderstanding It has been described
as something "extremely minor" by his lawyer
Chris Gowen , a
high priced Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
It turned out that Imran and his wife no longer lived in the house which had been turned into a rental property, a clear case
of bank fraud. The Awans had
tenants in the house, an ex-Marine and his Naval officer wife, who were very suspicious about a large quantity of what appeared
to be government sourced computer equipment and supplies, all material that had been left behind by the owners. They contacted the
FBI, which discovered hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed.
The FBI is certainly interested in the theft of government computers but it is also looking into the possibility that the Awans
were using their ability to access and possibly exploit sensitive information stored in the House of Representatives' computer network
as well as through Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, which Imran had access to and was connected to the Democratic National Committee server.
It is believed that Imran sent stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton Virginia, where the smashed equipment
was found, or as far away as Pakistan. As Imran Awan is a dual-national, born in Pakistan, the possibility of espionage also had
to be considered. By some accounts the Awan family traveled back to Pakistan frequently, where Imran was treated royally by local
officialdom, suggesting that he may have been doing favors for the not very friendly government in Islamabad.
Considering the possible criminal activity that Imran and his family might have been engaged in and which was still under investigation,
the Capitol Police and FBI determined that he should be stopped in his attempt to flee to Pakistan. The charge that Awan was actually
arrested on at the airport, bank fraud, was an easy way to hold him as it was well documented. It allows the other more serious investigations
to continue, so the argument that Imran Awan is only being held over a minor matter is not necessarily correct.
Awans had wired the credit union money and some cash of his own to Pakistan, as part of a $283,000 transfer that was made in January.
His wife Hina Alvi also left the U.S. two months later.
She was searched by Customs officers and it was determined that she had on her $12,400 in cash. She also had with her their three
children, and numerous boxes containing household goods and clothing. It was clear that she did not intend to come back but there
has been no explanation
why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony.
As Imran Awan
reportedly had access to Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, he presumably also was able to see the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
He used a laptop in her office as well that was, according to investigators, concealed in an "unused crevice" in the Rayburn House
Office Building. It is currently being examined by police but Wasserman-Schultz tried strenuously to recover it before it could be
looked at. She pressured the
Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew Verderosa to return it, threatening him by saying "you should expect that there will be consequences."
Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to
open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan.
There is another odd connection of Imran Awan that goes back to the neocon circle around Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War. In
late 2002 and early 2003, Wolfowitz regularly
met secretly with
a group of Iraqi expatriates who resided in the Washington area and were opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqis had not
been in their country of birth for many years but they claimed to have regular contact with well-informed family members and political
allies. The Iraqi advisers provided Wolfowitz with a now-familiar refrain, i.e. that the Iraqi people would rise up to support invading
Americans and overthrow the hated Saddam. They would greet their liberators with bouquets of flowers and shouts of joy.
The Iraqis were headed by one Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, born in Baghdad to Iranian parents in 1963, a 1989
graduate of the American University of
Beirut Faculty of Medicine. He subsequently emigrated to the United States and set up a practice in internal medicine in Greenbelt
Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. Al-Attar eventually expanded his business to include nine practices that he wholly or partly
owned in Virginia and Maryland but he eventually lost his license due to "questionable billing practices" as well as "unprofessional
conduct" due to having sex with patients
Al-Attar was
investigated by the FBI and eventually
indicted for large scale health care fraud in 2008-9, which included charging insurance companies more than $2.3 million for
services their patients did not actually receive with many of the false claims using names of diplomats and employees enrolled in
a group plan at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington. In one case, the doctors claimed an embassy employee visited three of their clinics
every 26 days between May 2007 and August 2008 to have the same testing done each time. The insurance company paid the doctors $55,000
for more than 400 nonexistent procedures for the one patient alone.
Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive
from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this
case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and
also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically
involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives
that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments.
The Imran Awan case is certainly of considerable interest not only for what the investigation eventually turns up but also for
what it reveals about how things actually work in congress and in the government more generally speaking. I don't know which of the
allegations about what might have taken place are true, but there is certainly a lot to consider. Whether the case is investigated
and prosecuted without fear or favor will depend on the Department of Justice and FBI, but I for one was appalled to learn that the
official who quite likely will
oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother
of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If that should actually occur, it would be a huge conflict of interest and it has to be wondered if
Wasserman would have the integrity to recuse himself.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted
prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals
to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained
beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of
caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran
Awan wind up with a high-priced lawyer to defend him who is associated with the Clintons? Would that kind of lawyer even take a relatively
minor bank fraud case if that were all that is involved? Finally, there are the lingering concerns about the unfortunately well-established
Russiagate narrative. Did the Russians really hack into the DNC or were there other possibilities, to include some kind of inside
job, a "leak," carried out by someone working for the government or DNC for reasons that have yet to be determined, possibly even
someone actually employed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? There are certainly many issues that the public needs to know more
about and so far, there are not enough answers.
[An earlier version
of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ]
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely
event I were to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance
and allow me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
The Department of Justice needs to do its job looking at the Clintons, the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile and others.
The stench of corruption is appalling, and the Russia thing looks more like a fraudulent story to keep the pressure off, particularly
since the phony dossier which started it was compiled at the behest of a political consultancy which usually works for the same
crowd. I think it is about time that Mueller's fishing expedition be closed down and the necessary draining of the swamp be commenced.
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... Actually, the whole Awan-US Congress case is about the High Treason. No security clearances. The open
access to the classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (oh the irony!) and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
There are should be arrests made of those congresspeople who allowed the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity by inviting
and financing the non-qualified personnel (fraudulent hiring).
An important question is, who pays Chris Gowen, a very expensive and well-connected lawyer, for the defense of the documented
fraudster and possible spy.
That Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz oversees the investigation
is a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Those making the presstituting peeps about Russiangate should be from now on pummelled with the facts of the Tale of the Brothers
Awan.
This is a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people
were spying. Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince'
them to do so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer
ripoff in DC.
@Dana Thompson Somebody
should write a movie script based on this. It would be better than American Hustle - call it Pakistani Hustle, maybe. The pitch
would start with, "It's the Sopranos meet the Simpsons."
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed
Hillary Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey
dragged his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried?
What if they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they
never expected that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to
the Mueller, Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning
stages had to predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game
of strip poker? What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the
historical analogue of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest
episode of war pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What
are the chances that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods
on all of them, and she'll file that affidavit if she has to.
Killing freedom of speech in America, one google search at a time:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
"According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere
and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression. For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported
that "Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet
web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes,
many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html
@Seamus Padraig "As
Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no
leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair)
and the Trump Justice Dept. seems to have zero interest in it
I suspect this and other reasons- like the serial leaks from the highest levels of the intelligence agencies are why Trump
is becoming openly exasperated with Sessions
I suspect that Sessions knows that too much exposure of back-room dealings of the deepstate (with perhaps the Senate), would
be potentially inconvenient.
when Lindsey Graham! came to Jeff Sessions defense, I sort of knew then that Jeff Sessions is a deepstate asset
@F. G. Sanford What
if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed Hillary
Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey dragged
his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried? What if
they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they never expected
that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to the Mueller,
Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning stages had to
predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game of strip poker?
What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the historical analogue
of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest episode of war
pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What are the chances
that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods on all of them,
and she'll file that affidavit if she has to. I'm sorry F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied
to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between
the real, and the phony, narratives which have been put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy
theories' are made to become conspiracy theories.
It's possible the Wasserman-Schultz – Awan scandal was raised subsequently by a caller to C Span, but as the above schedule
of C Span Washington Journal programming displays, if the American people wanted to in-depth information about the Awans, they'd
do better to tune in to RT, where Dr. Phil Giraldi explained the case and labeled it "the scandal of the century"
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Where is Mr. Wasserman's
boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person in this critical
job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would stop DOJ from firing
the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions.
@Ace Foreign-born
people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely event I were
to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance and allow
me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information.
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Maybe it should be called
Wassergate.
@EdwardM Where is
Mr. Wasserman's boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person
in this critical job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would
stop DOJ from firing the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions. There is no Muslim-worship among the ziocons at DNC, who
got caught in the Awan affair. The Muslim card is a desperate argument for the currently unstoppable process of investigation.
Whether Mr. Wasserman or his boss or Clintons' lawyer defending Awan for the undisclosed amount of money, the train is moving
and the word Treason is in the air.
The most serious detail of the Awan affair is the violation of the protocol re classified information: The Awan family had no
security clearance, there was no documentation of the confirmation of the previous employment and no records for their relevant
education/training. Just to reiterate: the family (with a history of fraud and suspicious connections) has an open access to the
classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
Wasserman-Schultz has been directly involved in the greatest breach of the national cybersecurity. She tried to impede the investigation
and she kept the fraudsters on the US-taxpayers-paid payroll up to the day of the arrest of the main culprit. She did that despite
being warned by the police. She should be stripped already of her security clearance and arrested for the breach that was done
on her watch and with her active help.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information. It's all about minimizing risk. My respect for Sikhs would make me inclined to grant security clearances to them
liberally. My overall position, however, is that we have let in far too many foreigners than sane persons would and are stupidly
phlegmatic about leaving illegals here to "make a life for themselves" or "make a contribution" (at the expense of native born
Americans).
You were entitled to the last laugh indeed. We do not lack for native born white Americans. In fact, they are the source of
our fundamental problems.
n no explanation why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it
is a felony.
Not a felony, but a mere civil infraction. Not reporting carrying more than $10k across the border can be either a criminal charge
with fines up to $500k and jail time, or a civil violation which often results in all unreported assets being seized and forfeit
and possibly with a civil penalty of up to the amount forfeit, or even both criminal and civil. The fact that she was allowed
to go on her way with her cash shows an unusual deference to the lady.
@Seamus Padraig His
boss, no doubt, is also an Obama flunkee. That's entirely possible given Trump's bewildering indifference to personnel matters.
He appears to have been hamstrung at the outset, eschewing both philosophical leadership and staffing up with loyalists. His
director of personnel is a bad joke but Trump simply doesn't see it or care. He made a point of saying how he hires good people
and lets them run but competent isn't the same thing as loyal or otherwise appropriate
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... I agreed but it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her and her brother.
@anonymous This is
a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people were spying.
Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince' them to do
so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer ripoff
in DC. It could possibly be a case of intensional incompetence. There are a huge number of people IN Congress that are totally
committed to destruction from within. The Trojan Horse has been within the gates for a surprising number of years. Trevor Loudon
has an interesting video on Amazon titled The Enemies (inclde the "s") Within. If accurate, it IS intensional incompetence. It
may be on Youtube as well.
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis
@Sowhat I agreed but
it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her...and her brother. I just saw this posted. Don't know if it is completely true
but it fits with other information. Devastating.
@Joe Tedesky I'm sorry
F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding
the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between the real, and the phony, narratives which have been
put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy theories' are made to become conspiracy theories. F.G.
said "What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency?" But of course. They're perfect patsies, just like
in our most famous "conspiracy theory" dubbed case.
Were the Awan brothers really gathering intelligence for Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)? And was the ISI on
secret contract with the CIA?
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder ...
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and
still no leads!
In a recent broadcast, Michael Savage suddenly savaged what he called "fake news from the right" such as the Seth Rich murder,
Pizzagate (which he misrepresented as relating to hookers), etc. The presentation seemed curiously disengaged.
My guess is that Savage and his family were physically threatened.
@Sam Shama What evidence
prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection? Al-Attar is a known Hezbollah operative with a connection to Awan. Pakistan
is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
What evidence prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection?
Read what was written: LACK of evidence -- in the face of the logic of antipathies -- prompts the skepticism.
Pakistan is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
Israel shares borders with Lebanon, which is home to Hezbollah; it was at Israel's instigation that Hezbollah came into being.
Does that constitute "evidence" that Israel supports Hezbollah and is also/likewise complicit in Wassergate (h/t Chris
@ #35)?
Or do you prefer that Israel's involvement be airbrushed away ?
@Pachyderm Pachyderma
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis... I think you
are absolutely right that the Pakis passed on information to China and any other country willing to pay for it.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
"... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
"... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
"... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
"... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
"... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
"... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
"... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
"... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
"... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
"... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
"... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
"... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
"... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
"... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist
vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor
law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting
to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the
state under liberalism have vanished.
We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor
organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from
certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us
find a way out?
Origins of Fascism
Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks
bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces
were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete
out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.
Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century
as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former
socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by
the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and
war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career
in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring
of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.
Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could
only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of Übermenschen,
and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements
in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations
once state power was attained.
The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries.
Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the
primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists
of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined
to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead
the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum),
seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the
sun.
Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming
that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties
and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist
conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer
to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state
bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.
Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's
community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic
life in the bourgeoisie.
Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some
sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise
in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were
excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma,
eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.
For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy.
The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification
of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes
we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are
also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other
authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.
Continuities With Liberalism
As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order
that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand
if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism,
but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism.
Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.
The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in
everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary
to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary
for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists
march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse
of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the
bourgeoisie.
The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered
by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the
twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism.
Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science
that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.
Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more
often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception.
The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization
of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.
In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from
ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George
Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal
human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.
Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed
every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free
to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and
may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's
eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place
where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions
that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.
The Liberal Compromise
Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency,
it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is
the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.
As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to
cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing
a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through
technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing
new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest
piece are diffused.
The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of
the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary
for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically
with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized
class struggle to boost consumption.
In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor
Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions.
This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist
system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major
union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a
depoliticized approach to labor relations.
After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western
Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched
growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the
end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of
History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under
the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist
future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.
How wrong they were.
Post-Liberalism
Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian
state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development
paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits
that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors
of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy.
But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.
The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle
the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public
housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.
The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining
put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been
most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers
in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break
strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the
1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance
of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."
As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has
paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues,
workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology
of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.
Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working
class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite
slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents'
generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting
to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The
center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.
Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized
past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities
of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit,
and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic
of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals
of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution.
It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling
to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.
In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the
most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal
capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right.
The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United
States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect,
and how to fight to win.
The Other Workers' Movement
True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United
States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s
antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under
direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the
United States already has one.
Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist
dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism:
to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity
and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.
The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has
gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing
over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions
more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst.
Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get
to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism
seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grâce to an institutional
labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.
The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms
of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students.
They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers
and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the
state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests
to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.
While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word:
it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely
put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered
by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement
that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands
that it can be won.
How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions
of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible
without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make
a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and
community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore
the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually
want.
Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the
destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and
the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late.
Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is
why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form
without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been
active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently
compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the
Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories
Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson,
AlterNet | Op-Ed
Fascism
101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
| Op-Ed
Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos,
The Conversation | Op-Ed
Recommend RecommendedDiscussion Recommended!
Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support
modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism
that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism,
the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . .
. It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual;
Fascism reaffirms
the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist
ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).
Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't
even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.
With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think
Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce.
We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying
technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.
Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human
work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually.
Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand
too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."
So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect
to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious
and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant
and enjoyable.
It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech
workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better
than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better
wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?
There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation,
and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only
looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.
It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want.
Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing
in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop
wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters
driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)
This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers
would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.
Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See
basicincome.org and
bein.org
for more information.
Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum
of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.
democracy = power is determined by voters
capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and
residency
communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
fascism = power concentrates in one political party
The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names
used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding
scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low
to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political
power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http:
www.vox.com
="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership,
the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https:
www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric
of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately
describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.
Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism"
is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.
From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United
States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism
or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist
and pro-community socialist.
I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third
Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its
Usefulness"?
"You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political,
economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each
maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration
has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged
in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian
conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of
State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected
government."
http://www.counterpunch.org...
Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard
and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will
continue Obamas policies.
Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic
parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by
fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands,
the Partido Socialista Obrero Español, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because
they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in
the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.
There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death
agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass
fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse
and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of
a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.
Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history
and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles
about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability,
but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.
The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature,
which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then
to subsist without wages until victory is won?
The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at
that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that
those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal
meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare
and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.
"The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system." --R. Buckminster Fuller
"Be the kind of change you wish to see in the world." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.
Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that
benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again
very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.
We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed
overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion
in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American
Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.
"... U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank. ..."
"... In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists. ..."
"... VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company. ..."
"... CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown. ..."
"... After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies. ..."
"... CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media. ..."
"... On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. ..."
"... The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS. ..."
"... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea. ..."
"... In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact. ..."
"... Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. ..."
"... In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page . ..."
"... Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery ..."
"... excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' ..."
"... With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not. ..."
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports
used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the
DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of
Voice
of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking
during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published
by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy
losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference
estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts
have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the
election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence
of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to
Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used
aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations,
attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to
the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied
Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from
conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted
the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of
the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because
the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given
the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap
praise on the company? For instance, back in January,
Comey referred to
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on
Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers,
but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our
Support Page .
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery
forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
to
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the
Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the
80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different
metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided
by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference
to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat
losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat
reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no
way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions
about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing
D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes
(combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high
or not.
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@zzzzzzz " but the
Deep State knows how to box"
Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her
office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to
her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? " free access
to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ."
Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's
fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?
Ah. They plan to
raise the age at which you
qualify for a pension
, doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards
right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching
pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about
how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.
This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before
releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to
sell off its agricultural land
in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if.
Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of
getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth
plus a chink in Europe's armor against
GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes
of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever
health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on
providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization
of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their
families next!
That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds
so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with
the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social
Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with
shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive
unless
people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely
net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just
depressed myself.
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only
potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too
small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government
spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of
money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and
Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and
development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have
jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other
government goods and services or through their taxes.
But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and
suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest.
In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds
and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.
Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't
want the money to go towards social welfare spending.
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as
a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I
know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole
wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went
sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons
for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending
customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is
usually absorbed by the cost of living.
But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well.
In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty
oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow
it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma
in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.
"... The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks: ..."
"... Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute ..."
"... The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
..."
The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks:
* Pardon Sirhan Sirhan
* Order immediate release of NARA records in accordance with law
* Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute
* Give tacit approval to international exposure of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation by CIA
This will provoke a crisis where the soft coup is constrained by concerted pressure from civil society and the international
community.
The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
US victims including Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen have ratified the Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations
to war crimes and crimes against humanity, so the US cannot run the clock out, as it has tried to do by failing to criminalize
torture and decriminalizing its favorite war crimes, outrages against human dignity and denial of the rights of trial. CIA proliferation
is a boiling issue in the treaty bodies but it's completely suppressed from US public awareness.
If Trump can't take the bull by the horns, CIA* is going to destroy him.
* This is CIA in Fletcher Prouty's sense, including deep-cover CIA agents inserted throughout the three branches of government.
The DCI has the get-out-of-jail card, so this is all CIA's show. All the other agency 'factions' work for CIA
Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make
him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd
and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors,
unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever
is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.
And Branko Milanovic is unable to utter the word neoliberalism. What a sucker.
Notable quotes:
"... The term "illiberal democracy" was, I think, introduced by Fareed Zakaria. It was used as a badge of honor by Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister, the erstwhile poster-child of youthful East European reformers and liberals of the 1990s who then decided to turn over the new leaf. More recently, the term has gained further popularity as a way of naming and explaining the regimes such as Erdoğan's in Turkey or Putin's in Russia. ..."
"... The implication of "illiberal democracy" is that the system is democratic in the sense that there are free elections, more or less free, or at least diverse, media, freedom of assembly etc., but that the "values" espoused by the regime are illiberal. ..."
"... how Putin maintains his power: not as a Stalinesque dictator, but as an indispensable umpire whose sudden departure would throw the system totally off-balance until, possibly after a civil war, a new, generally accepted arbiter emerges. ..."
"... ...I think that it would be wrong, though, to regard such regimes as a different species from the Western liberal regimes. They simply exaggerate some features that exist in "advanced" democracies: sale of regulations and laws is done in both but it is done more openly and blatantly in the "new" regimes; ..."
Multi-party kleptocracies rather than illiberal democracies
The term "illiberal democracy" was, I think, introduced by Fareed Zakaria. It was used as
a badge of honor by Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister, the erstwhile poster-child of
youthful East European reformers and liberals of the 1990s who then decided to turn over the
new leaf. More recently, the term has gained further popularity as a way of naming and
explaining the regimes such as Erdoğan's in Turkey or Putin's in Russia.
Perhaps
Venezuela can be placed in the same category too.
The implication of "illiberal democracy" is that the system is democratic in the sense
that there are free elections, more or less free, or at least diverse, media, freedom of
assembly etc., but that the "values" espoused by the regime are illiberal.
Erdoğan
believes in primacy of Islam over the Enlightenment-defined human rights, Orban believes in
"Christian civilization", Putin in "Russian spirituality", Maduro in "Bolivarian revolution".
"Illiberal" also implies that the system is majoritarian in the sense that certain
"inalienable" rights can be taken away through simple vote. At the extreme, a majority can
decide to deny certain rights (say, to free speech) to a minority.
This definition, in my opinion, overstates the value component of these regimes. The core,
or the desired objective, of this new breed of quasi democratic regimes is multi-partyism in
which, however, only one party can win. Russia has gone the furthest on the road of
"electoral engineering" where there is seemingly a democracy, multiple parties etc., but the
rule of the game is that only one party can win, and that the others, in function of their
"pliability" and closeness to the "party of power", are allowed to participate in the
division of the spoils.
For it is precisely the "division of the spoils" which is a crucial feature of the
regimes. They do not share, as some commentators believes, "values" antithetical to Western
liberal values. Rather, I believe, these different values are simply invented to provide
voters with a feeling that they are indeed voting for some distinct "national", "homey",
"non-cosmopolitan" program while the real objective of the party of power is to control the
state in order to steal, either directly (from overcharged public works or state-owned
enterprises) or indirectly (through private sector corruption and laws and regulations that
are for sale).
Thus, the party of power is simply an organized thievery that, in order to survive and
prosper, needs to pretend to defend certain "values" and, most importantly, to keep on
providing financial benefits to its supporters. The system is thus fully clientelistic. It
functions very similarly to Mobutu's Zaire (as beautifully described in Michala's Wrong's "In
the footsteps of Mr. Kurtz"). The top guys (Erdogan and his son, Putin, Rothenberg and other
oligarchs etc.) do, like Mobutu, take the largest slice of the pie, but they are more than
anything else, arbiters in the process of the division of money between various factions.
When you read Wrong's book on Zaire, you realize that Mobutu was at the apex of the pyramid,
but that he was not an unchecked dictator. To remain in power, he had to maintain support
from various groups that were vying for money. This is precisely
how Putin maintains his
power: not as a Stalinesque dictator, but as an indispensable umpire whose sudden departure
would throw the system totally off-balance until, possibly after a civil war, a new,
generally accepted arbiter emerges.
I realized that it is this particular nature of the rule combined with clientelism, which
is crucial and not some opposition to "liberal" values, when I spent this Summer in Serbia
and Montenegro. Montenegro had been ruled by one man, Djukanoviċ, for thirty years. He
has in the meantime changed, like Putin, various positions from which he ruled: president of
his party, prime minister, president of the country. Moreover, Djukanoviċ's rule is
broadly consonant with Western liberal "values" in the areas of gay rights, environment, lack
of regulation and the like. He has brought Montenegro to the threshold of the European Union
and included it into NATO. But the structure of his rule is equivalent to that of Putin:
control of the government in order to steal, and distribution of these gains to his
supporters (and of course to himself and his clique).
In order for such a system to survive it needs to continue winning elections, ideally
forever....
Note the following sentence, hidden away without further comment:
" "Illiberal" also implies that the system is majoritarian in the sense that certain
"inalienable" rights can be taken away through simple vote. At the extreme, a majority can
decide to deny certain rights (say, to free speech) to a minority."
This is the key feature, once a majority is attained it can be indefinitely maintained. It
is very important that there be well defined super majority processes for constitution and
key administrative functions (imposing transparency and accountability not subject to simple
majority overrule). That both the formation of the EU and its partial breakup have occurred
without proper constitutional procedures is outrageous.
...I think that it would be wrong, though, to regard such regimes as a different
species from the Western liberal regimes. They simply exaggerate some features that exist in
"advanced" democracies: sale of regulations and laws is done in both but it is done more
openly and blatantly in the "new" regimes;
creation of a real second party in Russia is
as difficult as the creation of a third party in the United States; voter suppression is just
taken one step further. They amplify, sometimes in a grotesque way, the negative sides of
democracies and suppress, almost fully, their positive sides.
But the new regimes' key characteristic is that they are multi-party electoral
kleptocracies where only one party can win.
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"
By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST
"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so
it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned
naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities,
all bad. Bet on this one:
..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas
damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family
(or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will
carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.
That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as
a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the
evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he
delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties
a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars
and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against
indictment, which is not guaranteed.
It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking
the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario
comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third
party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the
deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.
If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his
siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.
If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political
consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer,
and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will
do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the
Russian collusion investigation
The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that
happens
"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"
By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT
"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.
...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between
Hillary Clinton and Russia...
...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according
to the Post."...
And Branko Milanovic is unable to utter the word neoliberalism. What a sucker.
Notable quotes:
"... The term "illiberal democracy" was, I think, introduced by Fareed Zakaria. It was used as a badge of honor by Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister, the erstwhile poster-child of youthful East European reformers and liberals of the 1990s who then decided to turn over the new leaf. More recently, the term has gained further popularity as a way of naming and explaining the regimes such as Erdoğan's in Turkey or Putin's in Russia. ..."
"... The implication of "illiberal democracy" is that the system is democratic in the sense that there are free elections, more or less free, or at least diverse, media, freedom of assembly etc., but that the "values" espoused by the regime are illiberal. ..."
"... how Putin maintains his power: not as a Stalinesque dictator, but as an indispensable umpire whose sudden departure would throw the system totally off-balance until, possibly after a civil war, a new, generally accepted arbiter emerges. ..."
"... ...I think that it would be wrong, though, to regard such regimes as a different species from the Western liberal regimes. They simply exaggerate some features that exist in "advanced" democracies: sale of regulations and laws is done in both but it is done more openly and blatantly in the "new" regimes; ..."
Multi-party kleptocracies rather than illiberal democracies
The term "illiberal democracy" was, I think, introduced by Fareed Zakaria. It was used as
a badge of honor by Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister, the erstwhile poster-child of
youthful East European reformers and liberals of the 1990s who then decided to turn over the
new leaf. More recently, the term has gained further popularity as a way of naming and
explaining the regimes such as Erdoğan's in Turkey or Putin's in Russia.
Perhaps
Venezuela can be placed in the same category too.
The implication of "illiberal democracy" is that the system is democratic in the sense
that there are free elections, more or less free, or at least diverse, media, freedom of
assembly etc., but that the "values" espoused by the regime are illiberal.
Erdoğan
believes in primacy of Islam over the Enlightenment-defined human rights, Orban believes in
"Christian civilization", Putin in "Russian spirituality", Maduro in "Bolivarian revolution".
"Illiberal" also implies that the system is majoritarian in the sense that certain
"inalienable" rights can be taken away through simple vote. At the extreme, a majority can
decide to deny certain rights (say, to free speech) to a minority.
This definition, in my opinion, overstates the value component of these regimes. The core,
or the desired objective, of this new breed of quasi democratic regimes is multi-partyism in
which, however, only one party can win. Russia has gone the furthest on the road of
"electoral engineering" where there is seemingly a democracy, multiple parties etc., but the
rule of the game is that only one party can win, and that the others, in function of their
"pliability" and closeness to the "party of power", are allowed to participate in the
division of the spoils.
For it is precisely the "division of the spoils" which is a crucial feature of the
regimes. They do not share, as some commentators believes, "values" antithetical to Western
liberal values. Rather, I believe, these different values are simply invented to provide
voters with a feeling that they are indeed voting for some distinct "national", "homey",
"non-cosmopolitan" program while the real objective of the party of power is to control the
state in order to steal, either directly (from overcharged public works or state-owned
enterprises) or indirectly (through private sector corruption and laws and regulations that
are for sale).
Thus, the party of power is simply an organized thievery that, in order to survive and
prosper, needs to pretend to defend certain "values" and, most importantly, to keep on
providing financial benefits to its supporters. The system is thus fully clientelistic. It
functions very similarly to Mobutu's Zaire (as beautifully described in Michala's Wrong's "In
the footsteps of Mr. Kurtz"). The top guys (Erdogan and his son, Putin, Rothenberg and other
oligarchs etc.) do, like Mobutu, take the largest slice of the pie, but they are more than
anything else, arbiters in the process of the division of money between various factions.
When you read Wrong's book on Zaire, you realize that Mobutu was at the apex of the pyramid,
but that he was not an unchecked dictator. To remain in power, he had to maintain support
from various groups that were vying for money. This is precisely
how Putin maintains his
power: not as a Stalinesque dictator, but as an indispensable umpire whose sudden departure
would throw the system totally off-balance until, possibly after a civil war, a new,
generally accepted arbiter emerges.
I realized that it is this particular nature of the rule combined with clientelism, which
is crucial and not some opposition to "liberal" values, when I spent this Summer in Serbia
and Montenegro. Montenegro had been ruled by one man, Djukanoviċ, for thirty years. He
has in the meantime changed, like Putin, various positions from which he ruled: president of
his party, prime minister, president of the country. Moreover, Djukanoviċ's rule is
broadly consonant with Western liberal "values" in the areas of gay rights, environment, lack
of regulation and the like. He has brought Montenegro to the threshold of the European Union
and included it into NATO. But the structure of his rule is equivalent to that of Putin:
control of the government in order to steal, and distribution of these gains to his
supporters (and of course to himself and his clique).
In order for such a system to survive it needs to continue winning elections, ideally
forever....
Note the following sentence, hidden away without further comment:
" "Illiberal" also implies that the system is majoritarian in the sense that certain
"inalienable" rights can be taken away through simple vote. At the extreme, a majority can
decide to deny certain rights (say, to free speech) to a minority."
This is the key feature, once a majority is attained it can be indefinitely maintained. It
is very important that there be well defined super majority processes for constitution and
key administrative functions (imposing transparency and accountability not subject to simple
majority overrule). That both the formation of the EU and its partial breakup have occurred
without proper constitutional procedures is outrageous.
...I think that it would be wrong, though, to regard such regimes as a different
species from the Western liberal regimes. They simply exaggerate some features that exist in
"advanced" democracies: sale of regulations and laws is done in both but it is done more
openly and blatantly in the "new" regimes;
creation of a real second party in Russia is
as difficult as the creation of a third party in the United States; voter suppression is just
taken one step further. They amplify, sometimes in a grotesque way, the negative sides of
democracies and suppress, almost fully, their positive sides.
But the new regimes' key characteristic is that they are multi-party electoral
kleptocracies where only one party can win.
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system
is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional
investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress'
and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing
powerful US oligarchs.
For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to
wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of
mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business
oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each
other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous
conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.
The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences
for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs,
have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats
of judicial action).
Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as
it now exists in the United States.
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
What the 'Conflict' is Not About
The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or
independent governments.
Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque
police state apparatus.
Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards
or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.
Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies
against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction
of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.
What the Oligarchical Struggle is About
There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars
and 'interventions'.
The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their
policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars
in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the
disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally
with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine
and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea
and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA),
while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment
deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis'
(US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and
divide the country.
The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and
nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire.
Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump
focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.
While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and
means.
For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest
. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US
military dominance.
Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities
The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions
favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela.
They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display
slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout
the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.
These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition'
denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition'
of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.
Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from
a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs'
struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional
order.
Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State
The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish
over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The
conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.
The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus
(NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry.
Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the
judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special
Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General
Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session
(a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course
of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally
within the Judiciary.
The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security
impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under
GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.
The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial
Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR),
which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of
unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations,
academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust
the President.
The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers.
He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal
majorities for the Republican Party.
The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability
to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.
Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment,
taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from
the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.
The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of
the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.
Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned
to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.
The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial
complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.
Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American
Zionists.
But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's
overseas opposition.
NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to
the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new
NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.
In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact
on the domestic correlation of forces.
Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in
the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.
While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical
, not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.
Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops
in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen;
and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.
The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of
former President Obama's seven wars.
While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing
the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.
Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power
depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.
Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up
for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for
known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US
military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive
cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser
reductions in social programs.
Conclusion
The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President
of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.
The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant
and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.
The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has
denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall
Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.
Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority
of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.
The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless
lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly
mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.
Epilogue
After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries
in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of
spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.
The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the
'Oval Office'.
The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow
about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.
Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals.
The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors
and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand
even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent
turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!
" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in
serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking
advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "
Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than
the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit,
also unimaginable.
So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation,
is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration
into Europe, and so on, and so forth.
Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes
almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same
everywhere now.
Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The
fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook
postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM
would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the
'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!
This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of
advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may
be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican
enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he
should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels
he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation
of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something
he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety
of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from
his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture,
it is time to hit back and hit hard.
All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was
and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights
which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.
The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic,
either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.
It was designed and has functioned always as a de factoresoligrcharum .
It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though
it is an agonizingly slow process
Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points
out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump
prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements.
He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these
are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.
What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually
psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump
could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues"
become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get
away with it)
A couple of negative points in the article:
Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ?
"Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "
Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return
to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good
odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid
– they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.
More positively: authorise spot ON here:
"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become
mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor
and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's
cart."
May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American
Democracy
Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing
in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He
won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."
Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."
PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly
and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding
the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could
have imagined,
@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty
reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.
@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original
source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of
freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence
testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on
another fabulous UNZ site.:
Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions
many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.
"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work
of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be
turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it
could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.
This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks
email leaker.
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob.
The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed.
The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).
Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to
allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as
any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs"
are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp,
its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these
greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel
being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares
the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end
of business tomorrow.
This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions
of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank
them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers
fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground
at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this
money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually
mattered?
Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of
the World as you know it, but I feel fine.
" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those
who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries,
who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe
in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity
for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend
him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order
to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent,
or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs
they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and
accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force,
they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones
failed
From Machiavelli's The Prince
If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance
of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited
a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two
years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression
was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come
to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through
his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers
made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL
ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY
RULING CLASS.
If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the
case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth
Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security
team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental
agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic
and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand
scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle
decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.
Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much
he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump
needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take
to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security
apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger
of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will
not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put
him in an ever weaker position.
@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically
a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the
debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.
@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book
Propaganda literally titled propaganda.
Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations.
This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse
of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on
democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism"
is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or
elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those
who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.
- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're
a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph
Sobran
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain,
lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years
ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter
and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards
Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election'
becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see
Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.
@Che Guava"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating.
A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that
passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most
in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me
and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.
May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention
Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset.
If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but
at what point do the American People say enough is enough?
@RobinG"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good
for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of
insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened,
as long as I keep track of where they are..
Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.
So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million
dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that
is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.
Madness.
Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.
After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised
his voice against it.
@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people
are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump
was a different guy in the campaign, no?)
@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front
of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.
How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.
@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that,
she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following,
and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And
actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.
Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's
"March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not
technically slick.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che,
I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying)
but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive
glare.
What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap
between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep
State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate
with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system
is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional
investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress'
and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing
powerful US oligarchs.
For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to
wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of
mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business
oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each
other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous
conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.
The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences
for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs,
have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats
of judicial action).
Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as
it now exists in the United States.
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
What the 'Conflict' is Not About
The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or
independent governments.
Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque
police state apparatus.
Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards
or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.
Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies
against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction
of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.
What the Oligarchical Struggle is About
There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars
and 'interventions'.
The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their
policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars
in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the
disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally
with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine
and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea
and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA),
while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment
deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis'
(US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and
divide the country.
The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and
nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire.
Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump
focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.
While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and
means.
For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest
. Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US
military dominance.
Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities
The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions
favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela.
They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display
slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout
the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.
These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition'
denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition'
of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.
Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from
a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs'
struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional
order.
Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State
The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish
over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The
conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.
The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus
(NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry.
Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the
judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special
Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General
Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session
(a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course
of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally
within the Judiciary.
The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security
impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under
GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.
The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial
Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR),
which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of
unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations,
academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust
the President.
The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers.
He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal
majorities for the Republican Party.
The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability
to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.
Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment,
taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from
the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.
The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of
the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.
Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned
to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.
The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial
complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.
Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American
Zionists.
But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's
overseas opposition.
NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to
the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new
NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.
In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact
on the domestic correlation of forces.
Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in
the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.
While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical
, not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.
Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops
in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen;
and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.
The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of
former President Obama's seven wars.
While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing
the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.
Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power
depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.
Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up
for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for
known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US
military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive
cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser
reductions in social programs.
Conclusion
The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President
of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.
The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant
and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.
The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has
denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall
Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.
Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority
of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.
The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless
lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly
mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.
Epilogue
After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries
in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of
spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.
The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the
'Oval Office'.
The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow
about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.
Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals.
The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors
and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand
even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent
turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!
" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in
serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking
advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "
Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than
the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit,
also unimaginable.
So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation,
is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration
into Europe, and so on, and so forth.
Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes
almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same
everywhere now.
Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The
fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook
postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM
would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."
The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the
'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!
This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of
advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may
be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican
enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he
should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels
he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation
of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something
he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety
of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from
his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture,
it is time to hit back and hit hard.
All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was
and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights
which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.
The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic,
either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.
It was designed and has functioned always as a de factoresoligrcharum .
It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though
it is an agonizingly slow process
Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points
out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump
prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements.
He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these
are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.
What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually
psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump
could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues"
become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get
away with it)
A couple of negative points in the article:
Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ?
"Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "
Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return
to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good
odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid
– they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.
More positively: authorise spot ON here:
"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become
mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor
and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's
cart."
May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American
Democracy
Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing
in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He
won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."
Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."
PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly
and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding
the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could
have imagined,
@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty
reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.
@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original
source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of
freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann
Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence
testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on
another fabulous UNZ site.:
Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions
many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.
"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work
of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be
turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it
could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –
@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.
This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks
email leaker.
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob.
The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed.
The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).
Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to
allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as
any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs"
are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp,
its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these
greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel
being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares
the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end
of business tomorrow.
This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions
of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank
them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers
fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground
at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this
money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually
mattered?
Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of
the World as you know it, but I feel fine.
" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those
who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries,
who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe
in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity
for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend
him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order
to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent,
or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs
they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and
accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force,
they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones
failed
From Machiavelli's The Prince
If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance
of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited
a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two
years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression
was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come
to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through
his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers
made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL
ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY
RULING CLASS.
If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the
case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth
Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security
team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental
agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic
and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand
scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle
decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.
Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much
he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump
needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take
to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security
apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger
of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will
not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put
him in an ever weaker position.
@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically
a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the
debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.
@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book
Propaganda literally titled propaganda.
Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda
Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations.
This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."
In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious
intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage
of the conflict to advance their own interests.
This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse
of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on
democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism"
is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or
elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those
who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.
- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to
intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're
a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph
Sobran
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain,
lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years
ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter
and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards
Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election'
becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see
Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.
@Che Guava"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating.
A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that
passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most
in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me
and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.
May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention
Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset.
If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but
at what point do the American People say enough is enough?
@RobinG"Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."
How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The
plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a
drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?
Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation
are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good
for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of
insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened,
as long as I keep track of where they are..
Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.
So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million
dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that
is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.
Madness.
Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.
After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised
his voice against it.
@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people
are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump
was a different guy in the campaign, no?)
@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front
of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.
How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.
@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that,
she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following,
and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And
actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.
Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's
"March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not
technically slick.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.
I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band
photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long
as I get a credit.
My own, too.
Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but
I don't want to do it that way.
OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult,
same kind of streaming format.
I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.
Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior,
it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che,
I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying)
but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive
glare.
What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap
between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep
State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate
with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.
And used this possibility again to advertize his hypothesis that Russians hacked the elections... Should not be a rule for former
CIA directors to keep mouth shut ?
Notable quotes:
"... And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. ..."
I was particularly bemused by the
comment
by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of
a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in
the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula
rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative
that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services
to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence
services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously
slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump
Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there
may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced,
and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place,
the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily
naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even
with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance
its own interests.
And used this possibility again to advertize his hypothesis that Russians hacked the elections... Should not be a rule for former
CIA directors to keep mouth shut ?
Notable quotes:
"... And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. ..."
I was particularly bemused by the
comment
by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of
a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in
the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula
rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative
that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services
to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence
services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously
slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump
Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there
may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced,
and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place,
the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily
naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even
with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance
its own interests.
This is a good analysis. Given the author's not insignificant role in the surreptitious
imposition of the cultural Marxism under which we all live today in which the expression of
any ideas by those in public life which run counter to the cultural and economic consensus
are greeted with loud indignation, feigned offence and derision, frequently leading to social
ostracism, one wonders how the new ideas are to be even debated, let alone taken up.
Pikkety (?) is a good example of original thinking, with whom I don't personally agree,
but the way in which he has been derided in most MSM or, worse, completely ignored shows up
shallowness of modern political and philosophical discourse.
I have no idea what you mean by 'cultural Marxism', it seems you're way off beam. We have
lived through a period of hegemony dominated by neo liberal capitalism - as Martin describes
so well. Share
Facebook
Twitter
'Cultural Marxism' is usually a euphemism for political correctness and identity politics
which the right-wing commentariat see rooted in 1960s counter culture supposedly influenced
by French and Frankfurt School marxian philosophy.
Similarly Malcolm Turnbull, the ultimate symbol of the success of greed who promoted massive
tax cuts to the corporations as an election strategy, was stunned by his rejection at the
last election and by the rise of Pauline Hanson, an individual who represents an Australian
version of Donald Trump.
Meanwhile other neo-liberal reactionaries like the Premier of NSW, Mike Baird, continue to
sell public assets such as the electricity supply, dismantle and dismiss democratically
elected local councils, give business owners two votes in Sydney City council elections, tear
down functional buildings such as the Power House Museum and the Entertainment center in
order to hand the sites to property developers and approves coal mines on prime agricultural
land and in areas of great natural beauty yet imagines that he will get away with what he is
doing.
He may well discover that come the next election, even the ordinary members of his own party
will desert him as the revolt against his destructive and arrogant mis-government catches up
with him.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them. ..."
"... Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. ..."
"... For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden. ..."
"... How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities. ..."
"... The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established. ..."
"... Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
If Vladimir Putin is half as clever as his demonizers make him out to be, he must have figured out a long time ago that, to get
inside Donald Trump's head, clinical psychologists with expertise treating male adolescents would be more useful than the Russian
hackers, real or imaginary, that Western media obsess over.
Why even bother with hackers? The little that goes on between Trump's ears is all there in his tweets.
But, of course, if the idea is to develop capabilities for waging wars in the cyber sphere, good hackers are worth their weight
in gold. If Putin isn't working on that, he is not doing his job.
These days, hackers are everywhere -- including Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. The United States has more
than its fair share too, as do the UK and other Western countries. Some work for intelligence services, directly or indirectly; many,
probably most, do not.
When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone
their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them.
Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel
introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges
by causing them to spin out of control.
Needless to say, governments are not the only players; far from it. Many, probably most, hackers are not connected, even indirectly,
with state intelligence services. Some of them may be "terrorists," according to one or another understanding of that fraught and
contested term. It is safe to assume that most of them are not. They hack for the fun of it or because they can.
There are legally binding, though sometimes ineffective, conventions that prohibit the use of a few especially heinous kinds of
weapons -- poison gas is a well-known example. Cyber weapons are not similarly proscribed. Hackers can be, and sometimes are, subject
to domestic prosecution, but, between state actors, anything goes.
In much the same vein, international law does not prohibit states from interfering in the political affairs, or elections, of
other states. Insofar as sovereignty still matters in our globalized neoliberal world, meddling of that kind plainly violates the
spirit of the law, but it is not legally proscribed.
For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore
unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden.
What is clear, however, is that, for at least the past seven decades, the United States has interfered in one way or another in
nearly every election that American government officials wanted to influence – either to prevent outcomes they opposed or to secure
results they favored.
No corner of the world has been immune, but since the demise of the Soviet Union made meddling in the political affairs of Russia
and other former Soviet republics easier, Washington has been especially intent on throwing its weight around in that part of the
world – always in ways that put Russian national interests in jeopardy.
The "digital revolution" has greatly exacerbated the problem, making meddling a lot easier than it used to be.
How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free,"
is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance
capabilities.
It is no slouch either when it comes to hacking into well-protected industrial and government servers around the world – to spy
or to meddle or, as with those centrifuges in Iran, to sabotage.
Russia can do those things too – perhaps just as well, more likely not, but certainly well enough.
It may therefore be time, now that the Cold War is back, to revive a version of the old Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, updated
for the digital age.
* * *
Thanks to digitalization and the many ways in which computers nowadays are able to communicate with each other, state and non-state
actors can meddle – or worse – more effectively than in the past.
Inasmuch as quality emerges out of quantity, as dialecticians inspired by Hegel would say, meddling has therefore become qualitatively
more problematic than it used to be.
Thus, with Cold War insanity coming back into vogue -- promoted by the entire political class, no longer just by Clinton retainers,
and by the media flacks who serve them -- meddling is taking new forms.
Some things don't change, however. As long as it keeps spending more money on "defense" than the Russians do, the United States
will retain the dominant position. Despite the best efforts of Cold Warriors to scare Americans into acquiescence, everyone now concedes
that this was how it was with nuclear weapons and missiles and much else during the original Cold War. It is how it is today too,
now that cyber weapons are added into the mix.
Nevertheless, as in the past, the War Party's spokespersons will insist that we are not spending nearly enough. Lying through
their teeth, JFK and his people concocted a "missile gap" some six decades ago. No one should be surprised, with the 2018 midterm
elections looming, when a "cyber weapons gap" opens up.
The death merchants and mad dog generals must be salivating at the prospect. Silicon Valley plus the military-industrial complex,
Eisenhower's euphemism for death merchants and military brass, now dominate the real economy. Over them all, there is Wall Street;
a far greater menace now than in Eisenhower's time. The too-big-to-fail-or-jail miscreants there must be salivating most of all.
It was public opinion that made the original Cold War possible, and so it is again. This is why the "liberal press" has been pulling
out all the stops – vilifying Russia and demonizing its President.
But there are at least two reasons why they will have a harder time getting the result they want now than their counterparts had
long ago.
For one, they don't have a President on board this time, except occasionally when all the stars are lined up right. Unlike his
post-War predecessors, from Truman on, Trump has no geopolitical goals. Instead, he wants to make "deals" that he thinks will make
him look good, but that will only make him richer.
Trump is no more anti-imperialist than Cecil Rhodes, and he doesn't have an internationalist bone in his body. But, during the
campaign, he did find it expedient to strike a kind of pre-War isolationist pose.
Since that could in principle lead him sometimes to do the right thing -- albeit for bad, even noxious reasons – there were a
few observers who were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the alternative was a continuation of the liberal
imperialism of the Obama era, who could blame them?
What they actually did, however, was give Trump way too much credit. The man has no ideological convictions to speak of. For all
practical purposes, his mind is a blank slate, susceptible to being swayed by whomever he talked to last or by the last pundit he
watched on TV.
However, where Russia is concerned, he did, and still does, seem to have sounder instincts than his rivals. For Trump, instincts
are all; and his instincts are dangerously off on almost everything. But not on this.
No doubt, his business involvements have a lot to do with it. So, very likely, does the fact that he could care less what others
think. It probably also helps that he has no ties to the foreign policy establishment or to the so-called deep state.
Whatever the reasons, Trump does seem less in thrall to the delusions that shape this latest outbreak of Russophobia in political
and media circles than other politicians at the national level. Indeed, even at this late date, he actually does seem to want to
diminish, not exacerbate, tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers.
Bravo to him for that.
The other reason why Cold Warriors today have their work cut out for them, in ways that their counterparts after the Second World
War did not, is that the justifications they are obliged to offer for treating Russia as an enemy are preposterous on their face.
Half a century ago, the Soviet Union was, in Churchill's words, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Churchill
went on to suggest that much of the mystery would dissipate if observers would think more carefully about Russia's national interests.
That insight was among the first casualties of the rush to (cold) war that Churchill himself did so much to promote.
And so, an Iron Curtain descended over the Soviet Union and its "satellites," just as he said it would -- making it possible for
the "free world's" propagandists to spin all kinds of yarns about Communist "subversion" and ill intent.
Cyber curtains are harder to construct. What could previously be kept opaque is therefore now ineluctably clear to anyone who
cares to look.
This is why all the brouhaha over Russian meddling in the 2016 election would hardly even merit discussion, but for the fact that
the stakes are so high, and because so many gullible people take it seriously.
Never mind that nothing actually came from the alleged meddling, except further confirmation of what everybody already knew: that
the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was working hard to assure that the Sanders insurgency would be defeated, and that Hillary
Clinton would be the party's nominee.
Leave aside too the glaring hypocrisy of the United States, of all countries, objecting to election meddling. Evidently, the consensus
view among mainstream politicians and in mainstream media circles too is that, in the United States, "what's sauce for the goose"
is emphatically not also "sauce for the gander."
Forget genuinely "fake news" reports as well; for example, the claim that the Russians hacked into electoral grids in Vermont
and elsewhere. There is no solid evidence for them; and, as one would expect, they disappear down the memory hole just as soon as
they serve their purpose.
Reports of Russian hacking that bear on infrastructure security, financial transactions, trade, industrial processes, and other
vital economic and military concerns would, if true, be genuinely worrisome were the recently revived Cold War to heat up.
With so many of the leading lights of the American political and media establishments working so diligently to make that happen,
this is a cause for concern. But not even the most determined warmongers have been able to come up with a plausible story about how
Russian hacking affected the election that put Donald Trump in the White House.
War Party propaganda notwithstanding, the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election is hardly gospel truth. Nevertheless,
it merits investigation.
The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official
line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know.
Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents
that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is
well established.
Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as
he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are.
For profound historical reasons, slightly different, slightly less liberal and more authoritarian, norms obtain in Russia's political
sphere than in most Western countries; and, needless to say, like everyone else everywhere, Putin and his constituents are creatures
of their time and place.
On the whole, though, the demon of the hour seems no less governed by moral, customary or legal constraints than others in similar
positions. Even in responding to events in Ukraine and Syria, he has been more scrupulously observant of international law than Barack
Obama or Donald Trump.
His word may not be as good as gold, but it is a lot better than the CIA's. Indeed, when it comes to lying, the CIA is second
to none. It has been known too to politicize intelligence when it suits its purposes or the purposes of the American government,
insofar as the two diverge. The Bush-Cheney administration's "weapons of mass destruction" is only the best-known recent example.
I would therefore venture that of all the relevant parties weighing in, the American intelligence community is the least credible.
But we are so bombarded with the party line on Russian meddling that it is hard not to succumb to the belief that there surely must
be some there there. That (ultimately irrational) consideration apart, there is every reason to remain skeptical of everybody's assessments.
For the time being and perhaps for some time to come, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.
The news that people close to Trump -- his son, his son-in-law, his campaign manager -- met with a lawyer whom they believed to
be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and who probably was, changes nothing.
According to Donald Junior's emails, they did it to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Needless to say, "opposition research" is part of electoral politics nowadays; they all do it.
The problem in this case is the involvement of someone with ties to the Kremlin. Had the story been that Trump or someone close
to him hired homegrown detectives to dig up dirt on Clinton, the news probably wouldn't even have gotten Rachel Maddow's hackles
up.
Or had the famiglia arranged a meeting for the same purpose with persons connected to some other country – Israel is
an obvious example, but not the only imaginable one – that would be fine too.
Apparently, it is the Russian connection that is toxic.
For the anti-Trump political class and their mainstream media friends, Junior's emails are the Holy Grail, the "smoking gun."
But all they show is that there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Except on the dubious theory
that the provision of information is an emolument of the kind that the Constitution proscribes, there was nothing even remotely criminal
about that meeting in Trump Tower. There was not even anything unusual; campaigns look for dirt where they can find it, and they
talk to foreign sources all the time.
Trump's flacks say that the purported smoking gun is actually no big deal.
It grieves me to say it, but they are right.
What those emails provide is evidence of the stupidity of the Trump family (no surprise there!) and close Trump associates (ditto).
To make anything more of it is, to say the least, a stretch.
***
Narratives that center on Russian meddling in the 2016 election are one thing; well-researched investigations of connections between
Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian oligarchs, mobsters, spies, and assorted sleaze balls,
on the other, are something else altogether.
Inasmuch as birds of a feather generally do flock together, there probably are quite a few contacts of that sort to uncover.
Unfortunately, though, in the fog of neoconservative, Russophobic propaganda that has settled in over our shores, these issues
have become confounded.
On the meddling in the last election question, the jury is still out on which liars to believe. Does it really matter, though?
It does to proponents and opponents of the War Party. The former are desperate for reasons to find Putin culpable of something,
anything; the latter understand the importance of not letting them have their way.
It matters too to feckless Democrats (is there any other kind?) hoping to ride anti-Trump loathing back to power in 2018. It is
all they have going for them.
But it hardly matters at all for the integrity of American democracy -- notwithstanding the self-righteous blather that currently
surrounds the issue.
The danger to democracy – what little of it we have -- is not coming from hackers, Russian or otherwise, government sponsored
or freelance. At this historical moment, it is coming mainly from the voter suppression efforts of Republican state officials and
the Trump White House.
Republican donors are culpable too. They are the ones who bankroll the governors and state legislators who are leading the charge
against (small-d) democracy.
How ironic that one of the things the Russians are supposed to have hacked into are state voting rolls. It is fatally unclear
why they would care about that, just as it is brutally obvious why Republicans would. But this doesn't phase the War Party's propagandists
one bit.
The story they are going with for now is that Putin wants Americans to lose faith in the democratic process. Why would he even
care?
During the original Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supposedly intent on world domination, there were ways of answering that
question. The answers were disingenuous, to say the least, but they could at least be made to seem plausible. Good luck with that
now!
In any case, if Putin really did want to undermine faith in American democracy, he would be a little late to the gate; and he
would be redundant. Who needs a foreign autocrat to do what Democrats and Republicans are already doing better?
Meanwhile, even with Junior's emails, Trump is still there; and unless Republicans turn on him, which, for now, seems unlikely
– or unless, more unlikely still, he decides he has had enough -- there is where he will remain.
Meanwhile too, the Democratic Party, having made itself irrelevant, is still scapegoating Russians. What a dangerous, albeit bipartisan,
spectacle – unreconstructed Clintonites working side by side with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
All this does, though, is increase the likelihood that, in the process, the world will stumble into a war that, this time around,
really will be a war to end all wars.
"... Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason in a fast-darkening world, has performed a public service by demolishing both Ralph Peters and Max Boot on successive shows. But these two encounters with evil weren't just fun to watch, they're also highly instructive for what they tell us about the essential weakness of the War Party and its failing strategy for winning over the American people. ..."
"... For the neocons, it's always 1938. The enemy is always the reincarnation of Hitler, and anyone who questions the wisdom of war is denounced as an "appeaser" in the fashion of Neville Chamberlain or Lindbergh. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com . ..."
Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists
rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about
everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on
national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason in a
fast-darkening world, has performed a public service by demolishing both Ralph Peters and Max
Boot on successive shows. But these two encounters with evil weren't just fun to watch, they're
also highly instructive for what they tell us about the essential weakness of the War Party and
its failing strategy for winning over the American people.
Tucker's first victim was Ralph Peters , an alleged "military expert" who's been a fixture
on Fox News since before the Iraq war, of which he was a rabid proponent. Tucker starts out the
program by noting that ISIS "caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may have been killed in a Russian
airstrike and that the talk in Washington is now moving away from defeating ISIS and focusing
on Iran as the principal enemy. He asks why is this? Why not take a moment to celebrate the
death of Baghdadi and acknowledge that we have certain common interests with the Russians?
Peters leaps into overstatement, as is his wont: "We can't have an alliance with terrorists,
and the Russians are terrorists. They're not Islamists, but they are terrorists." He then
alleges that the Russians aren't really fighting ISIS, but instead are bombing hospitals,
children, and "our allies" (i.e. the radical Islamist Syrian rebels trained and funded by the
CIA and allied with al-Qaeda and al-Nusra). The Russians "hate the United States," and "we have
nothing in common with the Russians" –nothing!" The Russians, says Peters, are paving the
way for the Iranians – the real evil in the region – to "build up an empire from
Afghanistan to the Mediterranean." Ah yes, the "
Shia crescent " which the Israelis and their amen corner in the US have been warning
against since before the Iraq war. Yet Tucker points out that over 3,000 Americans have been
killed by terrorists in the US, and "none of them are Shi'ites: all of [these terrorists] have
been Sunni extremists who are supported by the Saudis who are supposed to be our allies." And
while we're on the subject: "Why," asks Tucker, "if we're so afraid of Iran did we kill Saddam
Hussein, thereby empowering Iran?"
"Because we were stupid," says Peters.
Oh boy! Peters was one of the most militant advocates of
the Iraq war: we were "stupid," I suppose, to listen to him. Yet Tucker lets this ride
momentarily, saving his big guns for the moment when he takes out Peters completely. And Peters
walks right into it when Tucker wonders why we can't cooperate with Russia, since both
countries are under assault from Sunni terrorists:
PETERS: You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn't attacked us.
TUCKER: I beg your pardon? You cannot compare me to somebody who makes apologies for
Hitler. And I don't think Putin is comparable.
PETERS: I think Putin is.
TUCKER: I think it is a grotesque overstatement actually. I think it's insane.
PETERS: Fine, you can think it's insane all you want.
For the neocons, it's always 1938. The enemy is always the reincarnation of
Hitler, and anyone who questions the wisdom of war is denounced as an "appeaser" in the fashion
of Neville Chamberlain or Lindbergh. Yet no one ever examines and challenges the assumption
behind this rhetorical trope, which is that war with the enemy of the moment – whether it
be Saddam Hussein, the Iranian ayatollahs, or Vladimir Putin – is inevitable and
imminent. If Putin is Hitler, and Russia is Nazi Germany, then we must take the analogy all the
way and assume that we'll be at war with the Kremlin shortly.
After all, Charles Lindbergh's opponents in the great debate of the 1940s openly said that
Hitler, who posed an existential threat to the West, had to be destroyed, and that this goal
could not be achieved short of war. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt pretended that this wasn't
so, and pledged repeatedly that we weren't going to war, but secretly he manipulated events so
that war was practically inevitable. Meanwhile, the more honest elements of the War Party
openly proclaimed that we had to aid Britain and get into the war.
Is this what Peters and his gaggle of neocons are advocating – that we go to war with
nuclear-armed Russia and annihilate much of the world in a radioactive Armageddon? It certainly
seems that way. The Hitler-Lindbergh trope certainly does more than merely imply that.
Clearly riled by the attempt to smear him, Tucker, the neocon slayer, then moves in for the
kill:
I would hate to go back and read your columns assuring America that taking out Saddam Hussein
will make the region calmer, more peaceful, and America safer, when in fact it has been the
opposite and it has empowered Russia and Iran, the two countries you say you fear most
– let's be totally honest, we don't always know the outcomes.
They are not entirely predictable so maybe we should lower that a little bit rather than
calling people accommodationist.
This is what the neocons hate: reminding them of their record is like showing a
vampire a crucifix. Why should we listen to Peters, who's been wrong about everything for
decades? Peters' response is the typical neocon riposte to all honest questions about their
policies and record: you're a traitor, you're "cheering on Vladimir Putin!" To which Tucker has
the perfect America Firster answer:
I'm cheering for America as always. Our interests ought to come first and to the extent that
making temporary alliances with other countries serves our interests, I'm in favor of that.
Making sweeping moral claims – grotesque ones – comparing people to Hitler
advances the ball not one inch and blinds us to reality.
Peters has no real argument, and so he resorts to the method that's become routine
in American politics: accuse your opponent of being a foreign agent. Tucker, says Peters, is an
"apologist" not only for Putin but also for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Again, Tucker
answers smears with cold logic:
So because I'm asking rational questions about what's best for America I'm a friend to
strongmen and dictators? That is a conversation stopper, not a beginning of a rational
conversation. My only point is when Syria was run by Assad 10% of the population was
Christian and they lived in relative peace.
And that's really the whole point: the War Party wants to stop the conversation.
They don't want a debate – when, really, have we ever had a fair debate in this country
over foreign policy? They depend on fear, innuendo, and ad hominem "arguments" to drag us into
war after war – and Tucker is having none of it.
So why is any of this important? After all, it's just a TV show, and as amusing as it is to
watch a prominent neocon get creamed, what doe it all mean in the end? Well, it matters because
Tucker didn't start out talking sense on foreign policy. He started out, in short, as a
conventional conservative, but then something happened. As he put it to Peters at the end of
the segment:
I want to act in America's interest and stop making shallow, sweeping claims about countries
we don't fully understand and hope everything will be fine in the end. I saw that happen and
it didn't work.
What's true isn't self-evident, at least to those of us who aren't omniscient.
Many conservatives, as well as the country as a whole, learned something as they saw the
disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria unfold. On the right, many have rejected the
neoconservative "idealism" that destroyed the Middle East and unleashed ISIS. When Donald Trump
stood before the South Carolina GOP debate and told the assembled mandarins that we were lied
into the Iraq war, the chattering classes declared that he was finished – yet he won that
primary, and went on to win the nomination, precisely because Republican voters were ready to
hear that message.
Indeed, Trump's "America First" skepticism when it comes to foreign wars made
the crucial difference in the election , as a recent study shows :
communities hard hit by our endless wars put him over the top in the key states of Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This, and not "Russian meddling," handed him the White House.
Tucker Carlson's ideological evolution limns the transformation of the American right in the
age of Trump: while Trump is not, by a long shot, a consistent anti-interventionist, Tucker
comes pretty close. He is, at least, a realist with a pronounced antipathy for foreign
adventurism, and that is a big step forward from the neoconservative orthodoxy that has bathed
much of the world in blood.
Perhaps the neocons, having been trounced in round one, thought Boot could do better: they
were mistaken. Tucker took him apart simply by letting him talk: Boot didn't answer a single
question put to him, and, in the course of it all, as Boot resorted to the typical ad hominems,
Tucker made a cogent point:
[T]o dismiss people who disagree with you as immoral – which is your habit –
isn't a useful form of debate, it's a kind of moral preening, and it's little odd coming from
you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over
a decade. And so, you have to sort of wonder, like –
BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?
CARLSON: Well, having watch you carefully and known you for a long time, I recall vividly
when you said that if we were to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the region
will be much safer and the people who took their place would help us in the global war on
terror. Of course it didn't happen –
Boot starts to completely melt down at this point, screeching "You supported the
Iraq war!" To which Tucker trenchantly replies:
I've been wrong about a ton of things, you try to learn your lesson. But when you get out
there in the New York Times and say, we really should have done more to depose Qaddafi,
because you know, Libya is going to be better when that happens. And then to hear you say we
need to knock off the Assad regime and things will be better in Syria, he sort of wonder
like, well, maybe we should choose another professions. Selling insurance, something you're
good at. I guess that's kind of the point. Are there no sanctions for being as wrong as you
have?
Why oh why should we listen to Peters and Boot and their fellow neocons, who have
been – literally – dead wrong about everything: their crackbrained ideology has led
to untold thousands of deaths since September 11, 2001 alone. And for what?
In the end, Boot falls back on the usual non-arguments: Tucker is "immoral" because he
denies that Trump is a Russian agent, and persists in asking questions about our foreign policy
of endless intervention in the Middle East. Tucker keeps asking why Boot thinks Russia is the
main threat to the United States, and Boot finally answers: "Because they are the only country
that can destroy us with a nuclear strike."
To a rational person, the implications of this are obvious: in that case, shouldn't we be
trying to reach some sort of détente, or even achieve a degree of cooperation with Moscow?
Oh, but no, because you see the Russians are inherently evil, we have "nothing" in common with
them – in which case, war is inevitable.
At which point, Tucker avers: "Okay. I am beginning to think that your judgment has been
clouded by ideology, I don't fully understand where it's coming from but I will let our viewers
decide."
I know where it's coming from. Tucker's viewers may not know that Boot is a Russian
immigrant, who – like so many of our Russophobic warmongers – arrived on our shores
with his hatred of the motherland packed in his suitcase. There's a whole platoon of them:
Cathy Young, who recently released her polemic
arguing for a new cold war with Russia in the pages ofReason magazine; Atlantic writer and
tweeter of anti-Trump obscenities Julia Ioffe, whose visceral hatred for her homeland is a
veritable monomania; Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion who spends most of his energy
plotting revenge against Vladimir Putin and a Russian electorate that has consistently rejected
his hopeless presidential campaigns, and I could go on but you get the picture.
As the new cold war envelopes the country, wrapping us in its icy embrace and freezing all
rational discussion of foreign policy, a few people stand out as brave exceptions to the
groupthinking mass of the chattering classes: among the most visible and articulate are Tucker
Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, journalist Michael Tracey, Prof. Stephen Cohen, and of course our own
Ron Paul. I tip my hat to them, in gratitude and admiration, for they represent the one thing
we need right now: hope. The hope that this madness will pass, that we'll beat back this latest
War Party offensive, and enjoy a return to what passes these days for normalcy.
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But
people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the
public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership
of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election
hacking has emerged.
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely.
Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of
the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal
establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal
establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define
what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic
accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether,
but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails
and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic
establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie
Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation
from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts.
They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty
Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for
the purpose of this argument.
The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained
these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report
from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left
behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece
of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access
to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't
say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of
definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article
of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able
to refute the
evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance
systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been
hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled
over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have
the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking",
yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever
of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact
I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers
to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what
actually happened.
The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike
– the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike
report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must
have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking"
meme going. On 24 May the Guardian
reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that
"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and
WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession
of, or examined by, the FBI."
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating
the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime",
while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating
its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly
investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.
So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike
claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with
the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set
up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?
Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically
deploys technology that leaves behind fake
fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.
Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that
the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery
in the Ukraine. This has been
utterly discredited.
Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media
are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher
Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell
lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.
Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague
miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do
they have business links with Russian finance?
Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are
woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons
and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good
for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.
Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject
may damage him.
The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up.
But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary.
At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm.
There is nothing there.
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive
scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started
will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by
people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream
media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy
and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from
his website .
"... In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump secure the White House. ..."
"... "It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he told Fox News. ..."
In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the
CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump
secure the White House.
Suggesting that the Obama administration's lack of transparency makes it impossible to definitively conclude that the Russians
were behind the hacking of US political parties, Bolton, who was reportedly appointed as Trump's deputy secretary of state (the second
highest position at the State Department), appeared to break away from his characteristically national security-first philosophy
to assert a theory about foul play at the highest levels of government,
"It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false
flag operation," he
told Fox News.
When asked to explain what he meant by the highly suggestive phrase "false flag," Bolton gave a hazy answer.
"We just don't know," stated Bolton, refusing to say whether the US government was purposely misleading the public, or worse,
had a hand in the "false flag operation."
"But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree," said Bolton,
adding:
If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints
We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the
Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don't know whether
it is Russian inspired or a false flag
Here's the transcript, detailing the relevant part of Bolton's interview with Eric Shawn:
Bolton's comments reflected echo the skeptical attitude of the Trump team in the wake of The Washington Post's report
on the CIA's unsettling findings about Russia's interference during the presidential election. Trump, himself, called the CIA's assessment
"ridiculous" in a pre-taped interview that aired Sunday.
"I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it," the president-elect told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "Every week it's another
excuse." Trumped
added that "nobody really knows" who was behind the hacking of emails belonging to top Clinton advisors and DNC officials.
Populism is a weasel word that is use by neoliberal MSM to delitimize the resistance. This is a typical neoliberal thinking.
Financial globalization is different from trade. It is more of neocolonialism that racket, as is
the case with trade.
Notable quotes:
"... Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour. ..."
"... I suggest that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime, drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence. ..."
"... Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly as intended. Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought. ..."
"... "Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically disenfranchised and dismiss them derision. ..."
"... In the capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer under. ..."
"... they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives ..."
"... This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered preppy attempt at explaining populism ..."
"... But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations. ..."
"... The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy. ..."
"... Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. ..."
"... As I have argued elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion of new science and technology. ..."
"... Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade, but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War. ..."
"... The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment. The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so. ..."
'Populism' is a loose label that encompasses a diverse set of movements. The term originates from
the late 19th century, when a coalition of farmers, workers, and miners in the US rallied against
the Gold Standard and the Northeastern banking and finance establishment. Latin America has a long
tradition of populism going back to the 1930s, and exemplified by Peronism. Today populism spans
a wide gamut of political movements, including anti-euro and anti-immigrant parties in Europe, Syriza
and Podemos in Greece and Spain, Trump's anti-trade nativism in the US, the economic populism of
Chavez in Latin America, and many others in between. What all these share is an anti-establishment
orientation, a claim to speak for the people against the elites, opposition to liberal economics
and globalisation, and often (but not always) a penchant for authoritarian governance.
The populist backlash may have been a surprise to many, but it really should not have been in
light of economic history and economic theory.
Take history first. The first era of globalisation under the Gold Standard produced the first
self-conscious populist movement in history, as noted above. In trade, finance, and immigration,
political backlash was not late in coming. The decline in world agricultural prices in 1870s and
1880s produced pressure for resumption in import protection. With the exception of Britain, nearly
all European countries raised agricultural tariffs towards the end of the 19th century. Immigration
limits also began to appear in the late 19th century. The United States Congress passed in 1882 the
infamous Chinese Exclusion Act that restricted Chinese immigration specifically. Japanese immigration
was restricted in 1907. And the Gold Standard aroused farmers' ire because it was seen to produce
tight credit conditions and a deflationary effect on agricultural prices. In a speech at the Democratic
national convention of 1896, the populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan uttered the famous words:
"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
To anyone familiar with the basic economics of trade and financial integration, the politically
contentious nature of globalisation should not be a surprise. The workhorse models with which international
economists work tend to have strong redistributive implications. One of the most remarkable theorems
in economics is the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, which generates very sharp distributional implications
from opening up to trade. Specifically, in a model with two goods and two factors of production,
with full inter-sectoral mobility of the factors, owners of one of the two factors are made necessarily
worse off with the opening to trade. The factor which is used intensively in the importable good
must experience a decline in its real earnings.
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem assumes very specific conditions. But there is one Stolper-Samuelson-like
result that is extremely general, and which can be stated as follows. Under competitive conditions,
as long as the importable good(s) continue to be produced at home – that is, ruling out complete
specialisation – there is always at least one factor of production that is rendered worse off by
the liberalisation of trade. In other words, trade generically produces losers. Redistribution is
the flip side of the gains from trade; no pain, no gain.
Economic theory has an additional implication, which is less well recognised. In relative terms,
the redistributive effects of liberalisation get larger and tend to swamp the net gains as the trade
barriers in question become smaller. The ratio of redistribution to net gains rises as trade liberalisation
tackles progressively lower barriers.
The logic is simple. Consider the denominator of this ratio first. It is a standard result in
public finance that the efficiency cost of a tax increases with the square of the tax rate. Since
an import tariff is a tax on imports, the same convexity applies to tariffs as well. Small tariffs
have very small distorting effects; large tariffs have very large negative effects. Correspondingly,
the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller as the barriers get lower.
The redistributive effects, on the other hand, are roughly linear with respect to price changes and
are invariant, at the margin, to the magnitude of the barriers. Putting these two facts together,
we have the result just stated, namely that the losses incurred by adversely affected groups per
dollar of efficiency gain are higher the lower the barrier that is removed.
Evidence is in line with these theoretical expectations. For example, in the case of NAFTA, Hakobyan
and McLaren (2016) have found very large adverse effects for an "important minority" of US workers,
while Caliendo and Parro (2015) estimate that the overall gains to the US economy from the agreement
were minute (a "welfare" gain of 0.08%).
In principle, the gains from trade can be redistributed to compensate the losers and ensure no
identifiable group is left behind. Trade openness has been greatly facilitated in Europe by the creation
of welfare states. But the US, which became a truly open economy relatively late, did not move in
the same direction. This may account for why imports from specific trade partners such as China or
Mexico are so much more contentious in the US.
Economists understand that trade causes job displacement and income losses for some groups. But
they have a harder time making sense of why trade gets picked on so much by populists both on the
right and the left. After all, imports are only one source of churn in labour markets, and typically
not even the most important source. What is it that renders trade so much more salient politically?
Perhaps trade is a convenient scapegoat. But there is another, deeper issue that renders redistribution
caused by trade more contentious than other forms of competition or technological change. Sometimes
international trade involves types of competition that are ruled out at home because they violate
widely held domestic norms or social understandings. When such "blocked exchanges" (Walzer 1983)
are enabled through trade they raise difficult questions of distributive justice. What arouses popular
opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Financial globalisation is in principle similar to trade insofar as it generates overall economic
benefits. Nevertheless, the economics profession's current views on financial globalisation can be
best described as ambivalent. Most of the scepticism is directed at short-term financial flows, which
are associated with financial crises and other excesses. Long-term flows and direct foreign investment
in particular are generally still viewed favourably. Direct foreign investment tends to be more stable
and growth-promoting. But there is evidence that it has produced shifts in taxation and bargaining
power that are adverse to labour.
The boom-and-bust cycle associated with capital inflows has long been familiar to developing nations.
Prior to the Global Crisis, there was a presumption that such problems were largely the province
of poorer countries. Advanced economies, with their better institutions and regulation, would be
insulated from financial crises induced by financial globalisation. It did not quite turn out that
way. In the US, the housing bubble, excessive risk-taking, and over-leveraging during the years leading
up to the crisis were amplified by capital inflows from the rest of the world. In the Eurozone, financial
integration, on a regional scale, played an even larger role. Credit booms fostered by interest-rate
convergence would eventually turn into bust and sustained economic collapses in Greece, Spain, Portugal,
and Ireland once credit dried up in the immediate aftermath of the crisis in the US.
Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation.
They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting
declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income
inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both
the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour.
The populist backlash may have been predictable, but the specific form it took was less so. Populism
comes in different versions. It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants
of populism, which differ with respect to the societal cleavages that populist politicians highlight
and render salient. The US progressive movement and most Latin American populism took a left-wing
form. Donald Trump and European populism today represent, with some instructive exceptions, the right-wing
variant (Figure 2). What accounts for the emergence of right-wing versus left-wing variants of opposition
to globalization?
Figure 2 Contrasting patterns of populism in Europe and Latin America
Notes : See Rodrik (2017) for sources and methods.
I suggest that these different reactions are related to the forms in which globalisation shocks
make themselves felt in society (Rodrik 2017). It is easier for populist politicians to mobilise
along ethno-national/cultural cleavages when the globalisation shock becomes salient in the form
of immigration and refugees. That is largely the story of advanced countries in Europe. On the other
hand, it is easier to mobilise along income/social class lines when the globalisation shock takes
the form mainly of trade, finance, and foreign investment. That in turn is the case with southern
Europe and Latin America. The US, where arguably both types of shocks have become highly salient
recently, has produced populists of both stripes (Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump).
It is important to distinguish between the demand and supply sides of the rise in populism. The
economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalisation generate a base for populism,
but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience of available cleavages
and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction and content to the grievances.
Overlooking this distinction can obscure the respective roles of economic and cultural factors in
driving populist politics.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that globalization has not been the only force at play -
nor necessarily even the most important one. Changes in technology, rise of winner-take-all markets,
erosion of labour market protections, and decline of norms restricting pay differentials all have
played their part. These developments are not entirely independent from globalisation, insofar as
they both fostered globalization and were reinforced by it. But neither can they be reduced to it.
Nevertheless, economic history and economic theory both give us strong reasons to believe that advanced
stages of globalisation are prone to populist backlash.
One question he does not address is why the opposition to globalization has had its most obvious
consequences in two countries:- the US and the UK with Trump and Brexit respectively.
I suggest
that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has
something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the
most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime,
drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence.
For me the lessons are obvious
– ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected, not just some; act
to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that their lives are happier.
re: "ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected"
Note that for the recent TPP, industry executives and senior government officials were well
represented for the drafting of the agreement, labor and environmental groups were not.
There simply may be no mechanism to "ensure the benefits are distributed among all affected"
in the USA political climate as those benefits are grabbed by favored groups, who don't want to
re-distribute them later.
Some USA politicians argue for passing flawed legislation while suggesting they will fix it
later, as I remember California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stating when she voted for
Bush Jr's Medicare Part D ("buy elderly votes for Republicans").
It has been about 15 years, and I don't remember any reform efforts on Medicare Part D from
Di-Fi.
Legislation should be approached with the anticipated inequality problems solved FIRST when
wealthy and powerful interests are only anticipating increased wealth via "free trade". Instead,
the political process gifts first to the wealthy and powerful first and adopts a "we'll fix it
later" attitude for those harmed. And the same process occurs, the wealthy/powerful subsequently
strongly resist sharing their newly acquired "free trade" wealth increment with the free trade
losers..
If the USA adopted a "fix inequality first" requirement, one wonders if these free trade bills
would get much purchase with the elite.
Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly
as intended.
Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression
platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy
became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought.
NAFTA Bill Clinton lit the fuse to the bomb which finally exploded under his lovely wife Hillary
in 2016.
The big problem I find in this analysis is that it completely forgets how different countries
use fiscal/financial policies to play merchantilistic games under globalization.
Yves, thanks for posting this from Dani Rodrik - whose clear thinking is always worthwhile.
It's an excellent, succinct post. Still, one 'ouch': "Redistribution is the flip side of the gains
from trade; no pain, no gain."
This is dehumanizing glibness that we cannot afford. The pain spreads like wildfire. It burns
down houses, savings, jobs, communities, bridges, roads, health and health care, education, food
systems, air, water, the 'real' economy, civility, shared values - in short everything for billions
of human beings - all while sickening, isolating and killing.
The gain? Yes, as you so often point out, cui bono? But, really it goes beyond even that question.
It requires asking, "Is this gain so obscene to arguably be no gain at all because its price for
those who cannot have too many homes and yachts and so forth is the loss of humanity?
Consider, for example, Mitch McConnell. He cannot reasonably be considered human. At all. And,
before the trolls create any gifs for the Teenager-In-Chief, one could say the same - or almost
the same - for any number of flexians who denominate themselves D or R (e.g. Jamie Gorelick).
No pain, no gain? Fine for getting into better shape or choosing to get better at some discipline.
It's an abominable abstraction, though, for describing phenomena now so far along toward planet-o-cide.
"Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically
disenfranchised and dismiss them derision.
Another categorization that I find less than apt, outmoded
and a misnomer is the phrase "advanced economies", especially given that level of industrialization
and gdp per capita are the key metrics used to arrive at these classifications. Globalization
has shifted most industrial activity away from countries that invested in rapid industrialization
post WW2 to countries with large pools of readily exploitable labour while gdp per capita numbers
include sections of the population with no direct participation in creating economic output (and
the growth of these marginalized sections is trending ever upward).
Meanwhile the financial benefits
of growing GDP numbers gush ever upwards to the financial-political elites instead of "trickling
downwards" as we are told they should, inequality grows unabated, stress related diseases eat
away at the bodies of otherwise young men and women etc. I'm not sure any of these dynamics, which
describe perfectly what is happening in many so called advanced economies, are the mark of societies
that should describe themselves as "advanced"
Sorry, but the original populist movement in the US called themselves the Populists or the
Populist Party. Being popular is good. You are the one who is assigning a pejorative tone to it.
Populism is widely used in the mainstream media, and even in the so called alternative media,
as a really pejorative term. That is what he means (I would say).
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
On the other hand:
"What all these share is an establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the elites against
the people, support for liberal economics and globalisation, and always a penchant for authoritarian
governance."
"Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account
liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant
and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini
coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further,
capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile
factor, labour."
So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints, results in all the riches flowing to the fat
cats and all the taxes, famines, wars, droughts, floods and other natural disasters being dumped
upon the peasants.
The Lakota, roaming the grassy plains of the North American mid-continent, glorified their
'fat cats,' the hunters who brought back the bison which provided food, shelter and clothing to
the people. And the rule was that the spoils of the hunt were shared unequally; the old, women
and children got the choice high calorie fatty parts. The more that a hunter gave away, the more
he was revered.
The Lakota, after some decades of interaction with the European invaders, bestowed on them
a disparaging soubriquet: wasi'chu. It means 'fat-taker;' someone who is greedy, taking all the
best parts for himself and leaving nothing for the people.
"So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints .."
Nailed it!!
That's something that has always bothered me it's great for the propagandists to acclaim globalization
but they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have
been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives .there should be a murderous outrage against
this kind of globalized exploitation and the consequent sufferings. Oh, but I forgot! It's all
about the money that is supposed to give incentive to those who are left behind to "recoup",
"regroup" and in today's age develop some kind of "app" to make up for all those losses .
In the
capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer
under.
they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who
have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives
That's a feature, not a bug. Notice that big corporations are all in favor of globalization
except when it comes to things like labor law. Then, somehow, local is better.
"The economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalization generate a
base for populism, but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience
of available cleavages and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction
and content to the grievances. "
Excellent and interesting point. Which political party presents itself as a believable tool
for redress affects the direction populism will take, making itself available as supply to the
existing populist demand. That should provide for 100 years of political science research.
Anonymous2 : "For me the lessons are obvious – ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed
among all affected, not just some; act to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that
their lives are happier."
It ought to be but sadly I fear our politicians are bought. I am unsure I have the solution
. In the past when things got really bad I suspect people ended up with a major war before these
sorts of problems could be addressed. I doubt that is going to be a solution this time.
This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest
and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered
preppy attempt at explaining populism
Yep, Rodrik has been writing about these things for decades and has a remarkable talent for
never actually getting anywhere. He's particularly enamored by the neoliberal shiny toy of "skills",
as if predation, looting, and fraud simply don't exist.
This is a prime example of what is wrong with professional economic thinking. First, note that
Rodrik is nominally on our side: socially progressive, conscious of the increasingly frightful
cost of enviro externalities, etc.
But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political
part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select
and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations.
Only nation states provide the mass of people any form and extent of political participation in
determining their own destiny. The failure of corporations to provide political participation
can probably be recited my almost all readers of NC. Indeed, a key problem of the past few decades
is that corp.s have increasingly marginalized the role of nation states and mass political participation.
The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has
reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without
facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy.
Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse
to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. Another
is the aftereffects of the economic dislocations Rodrik alludes to.
One is the increasing constriction
of government budgets. These in turn have caused a scaling back of science R&D which I believe
will have huge but incalculable negative effects in coming years. How do you measure the cost
of failing to find a cure for a disease? Or failing to develop technologies to reverse climate
change? Or just to double the charge duration of electric batteries under load? As I have argued
elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion
of new science and technology.
Intellectually poisoned by his social environment perhaps. The biggest problems with this piece
were its sweeping generalizations about unquantified socio-political trends. The things that academic
economists are least trained in; the things they speak about in passing without much thought.
I.e. Descriptions of political 'populism' that lumps Peronists, 19th century U.S. prairie populists,
Trump, and Sanders all into one neat category. Because, social movements driven by immiseration
of the common man are interchangeable like paper cups at a fast food restaurant.
Agree with much of what you comment .I believe that the conditions you describe are conveniently
dismissed by the pro economists as: "Externalities" LOL!! They seem to dump everything that doesn't
correlate to their dream of "Free Markets", "Globalization", etc .into that category .you gotta
love 'em!!
Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade,
but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War.
In fact, the best historian of USA agrarian populism, Lawrence Goodwyn, argued that it was
exactly the populists' reluctant alliance with Byran in the 1896 election that destroyed the populist
movement. It was not so much an issue of the gold standard, as it was "hard money" vs "soft money"
: gold AND silver vs the populists' preference for greenbacks, and currency and credit issued
by US Treasury instead of the eastern banks.
A rough analogy is that Byran was the Hillary Clinton
of his day, with the voters not given any way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or
the House of Morgan.
"the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances "
That power was expressed in total control of the Congress and Presidential office. Then, as
now, the 80-90% of the voters had neither R or D party that represented their economic, property,
and safety interests. Given the same economic circumstances, if one party truly pushed for ameliorating
regulations or programs the populist movement would be unnecessary. Yes, Bryan was allowed to
run (and he had a large following) and to speak at the Dem convention, much like Bernie today.
The "Bourbon Democrats" kept firm control of the party and downed Jennings' programs just as the
neolib Dem estab today keep control of the party out of the hands of progressives.
an aside: among many things, the progressives pushed for good government (ending cronyism),
trust busting, and honest trade, i.e not selling unfit tinned and bottled food as wholesome food.
Today, we could use an "honest contracts and dealings" act to regulate the theft committed by
what the banks call "honest contract enforcement", complete with forges documents. (Upton Sinclair
wrote The Jungle (1906) about the meatpacking industry. What would he make of today's mortgage
industry, or insurance industry, for example.)
For an author and article so interested in international trade, I'm fascinated by the lack
of evidence or argumentation that trade is the problem. The real issue being described here is
excessive inequality delivered through authoritarianism, not international trade. The intra-city
divergence between a hospital administrator and a home health aid is a much bigger problem in
the US than trade across national borders. The empire abroad and the police state at home is a
much bigger problem than competition from China or Mexico. Etc. Blaming international trade for
domestic policies (and opposition to them) is just simple misdirection and xenophobia, nothing
more.
I take exception to most of Prof. Rodrik's post, which is filled with factual and/or logical
inaccuracies.
"Populism appears to be a recent phenomenon, but it has been on the rise for quite some time
(Figure 1)."
Wrong. Pretending that a historical generic is somehow new Populism has been around since
at least the time of Jesus or William Wallace or the American Revolution or FDR.
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
Wrong. Creating a straw man through overgeneralization. Just because one country's "populism"
appears to have taken on a certain color, does not mean the current populist movement in another
part of the world will be the same. The only essential characteristics of populism are the anti-establishment
orientation and seeking policies that will redress an imbalance in which some elites have aggrandized
themselves unjustly at the expense of the rest of the people. The rest of the items in the list
above are straw men in a generalization. Rise of authoritarian (non-democratic) governance after
a populist uprising implies the rise of a new elite and would be a failure, a derailing of the
populist movement – not a characteristic of it.
"Correspondingly, the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller
as the barriers get lower."
If, in fact, we were seeing lower trade barriers, and this was driving populism, this whole
line of reasoning might have some value. But as it is, well over half the US economy is either
loaded with barriers, subject to monopolistic pricing, or has not seen any "trade liberalization".
Pharmaceuticals, despite being commodities, have no common global price the way, say, oil does.
Oil hasn't had lowered barriers, though, and thus doesn't count in favor of the argument either.
When China, Japan and Europe drop their import barriers, and all of them plus the U.S. get serious
about antitrust enforcement, there might be a case to be made
"It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants of populism"
Actually it isn't. The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment.
The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and
PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there
is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads
of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so.
About the only thing the author gets right is the admission that certain economic policies
unjustly create pain among many groups of people, leading to popular retribution. But that's not
insightful, especially since he fails to address the issue quantitatively and identify WHICH policies
have created the bulk of the pain. For instance, was more damage done by globalization, or by
the multi-trillion-$ fleecing of the U.S. middle class by the bankers and federal reserve during
the recent housing bubble and aftermath? What about the more recent ongoing fleecing of the government
and the people by the healthcare cartels, at about $1.5-2 trillion/year in the U.S.?
What arouses popular opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Which is the primary worldview setting for the neo-reactionary right in America. Everything
is a question of whether or not ones income was "fairly earned."
So you get government employees
and union members voting for politicians who've practically declared war against those voters'
class, but vote for them anyway because they set their arguments in a mode of fairness morality:
You can vote for the party of hard workers, or the party of handouts to the lazy. Which is why
China keeps getting depicted as a currency manipulator and exploiter of free trade agreements.
Economic rivals can only succeed via "cheating," not being industrious like the US.
That describes a number of my relatives and their friends. They are union members and government
employees yet hold hard right-wing views and are always complaining about lazy moochers living
on welfare. I ask them why they love the Republicans so much when this same party demonizes union
members and public employees as overpaid and lazy and the usual answer is that Republicans are
talking about some other unions or other government employees, usually teachers.
I suspect that the people in my anecdote hate public school teachers and their unions because
they are often female and non-white or teach in areas with a lot of minority children. I see this
a lot with white guys in traditional masculine industrial unions. They sometimes look down on
unions in fields that have many female and non-white members, teachers being the best example
I can think of.
"... Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted, are clearly more equal than others. ..."
Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia
and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people
many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted,
are clearly more equal than others.
The Left, frustrated by Trump's rise and its inability to control the public conversation, has
reached the point where violence is acceptable (Richard Spencer has been physically sucker-punched
on video).
Its representatives in dominant media, including social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter,
are doing everything they can to censor the alt-right, including making it difficult for its most
visible leaders to function in public.
"... To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine, where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy" forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all, There Is No Alternative! ..."
and understand why working class whites voted so
overwhelmingly for Trump. (
Note
: that author was not supporting Trump
and probably finds the alt-right horrifying.)
The alt-right, we should note, rejects the
"movement" conservatism of the mainstream GOP as dead - compromised,
intimidated, out of ideas, having no idea what it wants to conserve. For
decades now mainstream Republicans have been walking gingerly around issues
like affirmative action, because they are scared of their shadows of being
called racists - a fact hardly lost on the Left. The result is a movement that
has spent itself, and has little left to say. Think again of last year's GOP
debates and how Trump owned them. Mainstream Republicans floundered helplessly
in the face of his command of both mass media and social media. At the same
time, one heard no new ideas at all from Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or
even Mitt Romney at one point. Mostly they just embarrassed themselves (and in
the case of Bush, the original favorite of corporate insiders, wasted over $100
million in donor money).
Moreover, the bulk of GOP "satellite"
institutions, the many "think tanks" (e.g., Heritage) and its major
publications (e.g.,
National Review
,
Human Events
, "conservative"
syndicated columnists such as George Will, etc.), attacked Trump, but
communicated no forward-looking path for the country. This was not lost on the
alt-right.
The mainstream GOP has furthered not
conservatism but
neo
conservatism. The differences are, uh,
huge --
To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine,
where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy"
forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also
promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned
earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist
consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton
Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms
of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if
corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even
prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism
could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real
Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy
political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge
fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the
ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep
us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court
intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all,
There Is No Alternative!
Against all this, the alt-right raises its
fist and says,
Hell No, We Won't Go!
We demand our identity as white
Americans, the right to preserve our own culture, and the right to live and
associate with those of our choice!
So after all of this explication, why do I
see the alt-right as an understandable and perhaps even justifiable response to
our current situation, but otherwise at least partly wrongheaded,
philosophically and culturally?
Recent history should help clarify matters. Generalized
open borders policies born of a multiculturalist mindset do not result in
stable mass societies. If they fail for a society of around 67 million people
(roughly the population of France), then assuredly they won't work for one of
over 325 million people (that of the U.S.). Such policies cannot work for those
who do not consciously choose them, which is most people. The term
the
masses
sounds derogatory. It need not be. It simply means the majority,
those who are
average
, who go off experience and habit, whose lives are
circumscribed by what affects them directly (family, work, church, filing a tax
return once a year, etc.), who rarely think outside the boxes these supply, and
who bring to the table the talents and skills they have, along with their
individual hopes, dreams, fears, sweet spots, and pain points. They are often
very good at what they've learned to do. Most can generally take care of
themselves, so long as their lives are not disrupted by forces they neither
understand nor can control. Most prefer the company of people like them, who
think like them, who can relate to them, will trust them because they've known
each other all their lives in some cases, and with whom they would be
comfortable sharing a beer.
Interfere with these people, force them down
paths not of their choosing, and barring the appearance of a Donald Trump you
might not have a rebellion on your hands, but you will almost surely get slow
but increasing dysfunction, as is the clearly the case with many working class
white people who voted for Trump: the one population whose fortunes are
shrinking along with their numbers, and whose tendencies toward chronic health
problems, substance abuse, suicide, etc., are rising.
Other things being equal, I'd allow them
(including those white people who find that the alt-right is making sense) to
live as they see fit and be left alone. If they wish to separate, then let them
separate. This is what the alt-right gets "right."
But before they depart I'd ask them: instead
of rejecting just left-wing Hegelianism, why not reject the entire Hegelian
paradigm? The embrace of right-wing Hegelianism is what the alt-right gets
"wrong." The Master-Slave dichotomy may have seemed necessary, but never truly
was. It was always an academic construct laid on top of a far more complex
reality. Slave-consciousness may be overcome, in time, by
self-reliance
consciousness: a large frontage road alongside the Enlightenment superhighway
of modernity, less traveled but fruitful for those who did. What is good and
right about self-reliance consciousness is its absence of ethnic or gender
specificity. White Europeans of various nationalities other than British chose
it for decades when they came to the U.S. as immigrants with nothing but the
shirts on their backs. They devoted themselves to the ways of their new home,
learning English, and in many cases became successful business owners. Asians
followed suit. They had a rougher ride, but also succeeded. Their children went
on to earn doctorates in physics and engineering. "White privilege" did not
stop them.
In American mass political culture, however,
self-reliance was replaced by a sense of entitlement:
government should take
care of us
. The Fabian-inspired New Deal has proven to have its dark side,
this being chronic dependency on government (i.e., on taxpayers) and, in
practice, has rendered ever more people vulnerable to being taken advantage of
by predatory corporations (Big Insurance, Big Pharma). Obvious example: health
care. One could write extensively on the dangers of too much comfort and
convenience, especially for those who grow up immersed in it, absent any sense
of the work that went into producing it. But that, too, is an essay for another
day.
But just note in passing - and
this is of
crucial importance
: before separating, one must consider that
the price
of separation and community self-determination in a world dominated by
globalized power elites is self-reliance at a community level
.
For example, speaking hypothetically, were a
state or group of states to secede from the U.S. today, they would relinquish
any right their people might have thought they had to Social Security,
Medicare, and so on. Relinquishing these systems of dependency would be part of
what they'd signed off on. What to put in place of those until they could
transition back to self-reliance would become a major issue, and quickly!
Moreover, "populist" economics requires
self-reliance because if "populists" are elected in a country, the economically
powerful pull their investments and/or remove their operations, understandably
fearful of the nationalization which happened in Chile when Salvador Allende
was elected president in 1970. When a Hugo Chávez becomes president in a
Venezuela, the corporate movers and shakers pull out. What happens: the economy
tanks. Jobs vanish. Distribution systems collapse. Goods become scarce; price
inflation soars. The "populists" are blamed for the debacle.
Without self-reliance at both an individual
and community level, especially after decades of living in a relatively
advancing civilization, it is a given that one's standard of living will drop.
Venezuela has learned this the hard way! In the real world, there are only two
ways of maintaining a given standard of living. One is to depend on others to
supply it. The other is to work to sustain it. One of these might be
sustainable in the long run. The other is not. Readers who have followed me
this far will be intelligent enough to discern which is which.
I've cast presidential ballots for the Green Party from the at least
technically contested state of Iowa in the last three elections. I've long and
consistently used a metaphor from the original version of Upton Sinclair's
famous Socialist novel
The Jungle,
describing the Democrats as one of
"two wings of the same [capitalist and imperialist] bird of prey."
I've distanced myself from Lesser-Evilism and written and spoken about some
of the ways in which the dismal, dollar-drenched Dems (the DDDs) are the
greater and (in Glen Ford's words) "more effective evil." The domestically (but
not anti-imperially) leftish Bernie F-35 Sanders candidacy (which seduced even
the officially Trotskyist group Socialist Alternative during last year's
presidential primaries) could not entice me back into my parents' and
grandparents' party. (Any slight chance Sanders had of getting me on board was
lost by his refusal to meaningfully confront the Pentagon system, which
undermines the nation's potential for social-democratic policy by sucking up
more than half the nation's federal discretionary spending in the process of
murdering and maiming millions around the world to maintain a global Empire
that accounts for nearly half the planet's military spending and bears the
planet's single largest institutional carbon footprint.)
In a forthcoming print essay on "The State of the Left," I approvingly quote
James Kavanagh on the perfidy of the DDDs in California, where they hold the
governor's office and both legislative houses and where top Dems recently shot
down a single-payer health insurance care measure supported by
65% of that giant state's population, including 75% of its Democrats
:
"This is the Democratic Party. Lying losers who will do anything to avoid
taking an effective stance for a healthcare policy that would immediately
solve one of the worst horrors American families face Passing single-payer
in California and fighting for it everywhere else would guarantee the
Democrats electoral victories. But they will not do it because they are
fervent supporters of the capitalist market system in healthcare (and
everything else), and they are corrupt agents of the health insurance and
pharma industries Because it captures and cages the energies of so many
well-meaning progressives, the Democratic Party is the most effective
obstacle to, and enemy of, single-payer, and it has to be fought. This is
not a Trump problem, and not a Republican problem, it's a bipartisan
capitalist elite problem."
My sentiments, exactly. (What would the older Upton Sinclair, leader of the
Depression-era End Poverty in California movement, say?)
Beyond Two Minutes Once Every Four Years: Voting v. Serious
Political Action
So why did I check the
Des Moines Register's
final state poll to
make sure that there was no real contest between the major party candidates in
Iowa before making my third-party vote? Why would I have considered making
myself vote "for" Democratic candidates I loathed (Barack Obama in 2008 and
2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016) if I thought it would have made any
difference in which of the two major party candidates were going to prevail?
Part of the answer is that for me electoral politics is distantly secondary
to long-haul social movement-building. I see voting (or not) as little more
than a tactical adjunct to the primary task. It's not some terrible sin to not
"vote your conscience," as if U.S. electoral politics had anything to do with
morality and conscience. I agree wholeheartedly with something Noam Chomsky
wrote on the eve of the 2004 presidential election:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more
meaningfully in the political arena. Essentially the election is a method of
marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to get
people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to
think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's
only a small part of
politics
The urgent task for those who want to shift policy in
progressive direction – often in close conformity to majority opinion – is
to grow and become strong enough so that that they can't be ignored by
centers of power. Forces for change that have come up from the grassroots
and shaken the society to its foundations include the labor movement, the
civil rights movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others,
cultivated by steady, dedicated work at all levels, every day,
not just
once every four years
election choices are
secondary to serious
political action
. The main task is to create a genuinely responsive
democratic culture, and that effort goes on before and after electoral
extravaganzas, whatever their outcome" (emphasis added)
"Take the Bernie Sanders campaign," Chomsky told Abby Martin eleven years
later. It "ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement that will use
the election as a kind of an incentive and then go on, and unfortunately it's
not. When the election's over," Chomsky said, the movement is going to die a
serious error. The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful
change is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay attention to the
election cycle."
"The really critical thing," the great American radical historian Howard
Zinn once sagely wrote, "isn't who's sitting in the White House, but who is
sitting in-in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in
the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and
demonstrating-those are the things that determine what happens."
However you vote (and I honestly don't know that my head could ever make my
right hand mark a ballot for a Democrat again), the act takes
two minutes
once every two or four years.
What do you do with the rest of your
political life? As Zinn argued in a reflection on "the election madness" he saw
"engulfing the entire society including the left" in the Obama-mad spring of
2008:
"
before and after those two minutes
[in a voting booth], our
time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our
fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our
objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a
movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake
whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on
matters of war and social justice
Historically, government, whether in
the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed
its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom
Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of
workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war." (H.
Zinn, "Election Madness,"
The
Progressive
, April 8, 2008)
Since I agree with Chomsky and Zinn, I do not morally fetishize the American
ballot fox, which the Marxist historian Alan Dawley once aptly described as a
"coffin of class consciousness."
To See That Things Still Suck with the Democrats in Office
Another part of the answer to the question of why I might try to make myself
vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in a contested state also has
nothing to do with what W.E.B. DuBois called "the game of lesser evils."
There's a different, rarely noted strategic and radical case for wanting the
Democratic wing of the capitalist-imperialist duopoly in office. It's about
exposing the corporate and imperial Democrats for what they really are. Call it
a vote for the hope of more radical and bipartisan disillusionment.
How are the Democrats best revealed and exposed as agents of the unelected
and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire? Which is better for the
development of "serious political action" (grassroots, and non-co-opt-able
citizen and workers' activism and organization) beyond the masters' quadrennial
electoral extravaganzas, radically regressive Republicans holding nominal power
or dismal dollar Democrats sitting atop the symbolic ship of state?
On domestic political matters, at least (maters are least clear on foreign
policy, I readily admit), the answer is the latter. I wanted Obama back in 2013
and Hillary back in 2017 (and might have tried to vote for them if I thought it
would have made any difference) because of my sense that the presence of
another white male Republican in the White House would just encourage liberals
and progressives and others to blame everything wrong in America on "those
insane evil Republicans." Bringing back a Republican to the White House, I
reflected, would just reinforce the longstanding liberal claim that installing
Democrats in power is the cure to the national malaise.
I want Americans (young ones above all) to come into regular visible contact
with the bipartisan nature of the U.S. ruling class. I wanted them subjected to
the reality that, to quote the Marxist commentator Doug Henwood in early 2008,
"everything still pretty much sucks" when Democrats hold the top political
offices – that the basic underlying institutional realities of capitalist and
imperial rule stay the same. As the antiwar activist, author, and essayist Stan
Goff wrote seven years ago, "I'm glad Obama was elected. Otherwise,
people
would blame the war on McCain and the Republicans and continue with the
delusion that elections can be our salvation
."
My dark dialectical hope for Obama was born out to some extent by the
remarkable rise and spread of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which fed off
youthful disillusionment with Obama and the Democrats-a bursting of political
"hope" bubbles that followed two years after the bursting of the real estate
and financial bubble to fuel disenchantment with the underlying profits system.
We don't know how far Occupy would have gone had it not been crushed by the
state, including Obama's Department of Homeland Security in collaboration with
Democratic-run city governments across the country.
But Obama was at least for a time a great object lesson on how "everything
still pretty much sucks" when Democrats hold down the White House. Eschewing
the left-leaning progressive potential he was handed (Democratic majorities in
both houses of Congress and an angry, "pitchfork"-wielding populace at the
gates), the nation's first half-white president and his neoliberal, Robert
Rubin-appointed team followed George W. Bush in continuing to give the
corporate-managed citizenry qua electorate what William Greider called "a blunt
lesson about power, who has it and who doesn't. In a March 2009 Washington Post
editorial titled "Obama Asked Us to Speak, Is He
Listening?" Greider wrote about how "Americans watched Washington rush to
rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They learned
that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it.
'Where's my bailout,' became the rueful punch line at lunch counters and
construction sites nationwide. Then to deepen the insult, people watched as
establishment forces re-launched their campaign for 'entitlement reform' – a
euphemism for whacking Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid."
Americans also watched as Obama moved on to pass a health insurance reform,
the so-called Affordable Care Act, that only the big insurance and drug
companies could love, kicking the popular alternative (single payer "Medicare
for All") to the curb while rushing to pass a program drafted by the Republican
Heritage Foundation and first carried out in Massachusetts by the arch 1
percenter Mitt Romney. As Kavanagh points out, citing the work of Marcy
Wheeler, Hillary Clinton "fatal slide in the [2016 presidential election] polls
began before [James] Comey's notorious letter of October 28th, and coincided
with the announcement, four days before, of steep Obamacare premium increases."
Californication: Can't Blame Republicans
With their killing of single-payer in California, that state's top Democrats
distilled down their dismal, dollar-drenched dastardliness for millions to
bitterly digest. So what if two-thirds of that giant jurisdiction's residents
and three-fourths of its Democrats want a state version of Medicare for All?
Who cares? Not California State Assembly Speaker Anthony Renden or his Governor
Jerry Brown. "The dissembling Democrats," James Kavanagh observes, "are
throwing away just about the most popular policy anyone could imagine
something people are literally dying for" – this because of their transparent
captivity to the big insurance and drug companies and their financial backers.
But here's the thing. The "Lying Losers" can't hide their cringing servility
to their corporate masters quite so easily when they hold nominal power. They
can try to blame the Republicans for their abject refusal to defy corporate
donors and enact a critical policy backed by the popular majority, but that
looks ridiculous when they hold the big legislative cards on "the Left Coast."
They are exposed as servants of capital in sharper and bolder relief than if
they were minority party.
I am reminded of a passage in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. Under the
rule of "the bourgeoisie" (capitalism), Marx wrote, "all that is solid melts
into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face
with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his
kind." The profaning of the Democratic Party by "the bourgeoisie" – the
drowning of all its heavenly progressive pretense in the "city waters of
egotistical [capitalist] calculation" – is made most clear when the DDDs hold
the reins of nominal power.
Left radicals like me want workers and citizens to grasp that the real
taproot problem is not which of the two major party wings holds majority
political office but the rule of capital and Empire behind the plutocratic
charade that passes for "our great democracy." Having Democrats in office can
assist because it helps bring that lesson home.
The Fake Resistance
The Inauthentic Opposition Party – as the late Sheldon Wolin rightly
described the Democrats – is more adept at deadly and co-optive
leftish-progressive affectation it is out of power and its leaders feel the
need to deceptively pose as a party and movement of the people against the
establishment. That's when the Democrats' populist and progressive masquerade
is most dangerous and crippling. It's much easier to pose as an Opposition
Party when you are out majority power in government.
Look at the current political situation in the U.S. The Twitter-addicted
malignant narcissist and quasi-fascistic Donald Trump (talk about insane and
evil) and the ever more radically right-wing Republican Party are straight out
of central casting when it comes to making the neoliberal and imperial
Democrats look decent, democratic, and progressive. It helps the leftish pose
that the Republicans and their vast right-wing noise machine love to absurdly
call the Democrats and just about everything else to the portside of Charles
Grassley (e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post) "The Left."
The Democrats have been seizing the moment to close off the potential for
serious, actually Left opposition. With MSNBC's arch-Russophobe Rachel Madoff
in the propaganda vanguard, Democratic elites have responded to the Trump
ascendancy by concocting a fake "Resistance" movement. It's a curious
formation, devoid of any real progressive meaning beyond "bipartisan"
opposition to Donald Trump. "The Resistance" grants loyalty to Hillary Clinton,
a One Percent champion and a leader in the War Party's calls for deadly
confrontation with Russia and for regime change around the world. By Danny
Haiphong's incisive account on Black Agenda Report:
"'the resistance' is entangled in the non-profit industrial complex and
its attending Democratic Party paymasters. 'The Resistance' has significant
support from the non-profit industrial complex and the Wall Street-stuffed
coffers of the Democratic Party. Such support is evident in the
organizations MoveOn.org, the Town Hall Project, and Indivisible. The
Democratic think-tank Center for American Progress (CAP) assists each of
these so-called anti-Trump focused organizations. On CAP's Board of
Directors sits Democratic Party elites Madeline Albright and John Podesta
Podesta was Hillary Clinton's campaign chair during her losing Presidential
campaign in 2016. Leaked Podesta emails revealed that the Clinton
campaign rigged the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders. They also
outlined how Clinton used her extensive connections with Wall Street firms
to expand the influence of the Clinton Foundation "
Indivisible: "A Devastating Impact"
With more than 6000 chapters by early February, the classic Astroturf
organization "Indivisible," set up by two Democratic Congressional staffers,
has worked to channel popular anger into manageable mainstream channels that
offer no challenge to the nation's unelected and interrelated dictatorships of
money, class, empire, race, gender, and ecocide. Indivisible talks about the
need to get past "ideology" and unite Americans across partisan lines to "get
big things done" through government – standard "pragmatic" neoliberal language.
An activist and attorney from California's Monterey County recently wrote me on
how Indivisible is a "mechanism for co-opting the anti-Trump resistance and
channeling opposition to Trump into support for the Democratic Party." By the
activist's account, Indivisible "has had a devastating impact on local
organizing. A broad-based and diverse coalition was developing here in the
first few months after the election; it collapsed as soon as Indivisible
appeared." Further:
"Here in Monterey County, we were on our way to building a broad-based,
inclusive and diverse progressive coalition. Then Indivisible came along
and killed it. By the end of January, there were over a dozen Indivisible
groups operating in this congressional district The largest one has a
Facebook page with over 1000 members (huge by local standards). I was a
member for a while, but I just couldn't stand it. [Democratic Congressman
Jimmy] Panetta's very first vote as our new congressman was to condemn the
UN for its stand against Israel's illegal settlements. This put Panetta in
opposition to the state policy of the Obama administration and in support of
Trump's position. When I asked on the Indivisible Facebook page if we
intended to hold him accountable for this vote, several people tore me a new
one. Indivisible is now promoting a June March for Truth,' calling for an
independent commission to investigate Russiagate .the Indivisibles have
pretty much acted like they are the only game in town and have managed to
suck most of the oxygen out of the room. One of their big activities seems
to be writing postcards to Panetta, Harris and Feinstein telling them what a
great job they're doing.,"
"I had been involved in the local March for Science. A couple of weeks
before the March, the planning committee was taken over by the
Indivisibles. By this point, I'd had enough. I decided I just couldn't
work with them and I dropped out. They ended up attracting about 1000
people (at least 900 of whom were white). An activist from Women's
International League for Peace and Freedom wanted to give a short speech
about the link between militarism and environmental destruction, but the
organizers wouldn't let her It looks to me like Indivisible is a well-funded
AstroTurf group. It walks and talks exactly like it would if it had been
deliberately designed by some joint DNC-COINTELPRO committee to channel
popular outrage into support for the Democratic Party and for a war with
Russia. Locally, no other group has the resources to compete with
them. I've learned a valuable lesson, but a bit too late, I fear. I
naively thought that leftists could work in a united front with Democrats.
I thought that Democrats could be part of a broader coalition. But, I
underestimated the Democrats ability to co-opt the movement."
I've received similar reports from other correspondents. One of my favorite
ones comes from South Florida, where an Indivisible chapter invited as a
speaker its notorious right-wing corporate-Democratic Congressperson Debbie
Wasserman Schultz – an arch-neoliberal Democrat who led the rigging of the
primaries against Sanders as Democratic National Committee chair and who has
openly pledged allegiance to big money campaign donors over single-payer health
insurance. As Florida progressive Taylor Raines
reported
last May 2nd, "not only did this group invite one of the most
divisive women in liberal politics to speak at their meeting, but they openly
prepared to silence dissent by banning signs, and promptly removed
protestors who spoke up against her." Any angry Floridian who had the accurate
audacity to note that Wasserman-Schultz wing of the Democratic Party
essentially elected Trump (Sanders would likely have defeated the orange-tinted
beast) was evicted from the gathering – in the name of "one nation, under God,
Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Such testimony jibes with my experience in and around the bright-blue campus
town of Iowa City, where an initial upsurge of popular protest at Trump's
election and inauguration collapsed in the spring as Russiagate took hold on
CNN and MSNBC and in the New York Times and Washington Post. The local
academic-professional class headed off on to their annual summer European
vacations secure in the belief that those great progressive heroes the FBI and
CIA and their corporate media allies would join with such left people's
champions as Charles Schumer and Nancy ("we're capitalist and that's just the
way it is") Pelosi would soon remove the Trump regime.
That's the Inauthentic Opposition Party (IOP) doing its job, a central part
of which is functioning as a the "graveyard of social movements" – a role it
plays even better when it is out of office than when it's in.
"You're Toast in 2020"
One thing that is particularly jarring about "Indivisible" is its claim to
be non-partisan and beyond electoral politics when it clearly represents the
reigning right and neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party and is gearing
"progressive" energies for the Congressional and presidential election cycles.
I would not be surprised to learn that Indivisible or some other one of the
Astroturf Democratic Party entities posting as grassroots movement recently put
an angry citizen in a Town Hall meeting to finish his denunciation of
Republicans' attempt to repeal Obamacare with the following threat to a GOP
Senator: "pack your bags, you're toast in 2020" – when voters, the outraged
citizen hopes, will put in a dismal dollar Democrat. In 2020? God how the
election cycle rules consciousness – with its absurdly holy elevation of two
minutes spent marking ballots for a narrowly pre-selected group of ruling class
candidates. People need to connect with Chomsky and Zinn's call for movements
that "shake the society to its foundations" (Chomsky) and compel
"whoever
is in the White House, in Congress" to "chang[e] national policy on matters of
war and social justice."
At least that bitter armed lunatic James T. Hodgkinson – an epitome of the
feckless and self-destructive rebellion that often occurs without attachment to
a real popular movement – tried to make some vicious right-wing Congressmen
(and one Tyson Foods lobbyist) into toast in the present moment, not three
years from now. He had the wrong method but at least he fell off the election
cycle trap.
Tres Cerdos Grandes
The major party confusion and related electoral obsession carries across
national boundaries. Nobody made bigger fools out of themselves over the
fake-progressive and fake-peacemaker promise of Barack Obama in 2008 than the
Western Europeans. It was awesome to see Roger Waters brilliantly and epically
skewer the nativist piggy-nesh of Trump before no less than 300,000 people in
Mexico City's Zocalo
Square last October
, one month before the 2016 elections. The masses roared
their approval as a giant Trump pig-blimp floated above the crowd and a
colossal video-screen flashed images of Trump in drag and put up Spanish
translations of some of the "Charade's" more absurd statements. But we might
recall that it was the Democratic presidency of the neoliberal globalist uber-
cerdo
por excelencia
Bill Clinton who mercilessly assaulted Mexican campesinos
with the North American so called Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Bill Clinton
then joined with the Republicans to begin construction of a great Wall on the
southern U.S. border to stem the flow north of desperate economic refugees. And
it was "free trade" Hillary Clinton who as Secretary of State sponsored the
right-wing business coup that overthrew a democratically elected populist
government in Honduras, which deepened misery in that nation to the point where
tens of thousands of "unaccompanied minors" piled up on Mexico's southern
border three summers ago – a crisis that continues to his day.
"We're Dying Out Here Enough with Russia!"
Even with Trump in the White House, the IOP's fake-progressive charade is
now facing popular push-back. The Democrats and their many corporate media
allies and faux peoples' "movement" (led by Indivisible) have advanced an
all-too easy and convenient explanation for their epic electoral decline: it
isn't about the dismal, dollar-drenched neoliberal inauthenticity of their
purported progressivism, it's because of Russia and its dastardly chief Putin.
The bear ate their homework. So what if there's been no real evidence of
relevant Russian interference in "our" purported "great democracy"? It was just
too irresistible to the DDDs: Russiagate was designed by Democratic Party
elites (including John Podesta) from the night of Hillary Clinton's epic
electoral fail to take the heat off the IOP's corporate and professional class
nothingness and place all the blame for their outward "failure" (the "lying
losers" continue to be very well paid for their sell-out – ask Obama) on a
demonized foreign Other. It was crafted, among other things, to shut-down the
progressive challenge within their own party
But now they've gone too far in playing the Russia card, perhaps.
The mad neo-McCarthyite Moscow obsession has moved them too far off issues
that any self-respecting Left or even self-respecting liberal Opposition would
be fighting on: racism, racist voter suppression (which may have elected Trump,
by the way), the police and prison state. immigrant rights, economic
exploitation and inequality, sexism, environmental ruination – stuff like that.
According to the Washington political journal The Hill, "Frustrated Democrats
hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party
leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia, rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much
more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the
cost of education and healthcare." Imagine that. As the left writer Craig
Gordon notes, the Democrats ae pissing in the wind of Russiagate while millions
of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans are screaming like Al Pacino in
Dog Day Afternoon "Hey, I'm Dying Over Here enough with Putin and Russia, we
can't afford health care our jobs are in the tank."
Russiagate, it appears, may have been something of a xenophobic conspiracy
trap for the Democrats themselves. Not that they care. The money keeps rolling
in. Ask Obama, who is regularly rubbing progressives' face in the dirt and
giving FOX News and Brietbart new talking points with his relentless big
cash-in, telling us all that "nothing says Show Me the Money like POTUS on your
resume."
"Ordinary Citizens Have No Influence"
Just what "great American democracy" was it that the IOP's
bet noire
Vladimir Putin supposedly intervened against, anyway? This is an ever more
openly oligarchic nation where: the top tenth of the upper 1 Percent owns as
much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; 15 million children – 21% of all U.S.
children – live at less than the federal government's notoriously inadequate
poverty level (more than 1 in 10 U.S. children ages 0-9 is living at
less
than half that level
); half the population is poor or near-poor and
without assets; millions drink from poisoned water systems; an imperial
military devours more than half of all discretionary federal spending and
accounts for nearly half the world's military spending; more people are
incarcerated (in extremely racially disproportionate ways) than in any nation
in history (a curious achievement for the self-described homeland and
headquarters of "liberty"); a deeply entrenched corporate and financial sector
is leading the world over the environmental cliff through the championing of
endless growth and attendant "anthropogenic" (really capitalogenic) climate
destruction. A recent Harvard University survey finds that 51 percent than half
of U.S. Millennials (18-to-29-year-olds) "do not support capitalism,"
intimately related to Harvard's finding that half of the cohort thinks "the
American Dream is dead" for them.
You don't have to be a Leftist radical like the present writer to know that
the United States' political order is a corporate and financial plutocracy.
Just ask the establishment liberal political scientists Martin Gilens
(Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern). Over the past three plus decades,
these leading academic researchers determined three years ago, U.S. political
system has functioned as "an oligarchy," where wealthy elites and their
corporations "rule." Examining data from more than 1,800 different policy
initiatives in the late 20th and early 21st centuries,
Gilens
and Page found
that wealthy and well-connected elites consistently steer
the direction of the country, regardless of and against the will of the U.S.
majority and irrespective of which major party holds the White House and/or
Congress. "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic
elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy,"
Gilens
and Page wrote
, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have
little or no independent influence." As Gilens explained to the liberal online
journal
Talking
Points Memo three years ago
, "ordinary citizens have virtually no influence
over what their government does in the United States."
The Kremlin didn't do that. U.S. capitalism did that.
The Main Left Deficit
Am I recommending that people vote for the IOP, he DDDs, in 2018 and 2020?
No, not really. I can't tell people to do something I've never been able to do
(well, except once, 2004, the first time I ever voted in a contested state).
And I realize that my clever and dialectical if somewhat half-hearted argument
for Dems in office doesn't really apply to foreign policy, intimately related
to domestic oppression here in the "homeland" (a lovely imperial term). Let's
get down to the "serious political action" Chomsky referred to 13 years ago –
to movement-building beneath and beyond the quadrennial electoral spectacles.
It's all rather moot in the absence of a real and serious grassroots Left in
this country. The building of such a Left, it seems to me, is a project and
task far closer to our real "sphere of influence" than the alternating problem
of which of the two major-party wings hold most of the nation's elected
offices.
In the year marking the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it is
worth remembering that Lenin's famous 1902 pamphlet What is to be Done? said
nothing either on reforms under capitalism (or under Russian Tsarist rule) or
on what an alternative, post-capitalist society might look like. It was focused
entirely on the question of revolutionary organization: how to build such
institutions and what they should look like.
The top thing missing in "The [U.S.] Left" (where is it, really?) isn't a
positive policy agenda or a vision of an alternative society. The main deficit
is institutional and organizational.
This gap must be addressed in what is still the world's most powerful and
destructive capitalist state, in a time when five absurdly rich people now
possess as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity and the
U.S.-headquartered global profits system is speeding humanity to a lethal,
Antarctic-dissolving 500 carbon parts per million by 2050 if not sooner. It's
"socialism or barbarism if we're lucky" at this stage of capitalist ecocide.
"The uncomfortable truth," Istvan Meszaros rightly argued 15 years ago, "is
that if there is no future for a radical mass movement in our time, there can
be no future for humanity itself."
Join
the debate on Facebook
More articles by:
Paul
Street
Political hacks picked up be Clinton stooges in intelligence agencies and guided by Clapper produced what was required on them...
Notable quotes:
"... Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia. ..."
"... It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed ..."
"... As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks. ..."
"... Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling. ..."
Yesterday
The Duran reported that the New York Times was finally forced to admit that the "17 US intelligence agencies" narrative is completely
made up fake news.
The "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative was the core foundation for which the entire Trump-Russia collusion/cooperation/connection
was built upon.
Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst
comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's
presidency, at the risk of war with Russia.
It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed
As a reminder as to
how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied
upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike,
who had to walk back their audit
conclusions on the hacks.
Below is a complete list of the 16 intelligence agencies in the US Intelligence Community, headed by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who
under the Obama White House was James R. Clapper making 17 total agencies.
Why the list?
Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident"
of Russian election meddling.
"... Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials. ..."
"... The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated. ..."
"... The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics. ..."
"... Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home. ..."
"... In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university fees and the cuts in national health services. ..."
"... In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in class struggle. ..."
"... The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties ..."
"... The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats. ..."
"... Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating 'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists engaged in class-based struggles. ..."
"... Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of course, it's a 'democracy.' ..."
The most striking feature of recent elections is not ' who won or who lost' , nor is it
the personalities, parties and programs. The dominant characteristic of the elections is the widespread
repudiation of the electoral system, political campaigns, parties and candidates.
Across the world, majorities and pluralities of citizens of voting age refuse to even register
to vote (unless obligated by law), refuse to turn out to vote (voter abstention), or vote against
all the candidates (boycott by empty ballot and ballot spoilage).
If we add the many citizen activists who are too young to vote, citizens denied voting rights
because of past criminal (often minor) convictions, impoverished citizens and minorities denied voting
rights through manipulation and gerrymandering, we find that the actual 'voting public' shrivel to
a small minority.
As a result, present day elections have been reduced to a theatrical competition among the elite
for the votes of a minority. This situation describes an oligarchy – not a healthy democracy.
Oligarchic Competition
Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and
doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny
corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for
carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity
for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials.
Oligarchic politicians depend on the systematic plundering Treasury to facilitate and protect
billion dollar/billion euro stock market swindles and the illegal accumulation of trillions of dollars
and Euros via tax evasion (capital flight) and money laundering.
The results of elections and the faces of the candidates may change but the fundamental economic
and military apparatus remains the same to serve an ever tightening oligarchic rule.
The elite regimes change, but the permanence of state apparatus designed to serve the elite becomes
ever more obvious to the citizens.
Why the Oligarchy Celebrates " Democracy "
The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with
its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality
of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated.
Academics, journalists and experts argue that a system in which elite competition defines citizen
choice has become the only way to protect 'democracy' from the irrational 'populist' rhetoric appealing
to a mass of citizens vulnerable to authoritarianism (the so-called ' deplorables' ). The
low voter turn-out in recent elections reduces the threat posed by such undesirable voters.
A serious objective analysis of present-day electoral politics demonstrates that when the masses
do vote for their class interests – the results deepen and extend social democracy. When most voters,
non-voters and excluded citizens choose to abstain or boycott elections they have sound reasons for
repudiating plutocratic-controlled oligarchic choices.
We will proceed to examine the recent June 2017 voter turnout in the elections in France, the
United Kingdom and Puerto Rico. We will then look at the intrinsic irrationality of citizens voting
for elite politicos as opposed to the solid good sense of the popular classes rejection of elite
elections and their turn to extra-parliamentary action.
Puerto Rico's Referendum
The major TV networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) and the prestigious print media ( New York Times,
Washington Post, Financial Times and Washington Post ) hailed the ' overwhelming victory'
of the recent pro-annexationist vote in Puerto Rico. They cited the 98% vote in favor of becoming
a US state!
The media ignored the fact that a mere 28% of Puerto Ricans participated in the elections to vote
for a total US takeover. Over 77% of the eligible voters abstained or boycotted the referendum.
In other words, over three quarters of the Puerto Rican people rejected the sham ' political
elite election '. Instead, the majority voted with their feet in the streets through direct action.
France's Micro-Bonaparte
In the same way, the mass media celebrated what they dubbed a ' tidal wave ' of electoral
support for French President Emmanuel Macron and his new party, 'the Republic in March'. Despite
the enormous media propaganda push for Macron, a clear majority of the electorate (58%) abstained
or spoiled their ballots, therefore rejecting all parties and candidates, and the entire French electoral
system. This hardly constitutes a 'tidal wave' of citizen support in a democracy.
During the first round of the parliamentary election, President Macron's candidates received 27%
of the vote, barely exceeding the combined vote of the left socialist and nationalist populist parties,
which had secured 25% of the vote. In the second round, Macron's party received less then 20% of
the eligible vote.
In other words, the anti-Macron rejectionists represented over three quarters of the French electorate.
After these elections a significant proportion of the French people – especially among the working
class –will likely choose extra-parliamentary direct action, as the most democratic expression of
representative politics.
The United Kingdom: Class Struggle and the Election Results
The June 2017 parliamentary elections in the UK resulted in a minority Conservative regime forced
to form an alliance with the fringe Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a far-right para-military Protestant
party from Northern Ireland. The Conservatives received 48% of registered voters to 40% who voted
for the Labor Party. However, 15 million citizens, or one-third of the total electorate abstained
or spoiled their ballots. The Conservative regime's plurality represented 32% of the electorate.
Despite a virulent anti-Labor campaign in the oligarch-controlled mass media, the combined Labor
vote and abstaining citizens clearly formed a majority of the population, which will be excluded
from any role the post-election oligarchic regime despite the increase in the turnout (in comparison
to previous elections).
Elections: Oligarchs in Office, Workers in the Street
The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect
the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics.
The UK elections provided the electorate with something resembling a class alternative in the
candidacy of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labor Party under Corbyn presented a progressive social democratic
program promising substantial and necessary increases in social welfare spending (health, education
and housing) to be funded by higher progressive taxes on the upper and upper middle class.
Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw
troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing
and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home.
In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase
voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who
were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university
fees and the cuts in national health services.
In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since
the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to
ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in
class struggle.
The lowest voter turn-out (28%) occurred in Puerto Rico. This reflects growing mass opposition
to the corrupt political elite, the economic depression and the colonial and semi-colonial offerings
of the two-major parties. The absence of political movements and parties tied to class struggle led
to greater reliance on direct action and voter abstention.
Clearly class politics is the major factor determining voter turnout. The absence of class struggle
increases the power of the elite mass media, which promotes the highly divisive identity politics
and demonizes left parties. All of these increase both abstention and the vote for rightwing politicians,
like Macron.
The mass media grossly inflated the significance of the right's election victories of the while
ignoring the huge wave of citizens rejecting the entire electoral process. In the case of the UK,
the appearance of class politics through Jeremy Corbyn increased voter turnout for the Labor Party.
However, Labor has a history of first making left promises and ending up with right turns. Any future
Labor betrayal will increase voter abstention.
The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed
contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively
excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented
by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties.
The decision of many citizens not to vote is based on taking a very rational and informed view
of the ruling political elites who have slashed their living standards often by forcing workers to
compete with immigrants for low paying, unstable jobs. It is deeply rational for citizens to refuse
to vote within a rigged system, which only worsens their living conditions through its attacks on
the public sector, social welfare and labor codes while cutting taxes on capital.
Conclusion
The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites.
They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.
Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating
'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists
engaged in class-based struggles.
Nevertheless, elite elections will not produce an effective consolidation of rightwing rule. Voter
abstention will not lead to abstention from direct action when the citizens recognize their class
interests are in grave jeopardy.
The Macron regime's parliamentary majority will turn into an impotent minority as soon as he tries
carry out his elite promise to slash the jobs of hundreds of thousands of French public sector workers,
smash France's progressive labor codes and the industry-wide collective bargaining system and pursue
new colonial wars.
Puerto Rico's profound economic depression and social crisis will not be resolved through a referendum
with only 28% of the voter participation. Large-scale demonstrations will preclude US annexation
and deepen mass demands for class-based alternatives to colonial rule.
Conservative rule in the UK is divided by inter-elite rivalries both at home and abroad. '
Brexit' , the first step in the break-up of the EU, opens opportunities for deeper class struggle.
The social-economic promises made by Jeremy Corbyn and his left-wing of the Labor Party energized
working class voters, but if it does not fundamentally challenge capital, it will revert to being
a marginal force.
The weakness and rivalries within the British ruling class will not be resolved in Parliament
or by any new elections.
The demise of the UK, the provocation of a Conservative-DUP alliance and the end of the EU (BREXIT)
raises the chance for successful mass extra-parliamentary struggles against the authoritarian neo-liberal
attacks on workers' civil rights and class interests.
Elite elections and their outcomes in Europe and elsewhere are laying the groundwork for a revival
and radicalization of the class struggle.
In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their
mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle is
clearly on the horizon.
A much needed analysis by Mr. Petras. Here in Brazil it is becoming increasingly apparent that
extra-electoral manifestations are the only path left for the destitute classes. The only name
to which the Left seems able to garner votes is the eternal Luiz da Silva, who has pandered to
Capital all through his political career, and will possibly become inelectable anyway, by upcoming
criminal convictions.
"In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their
mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle
is clearly on the horizon."
Globalism is the new Feudalism. In the U.S. the serfs still think they are "middle class".
Only the working class can help the working class. This truism is being re-learned.
We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not function: USA, GB
and France.
The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government
reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and
nationalism is in full swing.
The vast majority citizens (sic) in the wage and salaried class do not trust the
political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.
And they'd be correct.
What amazes me is how many "professional" people still smugly retain faith in an obviously
rigged and parasitic system even as their independence is relentlessly eroded. Also, most of them,
even the non-TV watchers, seem to slurp the usual propaganda about who the enemies supposedly
are.
Self reflection obviously ain't their shtick. Maybe there's comfort in denial and mythology.
The DUP would be very quick to insist that they are not para-militaries. As would their Tweedledee,
Sinn Féin (invariably referred to as 'Sinn-Féin-I-R-A' by the Unionist factions; not even banter).
It is undeniable that in the past they have had links to UVF/UDA, both straight-up rightwing
paramilitary thug outfits formed to mirror and combat the Provisionals and latterly the Continuity
IRA and self-styled "Real IRA" nationalist/socialist thugs. And presumably do so to this day.
"Everybody knows" that each political group is pretty much furtively hand-in-glove with their
respective heavy mobs, and who's in which one. It's a wee tiny place, the Six Counties.
Corbyn has definitely struck a rich vein of popularity (if not populism) among the "don't vote
it just encourages them" tendency, and a healthy majority of wealthy and not so wealthy young
Brits. Listen to the Glasto crowd. He gets this everywhere now in public (and maybe at home, IDK).
Remarkable transformation for somebody who only few years ago was a dull grey teadrinker from
Camden Council, with a half-century-old cardigan and a Catweazle beard.
Even The Demon Blair could never raise this sort of adulation.
I want to like the article, but Petras gives three examples, all of which are bad examples
for different reasons.
In the case of Puerto Rico, opposition parties campaigned, not for people to vote and to vote
against the government position, but to abstain altogether. This is a long standing political
tactic of opposition parties and other examples can be found. Its not used that often because
its usually a better tactic to just try to get people to get out and vote against the government.
However, it can work if there is a minimum turnout requirement for the election to be valid, which
is often the case in referenda and seems to be here. But this is evident of people rejecting the
government position, not the entire system. Voters obviously responded to the pro-Commonwealth
status campaign. By the way, usually referenda on things like independence, or in this case statehood,
get unusually high turnout, it was the opposite this time because of the opposition tactic.
On the other hand, in the 2017 French elections there really was a high amount of non-organized
or dis-organized abstention on the part of pissed off voters. The problem with Petras account
is that this was in fact widely covered in French media and by French political analysts, with
commentary along the lines of "these people must be really pissed off not to vote!".
In the recent UK elections turnout was both quite high and increased, so I have no idea wtf
Petras is talking about here.
If the examples used weren't so ridiculously bad the article could be OK I guess.
High abstention rates occur when big chunks of the electorate suspect that the elections are
rigged, usually by means of vote counting fraud, but effective or legal restrictions on who can
run or who can vote can do the job. The rigging might even take the form of discarding ballots,
which is the most common form in the US, which means turnout would be recorded as low even if
people tried to vote!
Keep in mind that with universal suffrage, it seems consistently that about a quarter of the
electorate has no interest in participating in electoral politics whatever the situation. If forced
to vote by law, they will spoil their ballots, vote for parties that campaign to end the democratic
system, or not vote anyway and suffer whatever legal penalties are imposed. Reasonably healthy
democracies can get to turnouts of around 70% fairly consistently. Anything less should be taken
as evidence of widespread electoral fraud.
Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The
elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of
course, it's a 'democracy.'
Bottom line: political systems are to a great extent irrelevant. Putting your faith in any
system: monarchy, socialism, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, checks and balances,
etc., is a mistake. There is (almost) no system that cannot be made to muddle through if the elites
have some consideration for the society as a whole. And there is absolutely no system that cannot
be easily corrupted if the elites care only about themselves.
In nearly the whole of S America elections just reflect the struggle between two or more
groups of rich people for power.
The same could be said for the revolution of 1776, and it continues in the US today.
I said, "No, there is a great difference. Taft is amiable imbecility. Wilson is willful
and malicious imbecility and I prefer Taft."
Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both
controlled by the same influences, and I am going to organize a new party " a new political
party " in this country based upon progressive principles.
"Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both
controlled by the same influences "
- R. F. Pettigrew, "Imperial Washington," The story of American Public life from 1870 to
1920 (1922), p 234
I recommend not voting because it is not ethical to send a non-corrupt person to Washington.
The United States is too powerful.
Good recommendation and for a good reason.
I'd say that it's unethical to send anyone to Washington since there is too much wealth and
power concentrated in the hands of too few, ethical or not.
In fact, the record shows that few men are worthy to wield much power at all and a system such
as we have is almost guaranteed to produce hideous, irresponsible monsters if not downright sadistic
ones (like Hillary, for instance).
Instead of talking about draining the swamp, we should have flushed the toilet long go. Now
we have to live with the stench.
The primary reason why lots of working class people don't vote is because they dislike the
liberal policy combinations offered by the elite-controlled political parties. Most working class
people are socially conservative and economically moderate, while most wealthy, educated people
are socially and economically liberal, so mainstream political parties only offer liberal policy
packages.
Modern representative democracy was designed in the late 19th Century to allow for some democratic
representation for the middle class while protecting the bourgeois elites from the rule of the
mob. That may have been a reasonable concern at the time, but it now means tyranny of the liberal
elites.
The solution is to reduce the power of political parties, either by making political parties
more accountable to their grass roots supporters or getting rid of political parties and directly
electing government ministers.
@eD A well informed comment without the kind of Marxist or other blinkers on that Petras wears.
But I question the last sentence. Electoral fraud could work to add votes as well as destroy or
lose them and vigilance is needed anyway. Are there highly numerate and worldly wise psephologists
with adequate research funding who are acting plausibly to keep a check on the way the bureaucratic
guardians of our electoral processes do their job? (All sorts of factors could make a big difference
in the proportion who vote. Is it part of the culture one was broùght up in to believe that one
had a duty to do one's modest best to participate? Are there a lot of elections at sometimes inconvenient
times within a short space of time? Is there a genuine problem deciding between the only candidates
who might win on either grand moral or national policy grounds or even simple self interest? Is
it assumed only one candidate can possibly win the seat? That last is one of the few arguments
for proportional representatiion because a dutiful voter who has a preference for one party will
make his infinitesimal contribution by voting).
Even Australia with its 80 to 90+ per cent turnouts to vote in sometimes complicated elections
with mixed Alternative Vote/Preferential and proportional representation for the different houses
of parliament (and not much "informal" voting as protest) exhibits the growing weaknesses of democracies.
That is, as I propose to write in another comment, the corruption of respect for the oligarchs
(whether traditional upper and upper middle classes or labour bosses), the replacement of the
class that went into politics as a duty by professiinal calculating careerists – plus opportunistic
extremists – and the growth of a sense of entitlement which ptobably adds up by now to 150 per
cent of all that is or can be. Thanks to China's huge appetite for Australian resources and products
Australian democracy can stagger on with scope even for absurd fantasies e.g. about Australia's
proper level of masochism in rejecting coal for energy when it can make absolutely no difference
to Australia – except to make it poorer.
@unpc downunder Your version of history differs from mine. 1832 and even 1867 in the UK still
built in some protection from the unpropertied lower orders (and 100 per cent from women – publicly
anyway) but Australian colonial suffrage was typically the alarming manhood suffrage with only
property qualification for some upper house elections as a break on the masses' savage expropriatory
instincts – not too much to be feared amongst ambitious colonial strivers in fact. The general
assumption that everyone with an IQ of 100 and a degree in Fashionable Jargon-ridden Muddled Thinking
is as worth listening to as anyone from the tradional educated bougeois or landed elite has inevitably
put politics into the hands of the ruthless, often arriviste careerists.
Please think again about your last par. which I suggest is a prescription for (even worse)
disaster. The idea of getting rid of political parties (how?) is as unrealistic as having the
bored populace vote directly for membership of the executive government who, in parliamentary
systems at least, have to command legislative majorities to be effective. And why do you think
responsiveness to those few who join political parties is likely to benefit the wider public when
you consider what has been wrought in the UK Labour Party by election of the leader by a flood
of new young members wlling to pay £3 to join!! I believe the Tories have also moved in that idiotic
direction. Imagine even the comparatively simple business of making motor cars being headed by
a CEO who had campaigned for votes amingst all workers who had been employed for more than 4 weeks
with promises of squeezing shareholders and doubling wages.
@jilles dykstra Your observation seems to depend for its truth on people (and you?) seeing
politics and national life as a zero sum game with no chance of increase in wealth or other good
things of life. That seems to be a logical attitude only in countries which sre still Malthusian
like say Niger with its TFF of 7! Is that a tealistic assessment of 2017 South America, or most
of it?
@jilles dykstra We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not
function: USA, GB and France.
The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government
reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and
nationalism is in full swing. I had in mind your comment when writing part of my last par in #17
which I won't repeat.
But allow me to expŕess astonishment at the idea that a truly sovereign nation benefits from
an electoral system which so represents irreconcilable differences in society that a government
cannot be formed. The Netherlands comfortable position as a minor feature of the EU makes it perhaps
less of a problem than, at least potentially, it is for Israel. Whenever Israel handles anything
really stupidly it is a good bet that it is during wrangling over putting together a majority
government.
Another problem with PR well illustrated by Israel that you don't mention is that citizens
have no local member who has to show that he cares about his constituents' concerns and actually
gets to know about them. That, for the average citizen has to be a really important matter. In
Australia we have just seen a pretty dodgy Chinese government aligned businessman/ donor to the
New South Wales Labor Party rewarded with nomination to a winnable place in the PR election of
the Senate. There is no way he would be put forward to win votes in a local electorate of thousands
of voters rather than millions.
"... Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials. ..."
"... The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated. ..."
"... The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics. ..."
"... Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home. ..."
"... In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university fees and the cuts in national health services. ..."
"... In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in class struggle. ..."
"... The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties ..."
"... The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats. ..."
"... Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating 'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists engaged in class-based struggles. ..."
"... Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of course, it's a 'democracy.' ..."
The most striking feature of recent elections is not ' who won or who lost' , nor is it
the personalities, parties and programs. The dominant characteristic of the elections is the widespread
repudiation of the electoral system, political campaigns, parties and candidates.
Across the world, majorities and pluralities of citizens of voting age refuse to even register
to vote (unless obligated by law), refuse to turn out to vote (voter abstention), or vote against
all the candidates (boycott by empty ballot and ballot spoilage).
If we add the many citizen activists who are too young to vote, citizens denied voting rights
because of past criminal (often minor) convictions, impoverished citizens and minorities denied voting
rights through manipulation and gerrymandering, we find that the actual 'voting public' shrivel to
a small minority.
As a result, present day elections have been reduced to a theatrical competition among the elite
for the votes of a minority. This situation describes an oligarchy – not a healthy democracy.
Oligarchic Competition
Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and
doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny
corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for
carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity
for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials.
Oligarchic politicians depend on the systematic plundering Treasury to facilitate and protect
billion dollar/billion euro stock market swindles and the illegal accumulation of trillions of dollars
and Euros via tax evasion (capital flight) and money laundering.
The results of elections and the faces of the candidates may change but the fundamental economic
and military apparatus remains the same to serve an ever tightening oligarchic rule.
The elite regimes change, but the permanence of state apparatus designed to serve the elite becomes
ever more obvious to the citizens.
Why the Oligarchy Celebrates " Democracy "
The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with
its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality
of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated.
Academics, journalists and experts argue that a system in which elite competition defines citizen
choice has become the only way to protect 'democracy' from the irrational 'populist' rhetoric appealing
to a mass of citizens vulnerable to authoritarianism (the so-called ' deplorables' ). The
low voter turn-out in recent elections reduces the threat posed by such undesirable voters.
A serious objective analysis of present-day electoral politics demonstrates that when the masses
do vote for their class interests – the results deepen and extend social democracy. When most voters,
non-voters and excluded citizens choose to abstain or boycott elections they have sound reasons for
repudiating plutocratic-controlled oligarchic choices.
We will proceed to examine the recent June 2017 voter turnout in the elections in France, the
United Kingdom and Puerto Rico. We will then look at the intrinsic irrationality of citizens voting
for elite politicos as opposed to the solid good sense of the popular classes rejection of elite
elections and their turn to extra-parliamentary action.
Puerto Rico's Referendum
The major TV networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) and the prestigious print media ( New York Times,
Washington Post, Financial Times and Washington Post ) hailed the ' overwhelming victory'
of the recent pro-annexationist vote in Puerto Rico. They cited the 98% vote in favor of becoming
a US state!
The media ignored the fact that a mere 28% of Puerto Ricans participated in the elections to vote
for a total US takeover. Over 77% of the eligible voters abstained or boycotted the referendum.
In other words, over three quarters of the Puerto Rican people rejected the sham ' political
elite election '. Instead, the majority voted with their feet in the streets through direct action.
France's Micro-Bonaparte
In the same way, the mass media celebrated what they dubbed a ' tidal wave ' of electoral
support for French President Emmanuel Macron and his new party, 'the Republic in March'. Despite
the enormous media propaganda push for Macron, a clear majority of the electorate (58%) abstained
or spoiled their ballots, therefore rejecting all parties and candidates, and the entire French electoral
system. This hardly constitutes a 'tidal wave' of citizen support in a democracy.
During the first round of the parliamentary election, President Macron's candidates received 27%
of the vote, barely exceeding the combined vote of the left socialist and nationalist populist parties,
which had secured 25% of the vote. In the second round, Macron's party received less then 20% of
the eligible vote.
In other words, the anti-Macron rejectionists represented over three quarters of the French electorate.
After these elections a significant proportion of the French people – especially among the working
class –will likely choose extra-parliamentary direct action, as the most democratic expression of
representative politics.
The United Kingdom: Class Struggle and the Election Results
The June 2017 parliamentary elections in the UK resulted in a minority Conservative regime forced
to form an alliance with the fringe Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a far-right para-military Protestant
party from Northern Ireland. The Conservatives received 48% of registered voters to 40% who voted
for the Labor Party. However, 15 million citizens, or one-third of the total electorate abstained
or spoiled their ballots. The Conservative regime's plurality represented 32% of the electorate.
Despite a virulent anti-Labor campaign in the oligarch-controlled mass media, the combined Labor
vote and abstaining citizens clearly formed a majority of the population, which will be excluded
from any role the post-election oligarchic regime despite the increase in the turnout (in comparison
to previous elections).
Elections: Oligarchs in Office, Workers in the Street
The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect
the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics.
The UK elections provided the electorate with something resembling a class alternative in the
candidacy of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labor Party under Corbyn presented a progressive social democratic
program promising substantial and necessary increases in social welfare spending (health, education
and housing) to be funded by higher progressive taxes on the upper and upper middle class.
Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw
troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing
and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home.
In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase
voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who
were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university
fees and the cuts in national health services.
In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since
the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to
ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in
class struggle.
The lowest voter turn-out (28%) occurred in Puerto Rico. This reflects growing mass opposition
to the corrupt political elite, the economic depression and the colonial and semi-colonial offerings
of the two-major parties. The absence of political movements and parties tied to class struggle led
to greater reliance on direct action and voter abstention.
Clearly class politics is the major factor determining voter turnout. The absence of class struggle
increases the power of the elite mass media, which promotes the highly divisive identity politics
and demonizes left parties. All of these increase both abstention and the vote for rightwing politicians,
like Macron.
The mass media grossly inflated the significance of the right's election victories of the while
ignoring the huge wave of citizens rejecting the entire electoral process. In the case of the UK,
the appearance of class politics through Jeremy Corbyn increased voter turnout for the Labor Party.
However, Labor has a history of first making left promises and ending up with right turns. Any future
Labor betrayal will increase voter abstention.
The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed
contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively
excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented
by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties.
The decision of many citizens not to vote is based on taking a very rational and informed view
of the ruling political elites who have slashed their living standards often by forcing workers to
compete with immigrants for low paying, unstable jobs. It is deeply rational for citizens to refuse
to vote within a rigged system, which only worsens their living conditions through its attacks on
the public sector, social welfare and labor codes while cutting taxes on capital.
Conclusion
The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites.
They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.
Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating
'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists
engaged in class-based struggles.
Nevertheless, elite elections will not produce an effective consolidation of rightwing rule. Voter
abstention will not lead to abstention from direct action when the citizens recognize their class
interests are in grave jeopardy.
The Macron regime's parliamentary majority will turn into an impotent minority as soon as he tries
carry out his elite promise to slash the jobs of hundreds of thousands of French public sector workers,
smash France's progressive labor codes and the industry-wide collective bargaining system and pursue
new colonial wars.
Puerto Rico's profound economic depression and social crisis will not be resolved through a referendum
with only 28% of the voter participation. Large-scale demonstrations will preclude US annexation
and deepen mass demands for class-based alternatives to colonial rule.
Conservative rule in the UK is divided by inter-elite rivalries both at home and abroad. '
Brexit' , the first step in the break-up of the EU, opens opportunities for deeper class struggle.
The social-economic promises made by Jeremy Corbyn and his left-wing of the Labor Party energized
working class voters, but if it does not fundamentally challenge capital, it will revert to being
a marginal force.
The weakness and rivalries within the British ruling class will not be resolved in Parliament
or by any new elections.
The demise of the UK, the provocation of a Conservative-DUP alliance and the end of the EU (BREXIT)
raises the chance for successful mass extra-parliamentary struggles against the authoritarian neo-liberal
attacks on workers' civil rights and class interests.
Elite elections and their outcomes in Europe and elsewhere are laying the groundwork for a revival
and radicalization of the class struggle.
In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their
mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle is
clearly on the horizon.
A much needed analysis by Mr. Petras. Here in Brazil it is becoming increasingly apparent that
extra-electoral manifestations are the only path left for the destitute classes. The only name
to which the Left seems able to garner votes is the eternal Luiz da Silva, who has pandered to
Capital all through his political career, and will possibly become inelectable anyway, by upcoming
criminal convictions.
"In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their
mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle
is clearly on the horizon."
Globalism is the new Feudalism. In the U.S. the serfs still think they are "middle class".
Only the working class can help the working class. This truism is being re-learned.
We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not function: USA, GB
and France.
The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government
reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and
nationalism is in full swing.
The vast majority citizens (sic) in the wage and salaried class do not trust the
political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.
And they'd be correct.
What amazes me is how many "professional" people still smugly retain faith in an obviously
rigged and parasitic system even as their independence is relentlessly eroded. Also, most of them,
even the non-TV watchers, seem to slurp the usual propaganda about who the enemies supposedly
are.
Self reflection obviously ain't their shtick. Maybe there's comfort in denial and mythology.
The DUP would be very quick to insist that they are not para-militaries. As would their Tweedledee,
Sinn Féin (invariably referred to as 'Sinn-Féin-I-R-A' by the Unionist factions; not even banter).
It is undeniable that in the past they have had links to UVF/UDA, both straight-up rightwing
paramilitary thug outfits formed to mirror and combat the Provisionals and latterly the Continuity
IRA and self-styled "Real IRA" nationalist/socialist thugs. And presumably do so to this day.
"Everybody knows" that each political group is pretty much furtively hand-in-glove with their
respective heavy mobs, and who's in which one. It's a wee tiny place, the Six Counties.
Corbyn has definitely struck a rich vein of popularity (if not populism) among the "don't vote
it just encourages them" tendency, and a healthy majority of wealthy and not so wealthy young
Brits. Listen to the Glasto crowd. He gets this everywhere now in public (and maybe at home, IDK).
Remarkable transformation for somebody who only few years ago was a dull grey teadrinker from
Camden Council, with a half-century-old cardigan and a Catweazle beard.
Even The Demon Blair could never raise this sort of adulation.
I want to like the article, but Petras gives three examples, all of which are bad examples
for different reasons.
In the case of Puerto Rico, opposition parties campaigned, not for people to vote and to vote
against the government position, but to abstain altogether. This is a long standing political
tactic of opposition parties and other examples can be found. Its not used that often because
its usually a better tactic to just try to get people to get out and vote against the government.
However, it can work if there is a minimum turnout requirement for the election to be valid, which
is often the case in referenda and seems to be here. But this is evident of people rejecting the
government position, not the entire system. Voters obviously responded to the pro-Commonwealth
status campaign. By the way, usually referenda on things like independence, or in this case statehood,
get unusually high turnout, it was the opposite this time because of the opposition tactic.
On the other hand, in the 2017 French elections there really was a high amount of non-organized
or dis-organized abstention on the part of pissed off voters. The problem with Petras account
is that this was in fact widely covered in French media and by French political analysts, with
commentary along the lines of "these people must be really pissed off not to vote!".
In the recent UK elections turnout was both quite high and increased, so I have no idea wtf
Petras is talking about here.
If the examples used weren't so ridiculously bad the article could be OK I guess.
High abstention rates occur when big chunks of the electorate suspect that the elections are
rigged, usually by means of vote counting fraud, but effective or legal restrictions on who can
run or who can vote can do the job. The rigging might even take the form of discarding ballots,
which is the most common form in the US, which means turnout would be recorded as low even if
people tried to vote!
Keep in mind that with universal suffrage, it seems consistently that about a quarter of the
electorate has no interest in participating in electoral politics whatever the situation. If forced
to vote by law, they will spoil their ballots, vote for parties that campaign to end the democratic
system, or not vote anyway and suffer whatever legal penalties are imposed. Reasonably healthy
democracies can get to turnouts of around 70% fairly consistently. Anything less should be taken
as evidence of widespread electoral fraud.
Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The
elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of
course, it's a 'democracy.'
Bottom line: political systems are to a great extent irrelevant. Putting your faith in any
system: monarchy, socialism, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, checks and balances,
etc., is a mistake. There is (almost) no system that cannot be made to muddle through if the elites
have some consideration for the society as a whole. And there is absolutely no system that cannot
be easily corrupted if the elites care only about themselves.
In nearly the whole of S America elections just reflect the struggle between two or more
groups of rich people for power.
The same could be said for the revolution of 1776, and it continues in the US today.
I said, "No, there is a great difference. Taft is amiable imbecility. Wilson is willful
and malicious imbecility and I prefer Taft."
Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both
controlled by the same influences, and I am going to organize a new party " a new political
party " in this country based upon progressive principles.
"Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both
controlled by the same influences "
- R. F. Pettigrew, "Imperial Washington," The story of American Public life from 1870 to
1920 (1922), p 234
I recommend not voting because it is not ethical to send a non-corrupt person to Washington.
The United States is too powerful.
Good recommendation and for a good reason.
I'd say that it's unethical to send anyone to Washington since there is too much wealth and
power concentrated in the hands of too few, ethical or not.
In fact, the record shows that few men are worthy to wield much power at all and a system such
as we have is almost guaranteed to produce hideous, irresponsible monsters if not downright sadistic
ones (like Hillary, for instance).
Instead of talking about draining the swamp, we should have flushed the toilet long go. Now
we have to live with the stench.
The primary reason why lots of working class people don't vote is because they dislike the
liberal policy combinations offered by the elite-controlled political parties. Most working class
people are socially conservative and economically moderate, while most wealthy, educated people
are socially and economically liberal, so mainstream political parties only offer liberal policy
packages.
Modern representative democracy was designed in the late 19th Century to allow for some democratic
representation for the middle class while protecting the bourgeois elites from the rule of the
mob. That may have been a reasonable concern at the time, but it now means tyranny of the liberal
elites.
The solution is to reduce the power of political parties, either by making political parties
more accountable to their grass roots supporters or getting rid of political parties and directly
electing government ministers.
@eD A well informed comment without the kind of Marxist or other blinkers on that Petras wears.
But I question the last sentence. Electoral fraud could work to add votes as well as destroy or
lose them and vigilance is needed anyway. Are there highly numerate and worldly wise psephologists
with adequate research funding who are acting plausibly to keep a check on the way the bureaucratic
guardians of our electoral processes do their job? (All sorts of factors could make a big difference
in the proportion who vote. Is it part of the culture one was broùght up in to believe that one
had a duty to do one's modest best to participate? Are there a lot of elections at sometimes inconvenient
times within a short space of time? Is there a genuine problem deciding between the only candidates
who might win on either grand moral or national policy grounds or even simple self interest? Is
it assumed only one candidate can possibly win the seat? That last is one of the few arguments
for proportional representatiion because a dutiful voter who has a preference for one party will
make his infinitesimal contribution by voting).
Even Australia with its 80 to 90+ per cent turnouts to vote in sometimes complicated elections
with mixed Alternative Vote/Preferential and proportional representation for the different houses
of parliament (and not much "informal" voting as protest) exhibits the growing weaknesses of democracies.
That is, as I propose to write in another comment, the corruption of respect for the oligarchs
(whether traditional upper and upper middle classes or labour bosses), the replacement of the
class that went into politics as a duty by professiinal calculating careerists – plus opportunistic
extremists – and the growth of a sense of entitlement which ptobably adds up by now to 150 per
cent of all that is or can be. Thanks to China's huge appetite for Australian resources and products
Australian democracy can stagger on with scope even for absurd fantasies e.g. about Australia's
proper level of masochism in rejecting coal for energy when it can make absolutely no difference
to Australia – except to make it poorer.
@unpc downunder Your version of history differs from mine. 1832 and even 1867 in the UK still
built in some protection from the unpropertied lower orders (and 100 per cent from women – publicly
anyway) but Australian colonial suffrage was typically the alarming manhood suffrage with only
property qualification for some upper house elections as a break on the masses' savage expropriatory
instincts – not too much to be feared amongst ambitious colonial strivers in fact. The general
assumption that everyone with an IQ of 100 and a degree in Fashionable Jargon-ridden Muddled Thinking
is as worth listening to as anyone from the tradional educated bougeois or landed elite has inevitably
put politics into the hands of the ruthless, often arriviste careerists.
Please think again about your last par. which I suggest is a prescription for (even worse)
disaster. The idea of getting rid of political parties (how?) is as unrealistic as having the
bored populace vote directly for membership of the executive government who, in parliamentary
systems at least, have to command legislative majorities to be effective. And why do you think
responsiveness to those few who join political parties is likely to benefit the wider public when
you consider what has been wrought in the UK Labour Party by election of the leader by a flood
of new young members wlling to pay £3 to join!! I believe the Tories have also moved in that idiotic
direction. Imagine even the comparatively simple business of making motor cars being headed by
a CEO who had campaigned for votes amingst all workers who had been employed for more than 4 weeks
with promises of squeezing shareholders and doubling wages.
@jilles dykstra Your observation seems to depend for its truth on people (and you?) seeing
politics and national life as a zero sum game with no chance of increase in wealth or other good
things of life. That seems to be a logical attitude only in countries which sre still Malthusian
like say Niger with its TFF of 7! Is that a tealistic assessment of 2017 South America, or most
of it?
@jilles dykstra We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not
function: USA, GB and France.
The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government
reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and
nationalism is in full swing. I had in mind your comment when writing part of my last par in #17
which I won't repeat.
But allow me to expŕess astonishment at the idea that a truly sovereign nation benefits from
an electoral system which so represents irreconcilable differences in society that a government
cannot be formed. The Netherlands comfortable position as a minor feature of the EU makes it perhaps
less of a problem than, at least potentially, it is for Israel. Whenever Israel handles anything
really stupidly it is a good bet that it is during wrangling over putting together a majority
government.
Another problem with PR well illustrated by Israel that you don't mention is that citizens
have no local member who has to show that he cares about his constituents' concerns and actually
gets to know about them. That, for the average citizen has to be a really important matter. In
Australia we have just seen a pretty dodgy Chinese government aligned businessman/ donor to the
New South Wales Labor Party rewarded with nomination to a winnable place in the PR election of
the Senate. There is no way he would be put forward to win votes in a local electorate of thousands
of voters rather than millions.
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's
easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another
reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"
The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well
they're not doing that anymore:
"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits.
Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch
Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed
with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers
and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."
"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context,
MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers,
but not like this."
Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly.
I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course
losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:
"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since
2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox
News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier
offshoot of the Discovery Network."
I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck,
thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown
Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages
of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding
on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism,
this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.
"... Yes, but why are liberals so outraged at Trump? Is it only because they don't like his manners..his vulgarity? I really don't get it. All these spineless, gutless wonders in world capitals going on about what an evil guy Trump is etc. ..."
"... I don't get where the hysteria is coming from because Trump is hardly uniquely evil...he's just more direct and vulgar Oh the horror! ..."
Temporarily Sane | Jun 29, 2017 8:02:38 PM |
58 Temporarily Sane | Jun 29, 2017 8:18:54 PM |
59
@57 Ben
The present "empty suit", is proof, IMO, that the POTU$ really doesn't matter. The ship of
state is controlled by a corporate cabal, that pursues the business interests of the empire,(
U$A/NATO) regardless of who the POTUS is. Enriching the business elites globally, is the agenda.
Join the club, or face destruction.
Yes, but why are liberals so outraged at Trump? Is it only because they don't like his
manners..his vulgarity? I really don't get it. All these spineless, gutless wonders in world capitals
going on about what an evil guy Trump is etc. but when he says "jump!" they say "how high?"
Even American "opponents" of Trump really only get upset at his rhetoric and his "Muslim ban"
(killing Muslims is fine though, encouraged even). And the border wall of course.
But Obama was known as the "deporter in chief" and there is already a 700-mile fence along
the U.S. - Mexico border.
I don't get where the hysteria is coming from because Trump is hardly uniquely evil...he's
just more direct and vulgar Oh the horror! Can it be they are afraid people will be more
alert to slick (or otherwise) politicians trying to pull the wool over their eyes after four or
eight years of Trump's nonsense?
V. Arnold quotes : "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "
Besides the point but my favorite variant is : "Power corrupts, absolute power is even better".
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'.
the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that
the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what
if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine
yards?
so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on June
30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media,
and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling,
one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary
Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.
The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation:
"Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama,
and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin:
Well, almost nothing."
Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:
"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the
United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."
This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's
questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name
doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:
"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say
is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there
are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one
gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."
So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because
the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And
so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the
election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question
as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect
of getting along with Russia so problematic.
Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference,
I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters
"should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have
tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more
perceptive progressives are
saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."
This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted
what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:
"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president
and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president
to make good on the promises he gave to the people."
To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that
has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:
Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the
White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American
partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of "
libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that
the Ukraine snipers who shot
at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the
end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available
to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a
number of other places." Putin has evidence of
Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took
out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported
to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier.
And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So
trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely
evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that
route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone
and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming
from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According
to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the
Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their
alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US
Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."
And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden
revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting
that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way.
Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that
this is indeed the case .
There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the
instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points
the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that
it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies
of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies
it: "I'm a capitalist!"
There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove,"
the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's
face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy
in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question
very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral
abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:
"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the
first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."
To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.
Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences
for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:
"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone.
I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on
to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about
to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace
and consciousness to the world."
Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is
that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being
a "
useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals
who used to be labeled as such.
And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to
realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely
described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing
this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it
for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man
who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and
Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.
What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both
countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which
Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything
to stop it. But why?
There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility
between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues.
Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason.
Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class,
and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.
Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against
not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a
separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even
more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions
such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.
This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict
that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national
sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts
the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.
In his famous essay, " The End of History
," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as
the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its
power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in
that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they
are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country
and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the
ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle
to the globalist project.
That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism"
of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism.
Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would
demonize him and his country for this very reason.
As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture
a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous
State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.
Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver
Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here , and the second part is
here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film –
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's
foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed
himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to
place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination
and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th
"Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications
are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to
June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.
As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to
overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve
that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated
policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow
Assad).
Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis
of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting
about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included
that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been
reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in
Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary
to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and
this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an
overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to
bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:
D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed
Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront
of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally,
he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and
Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support
to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.
E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.
page 70:
A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.
page 71:
B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and
Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia),
and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On
the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent
to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western
countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts
And here is from the part that the press did report:
"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting
powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that
the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly
lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its
old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.
The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that
AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist
[i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land
route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return
of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.
I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama
and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria,
in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then,
I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into
Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan
Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting
to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.
Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage
(and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to
the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow
Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's
fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of
course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)
These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to
the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged
on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,"
for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:
page 4:
18 Sep 2012
2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall
of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi,
Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due
to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the
weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately
prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers
for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds,
and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.
It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy
of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he
would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which
is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation
of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 (
Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either
in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending
in nuclear war.
When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the
12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not
yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium
did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The
Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately,
"'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which
point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded
'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama
(
such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular
matter were actually spot-on.
Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September
2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even
arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored
ISIS.
Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria (
and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty,
and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and
might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there,
after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only
"bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called
"bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and
also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already
at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey
- a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging
its war without NATO's support.
Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which,
if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of
NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely
be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes
to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting
on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate,
to do that?
Moon of Alabama
commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored
DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:
Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces
continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?
COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort
to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign.
We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them,
then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and
to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what
it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with
pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.
In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted
in their movement:
if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going
to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.
Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer – al-Tanf is now useless and the
Syrian army is free to do what it does:
COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used
that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are
in and around that area.
You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know,
progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to
fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would
be welcome.
We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business,
and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are
going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that
in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those
locations.
So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our
partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But
if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.
Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems
almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down
with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists,
their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a
coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.
On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by
the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten
or beat every nation in the world into submission.
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction,
so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the
relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity
its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review
of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't
go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.
bevin,
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump – totally ignoring
his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible
– had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what
his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth
to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin
Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council
of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and
literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.
Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United
Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the
world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must
become held to account for their deceptions.
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split
by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian
retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the
whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at
the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle
East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate
failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional
Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.
Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain
and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi
division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages
financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.
Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate
and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.
The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders;
is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded
deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and
conflicted people!"
The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for
--
handcuffs and a perp walk?
Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".
If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts
of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal
prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified
information.
Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard
invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall
by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.
Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty"
for the status quo; and whose naïve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus
operandi of the Imperial City.
Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from
Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.
After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened
him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the
Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.
So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power
to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources
and methods" in the slightest.
The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially
Washington's adversaries–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related
communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by
publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.
Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference
in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.
Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to
obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that
gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".
Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short
of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.
But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous
coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.
That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy
Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own
demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight
jacket.
Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a
witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional
Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.
Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while
affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.
No he won't!
Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director
of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated
threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition
that Mueller fully subscribed to.
So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent
it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have
proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors-even if the crime
itself never happened.
To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal
Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind
the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.
Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.
They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's
ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while
the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.
So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.
Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still
snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing
America.
But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence
community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed
upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators
had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.
In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir
Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the
course of the next year.
Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable
sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate
attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.
So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string
of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President
and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia
and its leader.
Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine
and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII --
there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer
named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect
its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting
its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression
by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.
There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State
opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?
In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.
Pathetically, they still think its game on.
David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from
the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information
Clearing House.
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
"... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
"... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
"... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
"... Intelligence Matters ..."
"... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
"... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential
election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different.
As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot
about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters
would have us think.
The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign
against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing
biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House,
as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he
was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before
the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence
agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future
perpetrators to the United States.
The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to
9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After
the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating
than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.
Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid
Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi,
who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time
had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.
The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar
and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted
into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver
licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with
a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of
Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego
office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.
As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans
to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al
Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn
the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on
planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped
crash it into the Pentagon.
While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to
slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had
contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations
prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the
United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."
Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers
effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed
them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.
Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate,
blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him.
Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which
Graham refused to do.
As Graham would later describe in is book
Intelligence Matters, the
FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship
with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts
of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the
public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.
Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI
carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay
any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure,
will likely never be known.
So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility.
The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency,
made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated
to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil
rights leaders.
What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some
semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with
the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the
best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so
is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on
Trump and run him out of office.
As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us,
but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."
Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found
in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions
About 9/11.
Disgusted "liberal". Am I even a "liberal" anymore? I loathe the I-word and the
J-word now with a purple passion. If I see an article from Wapo or NYT or any
of the other "msm", I don't read it. I stopped watching ANY tv, and exclusively
read those who didn't lie about Iraq 2003. What the hell AM I? I despise
Republicans, but the Dems didn't oppose their wars. Now I despise the Dems, and
the right-wingnuts are starting to make sense. Is this cognitive dissonance?
Bizzaro-world? I am one CONFUSED puppy.
Thank you PG
Thoughtful comment.
The Democrats are every bit as much on board with the
wars and the destruction of the working class as are the Republicans.
Where are the respectable liberals in this country?
I despise Democrats as you despise Republicans.
Now I despise them both. I have little loyalty for my government and do not
trust anything that they do.
"... One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast. ..."
"... As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive. ..."
"... The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing. ..."
"... New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result. ..."
"... It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases). ..."
"... virtuous ..."
"... When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination. ..."
"... I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics. ..."
"... Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil. ..."
"... No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020. ..."
"... Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about. ..."
"... So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. ..."
"... You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen." ..."
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
There's so much bad history that's been normalized we become numb, and this is an impressive parade of horribles.
By George Washington. Originally published at
his website
The New York Times
characterizes
special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:
Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating
a rare reputation for independence and fairness.
Let's fact-check the Times
Anthrax Frame-Up
Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was
"flawed
and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator
called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case."
The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says
the whole thing was
a sham . He says
that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were "politically motivated communication
embargos from FBI Headquarters".
Moreover, the anthrax investigation head
said that the
FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI's anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower
report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:
(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution
of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence .
Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception
management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt . These efforts included press conferences and highly selective
evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions .
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether
he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone
call made in the U.S.
On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told
the Senate Judiciary Committee:
We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and
future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search .
Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.
BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that
up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened,
right, unless she tells them?
CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was
said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help
lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.
BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.
CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not
."
The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated
what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored :
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw
improperly serving hundreds of
thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating
nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs after his own agents warned
against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to
disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later
worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the
case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been
in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and
it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks,
Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about
1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged
more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number
of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of
the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none
turned out to be terrorists .
The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that
was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller
personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side,
so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence
Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11.
In addition, Rowley
says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11,
to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like. The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional
Inquiry into 9/11
confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and
see this ).
Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room
to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry
discovered that an FBI informant had hosted
and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright,
and then hid him in an unknown location . And
see this .
And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate
the 2001 attacks – points out :
Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis
out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep
incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in
their effort.
Conclusion
Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships
the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly investigated
911InsideOut
4,752 views
Published on Aug 30, 2016
After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all
the best facts and evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crimes we witnessed on September
11th, and who ought to be investigated if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
Category
People & Blogs
License
Standard YouTube License
Well of course he's an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of this country, but he has done them for both parties;
hence the 'above the partisan fray' line. You can't be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead bodies for both sides.
One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one.
Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast.
As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.
Driving down his popularity per se won't harm him. Even the elites who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They
need to remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty
by association of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is making Republicans fall in line with the establishment
thus making way for impeachment. It's their only hope and a long shot because the Republicans will be committing suicide.
Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard
or the alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the governing class without respect for party. Not that
he will be allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there's too much money at stake from donors who bought the governing
apparatus fair and square.
Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without
much help from Trump's team. Both parties are under siege, which is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education,
energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.
Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The
policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump's tampering may make them worse at the margins.
The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for
S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.
New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result.
It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something
shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases).
It's going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class might even double down on it; what we need is a virtuous
CEO; like Zuckerberg, for example.
* I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there's a scale issue.
When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest
priority is simply avoiding assassination.
Sometimes he will get on Twitter and say some belligerent stuff, but doesn't he realize that he has the authority to hire and
fire who he wants?
I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish
behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence,
Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact
a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.
Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking
to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.
Right, when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment. But he had to: otherwise
they would never have let him leave the convention with the nomination.
I would have preferred to see him select somebody like Jesse Ventura or Nomi Prins or Alex Jones as veep and let the chips
fall where they may. It's not like he needs the job anyway.
" when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment.".
No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted
Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential
nomination in 2020.
They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with
the Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out of Cleveland still the nominee.
There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping
for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.
People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend
of the People. And yes, the real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.
And most coverups aren't Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent bureaucracy covering its tracks.
Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not "obstruction of justice," it is exposing the
deep state's intense effort to keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the investigation is not obstruction,
but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to it's logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it's agenda. Deep
state's leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.
Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic
things I've ever read about.
Good to see George Washington around these parts again, there's few people as passionate about politics as him!
Here's an interesting run through of mueller's handling of the anthrax investigation, among other things. A fun bit:
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds
from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown
to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on
Hatfill and that he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured
Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta
Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller
/ comey's dogged yet severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.
Hold on had to open another roll to triple layer my tf hat there that's better
If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the legend and backstory to divert attention
Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the
news folks busy with filling the hole between the ads
Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans and boeremag around and associated with him
And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys after most of them had their "matter" dismissed
Mueller is there to keep trump in check the investigation will go on and on and on feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars
to a group of "approved" insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some pdf report before some major sporting
event or just after some massive news story on a thursday
"Bungling" a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to unexpected further investigation
Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and
then arresting them as 'terrorists' in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.
I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.
Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he
wants to. According to Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also pardon anyone, including himself!
The idea that they are independent is a canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been buying.
This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual crime, as opposed to a protracted "Trump won when he shouldn't
have! Evil Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a secret handshake with Trump!" that has yet to
do anything beyond hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And the reason firing the Watergate
special prosecutor was obstruction of justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed by Congress and
therefore really was independent.
To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that
the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis. Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks
from "intelligence officials" are not enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.
"To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges
of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis"
Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the gossip about Trump's actual net worth, perhaps he has
been pegged as one of "us".
Democrats have gone from "Russia did something AND WE HAVE PROOF!" to Maxine Waters admitting they don't even have evidence
that any crime was committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just have 'connect the dots' and find actual
evidence. This is some real presuppositional crap here; this is the type of 'thinking' that liberals are always mocking Creationists
for. Over half of year with no evidence that anything even happened isn't an investigation: it's a fishing expedition.
So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure (golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election
hacking, dirty money, Jared ). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized
ad hoc foreign policy shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign entities. Trump either knew it
since the beginning of their relationship (and either didn't care, or winky-winky greenlighted it), or suborned it when
he later found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to
have any rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a separate issue (and is probably the case where
Trump is concerned, notwithstanding that he'll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting convicted by the Senate).
Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I don't see how it's clear what can have been "obstructed"
or indeed what "justice" might mean. (Rhe "Russian hacking" of votes, for example, is so ludicrous it's pointless to discuss it,
even if around half of Clinton's voters believe it)
On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians,
and The Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as "inconvertibly," I always look adverbs like that.
All I can tell is that great legal minds differ.
What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious about 'Draining the swamp' in Washington – and the
editorial offices at the New York Times!
P.S. I'm still reading Maureen Dowd's The Year of Voting Dangerously . In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue
of sellouts by major Democratic Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it looked like the 2016
election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved
Dowd's job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC's ruthless pursuit of power with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course,
Dowd's prodigious talent as a writer) .
Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They're
duly elected and funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact revenue for the winners. We hold elections
to decide which businesses we want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.
How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations conclude? We haven't done that yet if I recall correctly.
Would Pence be any good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he select a new VP then? (I don't
know the answer to that one either) .
Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may get us there.
Pence was not a very good governor but he'd be celebrated for looking Presidential and not being Trump. He's also way more
conservative and would get far more bills passed.
The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather
than actually succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.
Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker. Instead of giving voters til the next election to make
up their mind, they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election being in the middle of summer instead of Nov
2012, and they lost because a majority of voters didn't like the process.
If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.
Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP
in order to get some cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like Ron Paul one might have thought
there was a good chance he would "drain the swamp". Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are not exactly
"draining the swamp". One couldn't submit to HBO a series script with some general (affectionately lol) known as "Mad Dog" being
the Sec of Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of which Soros is a visible element was not
happy with Trump. It is possible that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different elements of the people
who really decide things fighting. One clue is if damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC and
Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did
the revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value?
FDR said, if it happens in the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you get this kind hall of mirrors
head confusion, then the CIA is at work.
Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to grift. otherwise, there isn't that much difference
betwixt the two. Hillary is straight forward with her "scam." Trump uses Market strategy to con others . Hillary uses whatever
it takes to "get" and "enjoy" Power.
Trump's kind of business "men" hire media who enable the "Right kind" of Calvanism/American "Thinking" which has bought Congress.
These grifters "use" whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price, Everything is for sale to the highest
bidder . outright theft, looting and pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. "Whatever it takes!,"
as someone said.
we could not foresee exactly what kind of "Grifter in Chief" Trump would turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now
'ensnared" Trump as blowback for "stealing" the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part with her morally indignant,
empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she possessed "morals" to begin with.
Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it's all out in the open, which lost her the deplorables'
vote she didn't care about but she needed.
watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how Americans are so easily "led/fooled" by the PR. Goebbels
was just ahead of his time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his "Role," proved how easy it was to "sell' us out to
Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork
for the absolute oligarchy we 'enjoy" courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder Congress we see today.
we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet, for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade
a spade is how we got to this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and Corporate Republicans
need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.
"For the many, not the few" is a belief we need here in America, too. though Americans are still buying the self-hating PR
so-called Leaders Thatcher, St. Reagan sold. the young don't, however, which could promise a hopeful future in England. maybe
Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama destroyed that "Dream" in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very
much.
Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.
Nothing will happen until we get rid of fixed elections. Suppression, kicking voters off the list, gerrymandering, no paper
trail voting machine's. We are screwed.
Mueller also play a notorious role in the Starr Chamber Whitewater witch hunt. Mueller is really truly awful. In some ways
it is satisfying to see all the Republican hacks turn on one another.
"Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a
rare reputation for independence and fairness."
So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
So he was "cultivating a rare reputation" as such?
OK: Does that mean for the NYT that "cultivating a rare reputation for X" is what is it TO BE X?
In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.
(No wonder listening to Putin on Stone's movie is like listening to a different world.)
Like millions of other Americans, Sam believed Trump to be genuine and uncompromising. To the
San Jose Mercury News, however, Sam hinted at a deeper insight, "He's kind of embraced his position,
as you like me or you don't, but I'm not changing. It is almost a professional wrestling mentality
and I have a sympathy for that." So there you have it. Trump has a professional wrestling mindset.
... ... ...
Jesse Ventura, a wrestler turned politician, has repeatedly pointed out the similarity between
American politics and professional wrestling. In 2010, Ventura said, "Politics today is pro wrestling.
It is pro wrestling, and you know what I mean by that? I mean by that that the Dems and Repubs in
front of you [reporters] and in front of the public is going to tell you how they hate each other,
and how they're different, but as soon as the camera is off, in the backroom, they're all going out
together, and they're all buddies cutting deals. It's just like pro wrestling. In front of the public,
we hate each other, we're going to rip our heads off, but in the locker room, we're all friends.
I'm suggesting politics is fake."
In 2016, Ventura told The Atlantic, "Many of these elected officials are just like wrestlers in
the public and then they're the opposite in private. Case in point, do you remember a few years ago
who was some congressman from Florida who voted against every gay bill and it turned out he was gay,
do you remember that? Yeah, so there's a classic example of it. This guy who was gay hid the fact
that he was gay, voted like he hated gays, and so he created a personality that was completely averse
to what he really was. And wrestling's the same way."
Though American politicians are phonies, and American elections are farcically rigged, Americans
continue to rabidly support their favorite political puppet, whether Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Trump
or whoever. Going berserk over each cartoon savior or villain, most Americans don't even know they're
being force-fed lucha libre.
I like your use of color revolution analogy; it enrages liberal interventionists"
Thank you -- But is not an analogy. What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the election, by discrediting already discredited neoliberal establishment
(Although, as any patriotic American, I strongly doubt they can tamper as well as we can.)
But the set of steps we observed was the plot to appoint a Special Prosecutor, who later is expected to sink Trump. After the
Special Prosecutor was appointed Russia changes does not matter, and more "elastic" charge of "obstruction of justice" can be
used instead.
Also note the heavy participation of two heads of intelligence agencies (Clapper and Brennan) and State Department officials
in the plot.
"... Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it. ..."
"... Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur. ..."
"... But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.) ..."
"... American Psycho ..."
"... The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America. ..."
"... unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do. ..."
"... our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture. ..."
"... That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us. ..."
"... Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal. ..."
"... "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability. ..."
"... Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? ..."
"... JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed. ..."
"... Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets. ..."
"... Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away. ..."
"... My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. ..."
"... The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. ..."
"... There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation. ..."
"... The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. ..."
"... "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." ..."
"... "Four Futures" ..."
"... Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good". ..."
"... Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster. ..."
Yves here. I have been saying for some years that I did not think we would see a revolution, but
more and more individuals acting out violently. That's partly the result of how community and social
bonds have weakened as a result of neoliberalism but also because the officialdom has effective ways
of blocking protests. With the overwhelming majority of people using smartphones, they are constantly
surveilled. And the coordinated 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy Wall Street shows how the
officialdom moved against non-violent protests. Police have gotten only more military surplus toys
since then, and crowd-dispersion technology like sound cannons only continues to advance. The only
way a rebellion could succeed would be for it to be truly mass scale (as in over a million people
in a single city) or by targeting crucial infrastructure.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"[T]he super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues
to grow. An
analysis of
2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion
in total wealth. As of
June 8,
2017 , the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average,
each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people."
-Paul Buchheit,
Alternet
"Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia, Baseball Field"
-NBC News,
June 14, 2017
"4 killed, including gunman, in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco"
-ABC7News,
June 14, 2017
"Seriously? Another multiple shooting? So many guns. So many nut-bars. So many angry
nut-bars with guns."
-MarianneW via
Twitter
"We live in a world where "multiple dead" in San Francisco shooting can't cut through
the news of another shooting in the same day."
-SamT via
Twitter
"If the rich are determined to extract the last drop of blood, expect the victims to
put up a fuss. And don't expect that fuss to be pretty. I'm not arguing for social war; I'm
arguing for justice and peace."
-
Yours truly
When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.
Until elites stand down and stop the
brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come
apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate
the whole of the
Neoliberal
Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There
are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently
militarized "order" to entirely suppress it.
As with the climate, I'm concerned about the short term for sure - the storm that kills this year,
the hurricane that kills the next - but I'm also concerned about the longer term as well. If the
beatings
from "our betters" won't stop until our acceptance of their "serve the rich" policies improves,
the beatings will never stop, and both sides will take up the cudgel.
Then where will we be?
America's Most Abundant Manufactured Product May Be Pain
I look out the window and see more and more homeless people, noticeably more than last year and
the year before. And they're noticeably scruffier, less "kemp," if that makes sense to you (it does
if you live, as I do, in a community that includes a number of them as neighbors).
The squeeze hasn't let up, and those getting squeezed out of society have nowhere to drain to
but down - physically, economically, emotionally. The
Case-Deaton study speaks volumes to this point. The less fortunate economically are already dying
of drugs and despair. If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just
remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?
The pot isn't boiling yet - these shootings are random, individualized - but they seem to be piling
on top of each other. A hard-boiling, over-flowing pot may not be far behind. That's concerning as
well, much moreso than even the random horrid events we recoil at today.
Many More Ways Than One to Be a Denier
My comparison above to the climate problem was deliberate. It's not just the occasional storms
we see that matter. It's also that, seen over time, those storms are increasing, marking a trend
that matters even more. As with climate, the whole can indeed be greater than its parts. There's
more than one way in which to be a denier of change.
These are not just metaphors. The country is already in a
pre-revolutionary state ; that's one huge reason people chose Trump over Clinton, and would have
chosen Sanders over Trump. The Big Squeeze has to stop, or this will be just the beginning of a long
and painful path. We're on a track that nations we have watched - tightly "ordered" states, highly
chaotic ones - have trod already. While we look at them in pity, their example stares back at us.
But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really
the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to
call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points,
too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm
with it.)
"If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible
they'll also aim their anger out as well?"
Not necessarily. What Lacan called the "Big Other" is quite powerful. We internalize a lot
of socio-economic junk from our cultural inheritance, especially as it's been configured over
the last 40 years - our values, our body images, our criteria for judgment, our sense of what
material well-being consists, etc. Ellis's American Psycho is the great satire of our
time, and this time is not quite over yet. Dismemberment reigns.
The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA
is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge
or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers
or, even more grandly, what success means in America.
The idea that agency could be a collective action of a union for a strike isn't even on the
horizon. And at the same time, these same students don't bat an eye at socialism. They're willing
to listen.
But unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do.
Most of the elite do not understand the money system. They do not understand how different
sectors have benefitted from policies and/or subsidies that increased the money flows into these.
So they think they deserve their money more than those who toiled in sectors with less support.
Furthermore, our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population
of individualists who can't see the big picture.
Thank you Gaius, a thoughtful post. That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably
has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel
that our governments are working for us.
Of tangential interest, Turnbull has just announced another gun amnesty targeting guns that
people no longer need and a tightening of some of the ownership laws.
One problem is the use of the term "social contract", implying that there is some kind of agreement
( = consensus) on what that is. I don't remember signing any "contract".
I fear for my friends, I fear for my family.
They do not know how ravenous the hounds behind nor ahead are. For myself? I imagine myself the same in a Mad Max world. It will be more clear, and perception shattering, to most whose lives allow the ignoring of
gradual chokeholds, be them political or economic, but those of us who struggle daily, yearly,
decadely with both, will only say Welcome to the party, pals.
Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on
a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces
people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional,
to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal.
Each person
does what is right in their own eyes, but the net effect is impoverishment and destruction. Life
is unfair, indeed. A social contract is a mutual suicide pact, whether you renegotiate it or not.
This is Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, is we don't speak of Fight Club. Go to the gym,
toughen up, while you still can.
"Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing,
just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability.
Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of
how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best
that can be achieved? Recalling that as my Contracts professor in law school emphasized over and
over, in "contracts" there are no rights in the absence of effective remedies. It being a Boston
law school, the notion was echoed in Torts, and in Commercial Paper and Sales and, tellingly,
in Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction, and even in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.
No remedy, no right. What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social
contract," the "have-naught" halves?
When honest "remedies under law" become nugatory, there's always the recourse to direct action
of course with zero guarantee of redress
"What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract,"
the "have-naught" halves?"
Ah yes the ultimate remedy is outright rebellion against the highest authorities .with as you
say, " zero guarantee of redress."
But, history teaches us that that path will be taken ..the streets. It doesn't (didn't) take a
genius to see what was coming back in the late 1960's on .regarding the beginnings of the revolt(s)
by big money against organized labor. Having been very involved in observing, studying and actually
active in certain groups back then, the US was acting out in other countries particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere, against any social progression, repressing, arresting (thru its surrogates)
torturing, killing any individuals or groups that opposed that infamous theory of "free market
capitalism". It had a very definite "creep" effect, northwards to the mainstream US because so
many of our major corporations were deeply involved with our covert intelligence operatives and
objectives (along with USAID and NED). I used to tell my friends about what was happening and
they would look at me as if I was a lunatic. The agency for change would be "organized labor",
but now, today that agency has been trashed enough where so many of the young have no clue as
to what it all means. The ultimate agenda along with "globalization" is the complete repression
of any opposition to the " spread of money markets" around the world". The US intends to lead;
whether the US citizenry does is another matter. Hence the streets.
JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The
"remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which
has never existed.
The Social Contract, ephemeral, reflects perfectly what contracts have become. Older rulings
frequently labeled clauses unconscionable - a tacit recognition that so few of the darn things
are actually agreed upon. Rather, a party with resources, options and security imposes the agreement
on a party in some form of crisis (nowadays the ever present crisis of paycheck to paycheck living
– or worse). Never mind informational asymmetries, necessity drives us into crappy rental agreements
and debt promises with eyes wide open. And suddenly we're all agents of the state.
Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit.
Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts
with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets.
Solidarity, of course. Hard when Identity politics lubricate a labor market that insists on
specialization, and talented children of privilege somehow manage to navigate the new entrepreneurism
while talented others look on in frustration. The resistance insists on being leaderless (fueled
in part IMHO by the uncomfortable fact that effective leaders are regularly killed or co-opted).
And the overriding message of resistance is negative: "Stop it!"
But that's where we are. Again, just my opinion: but the pivotal step away from the jackpot
is to convince or coerce our wealthiest not to cash in. Stop making and saving so much stinking
money, y'all.
and there's the Karma bec. even now we see a private banking system synthesizing an economy
to maintain asset values and profits and they have the nerve to blame it on social spending.
I think Giaus's term 'Denier' is perfect for all those vested practitioners of profit-capitalism
at any cost. They've already failed miserably. For the most part they're just too proud to admit
it and, naturally, they wanna hang on to "their" money. I don't think it will take a revolution
– in fact it would be better if no chaos ensued – just let these arrogant goofballs stew in their
own juice a while longer. They are killing themselves.
When I hear so much impatient and irritable complaint, so much readiness to replace what we
have by guardians for us all, those supermen, evoked somewhere from the clouds, whom none have
seen and none are ready to name, I lapse into a dream, as it were. I see children playing on the
grass; their voices are shrill and discordant as children's are; they are restive and quarrelsome;
they cannot agree to any common plan; their play annoys them; it goes poorly. And one says, let
us make Jack the master; Jack knows all about it; Jack will tell us what each is to do and we
shall all agree. But Jack is like all the rest; Helen is discontented with her part and Henry
with his, and soon they fall again into their old state. No, the children must learn to play by
themselves; there is no Jack the master. And in the end slowly and with infinite disappointment
they do learn a little; they learn to forbear, to reckon with another, accept a little where they
wanted much, to live and let live, to yield when they must yield; perhaps, we may hope, not to
take all they can. But the condition is that they shall be willing at least to listen to one another,
to get the habit of pooling their wishes. Somehow or other they must do this, if the play is to
go on; maybe it will not, but there is no Jack, in or out of the box, who can come to straighten
the game. -Learned Hand
Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't
just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal
decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected
to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile,
Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity
has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away.
My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think
Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.
Meanwhile, I just got a message from my car-share service: They are cutting back on the number
of cars on offer. Too much vandalism.
Are these things caused by pressure from above? Yes, in part: The class war continues, and
the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly
impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity?
No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies
that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of
the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
DJG: My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash:
Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws
on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest
environmentalists.
Yes, the trash bit is hard to understand. What does it stand for? Does it mean, We can infinitely
disregard our surroundings by throwing away plastic, cardboard, metal and paper and nothing will
happen? Does it mean, There is more where that came from! Does it mean, I don't care a fig for
the earth? Does it mean, Human beings are stupid and, unlike pigs, mess up their immediate environment
and move on? Does it mean, Nothing–that we are just nihilists waiting to die? I am so fed up with
the garbage strewn on the roads and in the woods where I live; I used to pick it up and could
collect as much as 9 garbage bags of junk in 9 days during a 4 kilometer walk. I don't pick up
any more because I am 77 and cannot keep doing it.
However, I am certain that strewn garbage will surely be the last national flag waving in the
breeze as the anthem plays junk music and we all succumb to our terrible future.
Related to this, I thought one day of who probably NEVER gets any appreciation but strives
to make things nicer, anyone planning or planting the highway strips (government workers maybe
although it could be convicts also unfortunately, I'm not sure). Yes highways are ugly, yes they
will destroy the world, but some of the planting strips are sometimes genuinely nice. So they
add some niceness to the ugly and people still litter of course.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the
public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away
in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens
if any, are kept meticulously clean.
Basically, the world people care about stops outside their dwellings, because they do not feel
it is "theirs" or that they participate in its possession in a genuine way. It belongs to the
"town administration", or to a "private corporation", or to the "government" - and if they feel
they have no say in the ownership, management, regulation and benefits thereof, why should they
care? Let the town administration/government/corporation do the clean-up - we already pay enough
taxes/fees/tolls, and "they" are always putting up more restrictions on how to use everything,
so
In conclusion: the phenomenon of litter/trash is another manifestation of a fraying social
contract.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population
views the public space/environment as a shared, common good.
There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game
for commercial exploitation.
I live in NYC, and just yesterday as I attempted to refill my MetroCard, the machine told me
it was expired and I had to replace it. The replacement card doesn't look at all like a MetroCard
with the familiar yellow and black graphic saying "MetroCard". Instead? It's an ad. For a fucking
insurance company. And so now, every single time that I go somewhere on the subway, I have to
see an ad from Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper
classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. From Yves's posting of Yanis Varoufakis's analysis
of the newest terms of the continuing destruction of Greece:
With regard to labour market reforms, the Eurogroup welcomes the adopted legislation safeguarding
previous reforms on collective bargaining and bringing collective dismissals in line with best
EU practices.
I see! "Safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining" refers, of course, to the 2012
removal of the right to collective bargaining and the end to trades union representation for each
and every Greek worker. Our government was elected in January 2015 with an express mandate to
restore these workers' and trades unions' rights. Prime Minister Tsipras has repeatedly pledged
to do so, even after our falling out and my resignation in July 2015. Now, yesterday, his government
consented to this piece of Eurogroup triumphalism that celebrates the 'safeguarding' of the 2012
'reforms'. In short, the SYRIZA government has capitulated on this issue too: Workers' and trades'
unions' rights will not be restored. And, as if that were not bad enough, "collective dismissals"
will be brought "in line with best EU practices". What this means is that the last remaining constraints
on corporations, i.e. a restriction on what percentage of workers can be fired each month, is
relaxed. Make no mistake: The Eurogroup is telling us that, now that employers are guaranteed
the absence of trades unions, and the right to fire more workers, growth enhancement will follow
suit! Let's not hold our breath!
The so-called "Elites"? Stand down? Right.
Every year I look up the cardinal topics discussed at the larger economic forums and conferences
(mainly Davos and G8), and some variation of "The consequences of rising inequality" is a recurring
one. Despite this, nothing ever comes out if them. I imagine they go something like this:
"-Oh hi Mark. Racism is bad.
-Definitely. So is inequality, right, Tim?
-Sure, wish we could do something about it. HEY GUYS, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT MY NEW SCHEME TO BUY
OUT NEW AND UPCOMING COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE MONEY?"
A wet dream come true, both for an AnCap and a communist conspiracy theorist. I'm by no means
either. However, I think capitalism has already failed and can't go on for much longer. Conditions
will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief.
"Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement
or relief." Frase's Quadrant Four. Hierarchy + Scarcity = Exterminism (From "Four Futures" )
Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat
up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there
were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first.
"Greed is good".
Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel.
In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the
early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically
for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates
among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates
were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful
and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical
public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster.
Here in the US the New Deal and other legislation helped preserve social order in the 1930s.
Yves also raises an important point in her preface that can provide support for the center by
those who are able to do so under the current economic framework. That glue is to participate
in one's community; whether it is volunteering at a school, the local food bank, community-oriented
social clubs, or in a multitude of other ways; regardless of whether your community is a small
town or a large city.
" Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and
educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks."
None of which applies to the Imperium, of course. There's glue, all right, but it's the kind
that is used for flooring in Roach Motels (TM), and those horrific rat and mouse traps that stick
the rodent to a large rectangle of plastic, where they die eventually of exhaustion and dehydration
and starvation The rat can gnaw off a leg that's glued down, but then it tips over and gets glued
down by the chest or face or butt
I have to note that several people I know are fastidious about picking up trash other people
"throw away." I do it, when I'm up to bending over. I used to be rude about it - one young attractive
woman dumped a McDonald's bag and her ashtray out the window of her car at one of our very long
Florida traffic lights. I got out of my car, used the mouth of the McDonald's bag to scoop up
most of the lipsticked butts, and threw them back into her car. Speaking of mouths, that woman
with the artfully painted lips sure had one on her
"... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
"... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
"... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
"... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
"... Undiscovered Self ..."
"... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
"... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper who oversaw a "trust us" report,
but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as David Marks describes.
Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's willingness to consider friendship
and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional debate.
For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover
from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally, into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal
enemy.
James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example of how this antagonism toward
Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in a June
7 speech to the Australian National Press Club.
"The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as
the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's
borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed
the renewed arms race and resulting tensions on the Russians:
"The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic forces - notably their submarine
and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite
their economic challenges - with only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."
That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race
– leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its
military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.
A Shrill Voice
Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present,
still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been
at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.
Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, for decades. His entire
attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores the context of the Russians actions.
Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president in 1996.
Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted the first known software attack
on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel – unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges.
U.S. intelligence also has a long record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer
age.
But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers and American political operatives
were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian
oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.
Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992 has come from one of two domains:
the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose
the last ten presidents of the U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight
into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."
With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing, which has been dominated by
people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks, and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought
Clapper from Air Force intelligence into the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and
an oil company executive.
Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, both Republican and
Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment
banks. And the U.S. intelligence community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who
came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.
Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence contractors have a powerful
influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers
drift between intelligence contractors and government.
It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector to do its bidding. Considering
the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil
and gas – as well as to the military and intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary
of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.
Classic Projection
Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S. government exemplifies classic
projection of the highest order.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data, while ignoring the information that
cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense
of the greatness of the United States. His ethics become situational.
As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency's massive gathering
of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.
Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, "I responded
in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."
Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate
fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really,
in my view compared to what we're confronting now."
Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth
and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot who thinks he knows best what's good for America,
a dangerous creature that the U.S. government
seems to produce in quantity.
In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw the key Jan. 6 report on alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much public evidence, he released
a report that amounted
to "trust us."
Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did
acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported.
So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing
not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to
their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the
illness they denounce.
In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the state of the human mind and how
it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like
the neurotic, sees his shadow in his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty
to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate the outward eye and prevent
it from looking at the individual life within.
"We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split,
symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization and man himself, if
the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"
Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.
David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including
Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.
mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm
Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes obvious. One does not need the authority
of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded
to ignore the reality all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to clear a
space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness, only those things one's conditioning
permits can be seen.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am
If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe, come here and read this, they
are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change for the better or they are still smart enough to understand
it and are laughing all the way to the temporary bank.
If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line with the immutable Universal laws
of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one, at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of
the lesson that one just isn't learning at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation
to continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary wake-up call in all
it's required force.
Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep down inside, that we are all
equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions, we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve
and it would behoove us to accept our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am
These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed Kennedy, but they weren't.
They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation.
I guess that Hoover had so much dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous
menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads" of these traitorous agencies
their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy
photos, that these maniacs actually practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what
kind of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring us to the brink of nuclear
war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage
and destroy his reputation unless he commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding
"American" values. They are sick control freaks.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm
If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the early 21st Century, then the works
of historians should be filed under non-fiction.
The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper to give evidence after his
blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee. The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative
body? What a crock of shit!! Who was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm
then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction
Ooops: That should be "under fiction."
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm
And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or least untruthful" manner.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am
I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall for? It really shows his utter
arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness
of believing there is "equal justice for all" in the USA.
Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am
Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's august Senate by British MP George
Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005, on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
His absolutely devastating verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't
seen it online.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions –
When I posted this on Facebook, a "liberal" friend made several angy comments about EVIL Russia and then accused me of being
a traitor for "defending a sworn enemy of our country."
In today's climate that kind of charge is not trivial. Watch out when you share it!
Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send a pile of copies to Clapper. That
guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably
"clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz he's been imbibing.
Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm
I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear unhinged, deranged, absolutely
stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the
only thing in which the US leads the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud.
Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia, without a single word of criticism
from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert
was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had
to say. Too few people realise how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am
G'Day Gary,
I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night, depending on your region.
Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
airdates.tv at last resort in the future
Hoota Thunk.
Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.
john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am
Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests. The removal of Trump is essential
to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies
and make believe. They all wanted Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she
won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran bu now. War makes money so any one
who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has to be got rid of.
Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development of this Russiagate fiasco, as former
head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right
that the whole bunch of the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of days ago
about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's what passes for entertainment nowadays.
Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily
Star, also The Guardian, and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when human development
was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually it is regressing.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am
Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks he's a god.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am
So far he seems to be getting away with it.
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm
"Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee has raised the anti-Russian
hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US political police denounced supposed Russian interference in
the US elections as a dire threat to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work
on behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the principal enemy of the United
States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions
funneled into the US elections by Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people
.
the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most powerful sections of the military-intelligence
apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the
foreign policy offensive against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since the
2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign are particularly incensed that Russian
intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation.
They want to see Assad in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred of Putin
indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and
the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:
Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote totals were altered. No ballots
were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful
information was supplied anonymously to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee
had worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall Street audiences and reassured
them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of the big financial interests
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus
and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation,
wage cutting and austerity that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality
[The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as
insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."
Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure garbage
Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter who p!ssed off Israel firsters.
Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.
G² , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies are so chaotic?
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered
outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer
was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or
a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which checks and balances are implemented
to reign in the retired general?
Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am
Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?
Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying for the US to control the universe
Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript and printed it out.
In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you that my dashboard warning
light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about
the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians
were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians, who (are) typically, ALMOST
GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
So we were concerned."
(Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing phrase.)
Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the Russians did it' meme.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am
That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct group of people Chuck Todd
would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth in the grand American tradition.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am
no way to bold that statement
There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At the end type "/strong" inside
but not the quotation marks shown in this example.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am
Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am
The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things. The beast they feed is the same
beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars.
If you recall last summer the DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the 2001
unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department so far this 21st Century that
no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending
this nations well earned capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling
and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.
"Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants who may have been looking into
the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am
This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like it, like building #7. Nice of
you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.
When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who could answer them. Yet, questioning
any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these
days over things such as assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you being
a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am
Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question: Why didn't that high rise
tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more
intense? It wasn't just a localised burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is
not more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely crack than steel girders will
melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in on this one.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm
My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel. The smoke will get you before the
fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.
Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and if a proper investigation were
conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone with half a brain.
If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because the guy is a physicist/mathematician
who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking
at it. He couldn't believe what he found.
Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse.
It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos.
Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no
reason."
And:
"Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side, hundreds
of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise
it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."
The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation".
Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention of it to my wife, commenting
to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist how many others had the same thought, as you and I.
Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am
Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website, but I had not seen that video
with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that production never shown on American television? Why was NIST
so remiss in its analysis, as the narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never
be admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in 50 years when all the blame can
be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never
changes.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am
Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to motives and means of the WTC collapse.
The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel
fire exceeding their melting point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.
Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. When a single
failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design.
When those are also much weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This is called
"progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft fuel would soon cause the entire floor
to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.
Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral failure across the whole floor
would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload
all columns below that, causing the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was
uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.
Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner "bearing walls." When part
of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing
structure are asymmetrical and it falls partly to the sides.
As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London fire), it is the concrete that
provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength
against bending loads (wind and earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its
curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure survives a fire sufficient
to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive failure.
Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.
But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not permitted in the US or under the
International Building Code so far as I know. It should have had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers
to suppress non-petroleum fires, non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent"
fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction, maintenance, and enforcement
practices, if not in the building code itself.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am
It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes of the WTC fire, and that
Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do
not know what happened there.
I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would have prepared a distinct method
of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked
other structures with the aircraft. Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to
wait until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any buildings did not correspond
to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.
So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and I have seen no convincing photos
or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent
with the aircraft-only model.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am
I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved in the aircraft attack. But
without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating the sources of the aircraft attack.
We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was grown by US warmongers attacking
the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more
to be learned about US/KSA/Israel involvement that we may hope will be exposed.
backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might have bought (maybe) what you
just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse
initiation stage is because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the
fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to one side. No way it would have come
straight down.
Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes,
it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions." I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have
hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is
going to know the difference?"
I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah, right.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm
I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for the long posts above, and do not
object to anyone else's views on this.
1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe floor 3 or 6, none of which show
any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must have been to lower floors.
2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across an entire floor, while the
only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts from their prior collapses.
3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn that structure if security required.
I do not know about this.
But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower collapses that suggests controlled
explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:
4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and fuel hit.
5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with chunks and dust thrown outward
from the collapsing sections only.
6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That is conclusive.
7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the falling structure as it comes down
just to create that appearance, and would use many times the explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning floor had collapsed due to explosions
instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could
such a system have been controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw the results when a fuel truck
overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge
in the 1970s (no casualties).
10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly fuel tanks; no doubt that has been
estimated.
11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't supply heat as fast as an
intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the steel cooling the heated portion.
Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril of the fittest or survival of
the least fit, both very apt in our era.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security" budgets and "justifications"
for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more than two birds were killed with one stone .
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name. Thanks, Gregory.
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm
I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm
To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.
Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining fuel burned up there would be
no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated
with the WTC. If any temperature melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and
isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which is certainly not consistent with
the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out)
and nanothermite residue were in evidence.
Why do both?
The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon, not just the WTC. The "plane
crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter. Let's not make assumptions
about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to contrived to nonexistent.
Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment on the subject here. Discussion
about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse. I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter
to their own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction).
george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am
Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001 bombings
UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am
It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing body parts for the big oil
adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and
lottery computers we can have an economy again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror
and new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You can't afford it.
Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over what's left. Nothing is left
now. News isn't fake, the money is.
mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am
I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal, "yes, I lied, but it was
for a good reason!"
Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about Russia starting the war in Georgia.
That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president of Georgia.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am
mej – you're right.
Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am
Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say of Russians shows in fact we're
looking at ourselves.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am
Let me put it another way;
We're not going to return kind for kind,
we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
Good luck .
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am
Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would discharge him from his office
immediately.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead of being thoroughly discredited
for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.
He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words up. "This man is at the end of
his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't realize grandpa-types can deceive too.
Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's one or the other. Now he's off
to pollute Australia.
"In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University (ANU) National Security College
in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in
the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.
In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance or disrespect', called the firing
of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an 'internal assault on our intuitions'."
The asylum has taken over.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am
The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power in a big way. These are glory days
for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media,
both major political parties, and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump.
The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized rabble, no match for the forces
arrayed against them.
It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment. He just doesn't have the resources
to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.
Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete unhingement of a segment of
the American population who have no rational understanding of what happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the
loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for
the madness unleashed in the US.
In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome: Refusal to Reason is the
New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident:
"Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central
Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is presented looking like Trump and
will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated by plunging knives.
This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge mentions that social media has become
a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible
this could happen simply because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity behind
the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin.
Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming
unnerving and I have a strange sense of foreboding.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am
Neoliberal_rationality/ will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves of emotional madness will be
important.
Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am
As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:
"Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent of world domination. Since the USA
have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.
"The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia does oppose to what passes for democracy
in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially:
blatant racism, dividing the world on übermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy and
open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the reason for the Hague tribunal, while
children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors,
suffering and deaths of civilians and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.
USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really, all 7 billion people, not
just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys into their transparent lies and double standards.
For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy. And we'll see how it turns out.
So far the human history teaches us that every time the übermensch eventually break their necks and diminish.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am
Yes. Good comment.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am
Pixy,
Thank you for saying all of this.
MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am
""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."
I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with but to deepen the discussion.
Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality." Powerful forces in the
US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the
Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their
power) is the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking over the world and
dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful
god and rid the world of evil. We see the results of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has
perpetrated against the rest of the world sense WWII.
Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those countries trying to be neutral
are just as evil as the others.
All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally superior to the rest of the
world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter of millions, is no longer the
fundamental guiding ideology.
You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am
Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am
You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are doing it for the trillions of
dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less. Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe
to explain to us why we have to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.
. By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots
in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures
as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with
the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they
were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described
in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from political
oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization
of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally
useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant substituting
the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its
Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired
by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example
of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable
to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved
to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from
God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,
"with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied no models for warriors contending
with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in
their hearts and the sword in their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans: the
Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and Joab routing the foes of their country;
and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every
verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed for
them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear while they trusted in God. Oliver
Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered
the attacking heathens; or to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."
Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am
"Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law"
"Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process"
Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community too much credit. There is
no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware
of their self serving actions and it is motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion
of propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with it.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am
Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their own black hearts allow themselves
the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe"
their own shit even while knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.
Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people who follow and post on CN are
opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance
of the US, and you say comes from Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting
point when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We, the dissenters in the US,
have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult. And your good points from Russia are written in a
clearer way than many Americans could even write, since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down"
the citizens.
But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as you must know are certainly not
fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with
the native peoples who opposed the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically
because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way to stop the failing empire. We
have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the
1990s tried to destroy Russia. But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin
accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the shots.
I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge to the USA, knowing that US
cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant
and arrogant that Americans are not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points
you have made, thank you.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am
Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be dominated or destroyed. Capitalism
is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus
said in Plato's Republic, "Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations, and is
the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's struggle to dominate others. The ultimate
goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God
over everything! When Ayn Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more accurately "required") by nature
to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land, resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they
do everything in their power to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by conflating
the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible
hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent "god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in
conventional wisdom not only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.
Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the public into subordinating their
own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces
back to our earliest recorded history. But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery
for so many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.
Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long? Ah, yes, the principle of "divide
and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another
rather than challenge them. So much easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible
to assault and steal from him than from the lords at the top.
I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions and meager rewards. They
are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital
idea! And how we are fools for not seeing the obvious nature of things.
Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying it through history by the Roundheads
and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth
lackey, USA. The OT god is a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really do believe
in end times.
Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
"complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public
hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of
the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.
"However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes
the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means
that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences
if caught were worth the risk.
"In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US
foreign policy.
"While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from
undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi
Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern
Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting
to over 110 billion US dollars.
"It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue
under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump."
US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
By Ulson Gunnar
landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/06/us-election-meddling-smoke-and-mirrors.html
I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's incredibly difficult Piano
Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should
call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was
one of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned to Russia. The government of
the USA is very, very sick and evil.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm
David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.
DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote to me: "There's no reason to give
the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures
only the favored voices are heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the fact
that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous feats that are widely publicized in
order to give him a superhero reputation these things are not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I
were in Russia, I could/would write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side,
the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.
Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem, rather than the people in general.
The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the
sum of history and it's hard to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear of
communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists and US oligarchs, we might have seen
what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides
from the Stalin era through the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners
in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.
If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms, defense, etc. (and of course no
social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and
we will never know what the outcome might have been.
My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep some balance, I avoid the pressure
to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured
to see conflict as a sports event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by extension
the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs of both sides bring conflict to a head by
lying to us about everything, helping us believe we can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply
a great example of these beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the other "team."
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am
Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other powers, because they need a
foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every
large group, the US failure to protect democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia
has a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation, and scheming.
This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally selected some rulers of
present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot
find better ways to protect democracy from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree with what I felt was your leaning
over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation,
there are sides to be taken, and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious
and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number one disaster for everyone
alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here. To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired
of trying to point out the obvious to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you
in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too concerned with being "even handed"
for my taste.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm
David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm always floored when I hear these
guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when, if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other
country is just trying to defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?
I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on
the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like
warlords, and it's just nice to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.
Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member said about Russia. The US bureaucratic
leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's
no way to make exact comparisons between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also
many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially hypocritical since the US
still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate number of them in prison after not even giving
them opportunities as the whites. The US has a lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to
attack others and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am
Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness with respect to gay rights, there
is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United
States.
I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree with all of your points about Clapper,
he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter. As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation
of the nefarious covert operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging from satanists,
Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment, you address a very under reported issue, which
I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight
the communists. I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that is too sensitive
to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love to more of your ideas on this subject.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am
Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations. This is the truth that is,
just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very clearly, the central story of the past century.
Thank you for saying it so well.
Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things. Telling the truth might see you
ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.
Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the
thousand Russian agents."
– Hillary
Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am
"The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi lover McCain. We in Aus really
are pathetic grovellers.
Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am
This nails the anti Russia movement
Zero Hedge
Why the Elites Hate Russia
1, Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries.
The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":
Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat
to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office
said two branches of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would
be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian
state.
2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs
however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military – it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to
the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:
3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because
they had a few semesters of French.
. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.
While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply
don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.
Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country for all its vaunted proclamations
about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down
economically so many harbor resentments.
Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited its citizens for military service
when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend
whose son-in-law has to finish his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted
in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes wasted money. I suspect Russians
have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.
Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am
Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron". I never get a hit. MacronLeaks
proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate.
The parallels are astonishing: a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon)
and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round and then discredit Fillon, in
the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in
the second round, thereby allowing Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story
before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's arms before the vote. In
a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell
into a trap he had set for them. The matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public,
one Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is therefore established that Russians,
whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought
to rig the French presidential election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James
Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.
Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am
Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?
Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a Rothschild banker, he appeared
as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated
by the wealthy. Obama endorsed Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports the
neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched the wealthy wherever it is employed.
Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought
in, hired as wage slaves, the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are making
inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have lied in the past about domestic surveillance;
he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know
they did it (although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest, the most bizarre
thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you put yourself in the same category of absurdity.
TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years with no end in sight the American
public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into
supporting more guns. Econ 101 .. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?
J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which he, along with Brennan, Comey,
and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews
with Megyn Kelley and better yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President
Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.
"... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
"... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16
WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter
rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!" and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding
inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election.
Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein,
the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last
month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote,
apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.
"Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.
The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine
officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds.
The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling senior positions and increasingly
at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong feud with the government's intelligence agencies.
Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness and uncertainty, with some expressing
hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed
in each district after Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.
In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III,
the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United
States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich,
an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed at destroying" the Trump presidency.
...
graphic: How 7 Trump Associates Have Been
Linked to Russia https://nyti.ms/2sVvf23
NYT - updated June 13
American hegemony is the neoconservatives doctrine and "the Russian threat" is an insurance of MIC $1.1 trillion annual budget.
And DemoRats now are just another War party, a bunch of lobbyists with the only difference that they get less money from Israel,
and more from MIC and Wall Street (all wars are bankers wars)
Those "very serious guys" are determined to install President Pence and already succeeded in applointed a Special Prosecutor
as the milestone of this color revolution.
Poor Trump did not realized that he is trapped until it was too late.
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has
launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This
liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conveniently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow
of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate
aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink
of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the
Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding
of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary
rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the
US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
They should investigate why Comey wrote this memo is is there any conspiracy to oust President Trump...
BTW much better timing of firing Comey would be immediately after Inauguration citing the fact that
he outsourced DNC investigation to a private firm with Ukrainian ties.
The FBI won't be publicly releasing any memos that ousted FBI director James Comey wrote about
his conversations with President Donald Trump because they might interfere with an ongoing investigation.
... ... ...
"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Trump said to Russian officials
in the Oval Office the day after the firing, according to a
New York Times report . "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."
Looks like in the last Presidential elections voters faced Faustian bargain (A deal in which one focuses on present gain without
considering the long term consequences): Crazy neocon warmonger, vs. Republican variant of "bait and switch" artist Obama.
The only two candidates who were to some extent promising "in a long run" (Sanders and Rand Paul) were eliminated before the
final round.
As the result we got what we deserve as brainwashed by neoliberals and neocons lemmings. So Trump is not a problem, he is a
symptom of the much larger problem: the crisis of neoliberalism. In a way, he is punishment for our neoliberal sins.
Many people voted for Trump in a hope that he will end the neocons wars. They were deceived and now keep their heads low:
"Yes, I voted for Donald Trump. When people confront me and ask me why, I sort of shuffle off, head down, while muttering
something about how "he wasn't the war candidate."
But the current color revolution against Trump (so called Russiagate) has all signs of an intelligence operation and that's
a problem. Here is the basic scheme as I understand it:
Provoke Trump.
Use MSM to produce hysteria for this act, not matter what it is about.
Force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor either via Obama mole in Department of Justice, or via Congress.
Remove Tramp, or force him to voluntarily resign due to dirt dug by Special Prosecutor on him and his family (Bill Clinton
know this staff pretty well).
It looks like this scheme might have significant externalities:
1. First of all VP Mike Pence is not a solution; he is a part of the problem.
2. And the second the direction and a strength of the blowback for this intelligence operation is unpredictable.
"... If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller, BFF of fired FBI Director James Comey, was appointed strictly as an "independent" counsel to probe alleged "collusion" between Team Trump and the Russians – and not a plant to bring down the president – you can stop thinking that. ..."
"... The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said. ..."
"... The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates , officials said. ..."
"... It's not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, right? Oh, wait . Is it possible that this was all just a set up ? That perhaps Comey broke the law by leaking sensitive information in conversations he allegedly had with Trump – just so a special prosecutor would be named ? ..."
If you are still believing the hype from both political parties that special counsel Robert Mueller, BFF of fired FBI Director
James Comey, was appointed strictly as an "independent" counsel to probe alleged "collusion" between Team Trump and the Russians
– and not a plant to bring down the president – you can stop thinking that.
Leaks by the
Deep State to the disgusting Washington Post on Wednesday – the day Republicans were scrambling for their lives on a baseball
field in Northern Virginia – published a story claiming that Mueller is looking into obstruction of justice charges against President
Donald J. Trump.
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence
officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice,
officials said.
The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly
year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there
was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible
financial crimes among Trump associates , officials said.
[ ]
The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9 , according to people familiar
with the matter. Mueller's office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate
that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
Of course, this could all be just a coincidence , right? After all, there's nothing to the appointment of a special prosecutor
to investigate this president (again and again and again) who just happens to be a former FBI director himself
and best bud of the guy
who got fired right?
It's not like they conferred before Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, right? Oh,
wait . Is it possible that this was all just a
set up ?
That perhaps Comey broke the law by leaking sensitive information in conversations he allegedly had with Trump –
just so a special
prosecutor would be named ?
Well, call us conspiracy theorists, but yeah, it sure seems like this has all been a set up to get our president from the outset.
And now the Deep State has all the pieces in place.
If this sham is allowed to proceed, there is only one logical outcome: The finding or, actually, more correctly, the creation
of "evidence" that Trump somehow, acting in his constitutional role as head of the Executive Branch, did something improper to
someone at some point when he, you know, tried to run the Executive Branch.
Constitutional experts have been saying for weeks now there is no there, there , when it comes to obstruction. Or anything
else Trump and his administration have been accused of doing even after, as the Post reminds us, a year-long investigation
, in which hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have no doubt been expended.
But not one dollar has been expended investigating Comey's
illegal leak . Or all of the leaking – from the Justice Department, intelligence agencies and the White House. Weird, huh?
As the president has said repeatedly – and said again today – this is a "witch hunt." It's actually worse than that; this is the
Deep State's effort to take out a duly-elected president simply because they fear that he will do what he campaigned to do, drain
the nasty, infested, incestuous swamp in which they swim.
It's time to band together to support the president. He will need it in the months ahead.
Update [12:30 CST]: It should be noted that following Comey's Feb. 14 private dinner with Trump, in which the president allegedly
said (Trump has denied it) "I hope you can see your way past" the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn,
the former FBI director never reported to anyone that he believed the president was ordering him to drop the investigation
(which Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, has a constitutional right to do). Only after he was fired by Trump did Comey
turn around and then claim the president was attempting to "obstruct" him.
As to the Post story, something stinks about it. Consider that in March , Comey
told the president he wasn't under investigation again – and he would have been had their been alleged "obstruction of
justice." And yet, as the Post stated, Trump did not come under investigation for obstruction until after Comey was fired.
Finally, if Trump had actually ordered the Flynn and Russia investigation halted, it obviously wasn't halted
– and the president would have followed up on such an order to ensure the investigation was shut down. As Donald Trump Jr. notes,
when dad gives an order, there is no ambiguity; everyone knows it's an order:
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by
the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR.
Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want
to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the
U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy
of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged
to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all
the system has left."
"... "The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because it is in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business." ..."
"... The United States is a predator nation, conceived and settled as a thief, exterminator and enslaver of other peoples. The slave-based republic's phenomenal geographic expansion and economic growth were predicated on the super-exploitation of stolen African labor and the ruthless expropriation of native lands through genocidal wars, an uninterrupted history of plunder glorified in earlier times as "Manifest Destiny" and now exalted as "American exceptionalism," an inherently racist justification for international and domestic lawlessness. ..."
"... "The U.S. state demands fealty to its imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social contract among its inhabitants." ..."
"... "The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive defenders of white supremacy in history." ..."
"... in opposition to their own interests ..."
"... "Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State." ..."
"... "We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa." ..."
"... Sanders is a regime-changer, which means he thinks the U.S., in combination with self-selected allies, is above international law, i.e., "exceptional." ..."
"... According to Politico , "As late as 2002," Sanders' campaign website declared that "the defense budget should be cut by 50 percent over the next five years." But all the defense-cutting air went out of his chest after Bush invaded Iraq. Nowadays, Sanders limits himself to the usual noises about Pentagon "waste," but has no principled position against the imperial mission of the United States. "We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa, during the campaign. ..."
"... Like Paul Street said, he's an "imperialist...Democratic Party company man." ..."
"... "A Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party." ..."
"... BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected] . ..."
Leftish
Democrats insist they can reform the corporate-run, Russia-obsessed Democratic Party from the inside,
but most pay little attention to war. However, "War is not a side issue in the United States; it
is the central political issue, on which all the others turn." Some think Bernie Sanders should run
with the Peoples Party. But, "Sanders is a warmonger, not merely by association, but by
"The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because
it is in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business."
The United States is a predator nation, conceived and settled as a thief, exterminator and enslaver
of other peoples. The slave-based republic's phenomenal geographic expansion and economic growth
were predicated on the super-exploitation of stolen African labor and the ruthless expropriation
of native lands through genocidal wars, an uninterrupted history of plunder glorified in earlier
times as "Manifest Destiny" and now exalted as "American exceptionalism," an inherently racist justification
for international and domestic lawlessness.
Assembled, acre by bloody acre, as a metastasizing empire, the U.S. state demands fealty to its
imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social contract among its inhabitants – a political
culture custom-made for the rule of rich white people.
The American project has been one long war of aggression that has shaped its borders, its internal
social relations, and its global outlook and ambitions. It was founded as a consciously capitalist
state that competed with other European powers through direct absorption of captured lands, brutal
suppression of native peoples and the fantastic accumulation of capital through a diabolically efficient
system of Black chattel slavery – a 24/7 war against the slave. This system then morphed through
two stages of "Jim Crow" to become a Mass Black Incarceration State – a perpetual war of political
and physical containment against Black America.
"The U.S. state demands fealty to its imperial project as a substitute for any genuine social
contract among its inhabitants."
Since the end of World War Two, the U.S. has assumed the role of protector of the spoils of half
a millennium of European wars and occupations of the rest of the world: the organized rape of nations
that we call colonialism. The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive
defenders of white supremacy in history -- defending the accumulated advantages that colonialism
provided to western European nations, settler states (like the U.S.) and citizens -- having launched
an ongoing military offensive aimed at strangling the Chinese giant and preventing an effective Eurasian
partnership with Russia. The first phase of the offensive, the crushing of Libya in 2011, allowed
the United States to complete the effective military occupation of Africa, through AFRICOM.
The U.S. and its NATO allies already account for about 70 percent of global military spending,
but Obama and his successor, Donald Trump, demand that Europeans increase the proportion of their
economic output that goes to war. More than half of U.S. discretionary spending -- the tax money
that is not dedicated to mandated social and development programs -- goes to what Dr. Martin Luther
King 50 years ago called the "demonic, destructive suction tube" of the U.S. war machine.
"The first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama, was among the most aggressive defenders of
white supremacy in history."
The United States does not have a national health care system worthy of the name, because it is
in the war business, not the health business or the social equality business. The U.S. has the weakest
left, by far, of any industrialized country, because it has never escaped the racist, predatory dynamic
on which it was founded, which stunted and deformed any real social contract among its peoples. In
the U.S., progress is defined by global dominance of the U.S. State -- chiefly in military terms
-- rather than domestic social development. Americans only imagine that they are materially better
off than the people of other developed nations -- a fallacy they assume to be the case because of
U.S. global military dominance. More importantly, most white Americans feel racially entitled to
the spoils of U.S. dominance as part of their patrimony, even if they don't actually enjoy the fruits.
("WE made this country great.") This is by no means limited to Trump voters.
Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including
the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State: protecting "American
values," fighting "crime" and "urban disorder," and all the other euphemisms for preserving white
supremacy.
War is not a side issue in the United States; it is the central political issue, on which all
the others turn. War mania is the enemy of all social progress -- especially so, when it unites disparate
social forces, in opposition to their own interests , in the service of an imperialist state
that is the tool of a rapacious white capitalist elite. Therefore, the orchestrated propaganda blitzkrieg
against Russia by the Democratic Party, in collaboration with the corporate media and other functionaries
and properties of the U.S. ruling class, marks the party as, collectively, the Warmonger-in-Chief
political institution in the United States at this historical juncture. The Democrats are anathema
to any politics that can be described as progressive.
"Race relations in the U.S. cannot be understood outside the historical context of war, including
the constant state of race war that is a central function of the U.S. State."
Bernie Sanders is a highly valued Democrat, the party's Outreach Director and therefore, as
Paul Street writes , "the imperialist and sheep-dogging fake-socialist Democratic Party company
man that some of us on the 'hard radical' Left said he was." Sanders is a warmonger, not merely by
association, but by virtue of his own positions. He favors more sanctions against Russia, in addition
to the sanctions levied against Moscow in 2014 and 2016 for its measured response to the U.S-backed
fascist coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine. Rather than surrender to U.S.
bullying, Russia came to the military aid of the sovereign and internationally recognized government
of Syria in 2015, upsetting the U.S. game plan for an Islamic jihadist victory.
Back in April of this year, on NBC's Meet The Press, Sanders purposely
mimicked
The Godfather when asked what he would do to force the Russians "to the table" in Syria:
"I think you may want to make them an offer they can't refuse. And that means tightening the screws
on them, dealing with sanctions, telling them that we need their help, they have got to come to the
table and not maintain this horrific dictator."
Of course, it is the United States that has sabotaged every international agreement to rein in
its jihadist mercenaries in Syria.
"We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa."
Sanders is a regime-changer, which means he thinks the U.S., in combination with self-selected
allies, is above international law, i.e., "exceptional."
"We've got to work with countries around the world for a political solution to get rid of this
guy [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] and to finally bring peace and stability to this country,
which has been so decimated."
During the 2016 campaign, Sanders urged the U.S. to stop acting unilaterally in the region, but
instead to collaborate with Syria's Arab neighbors -- as if the funding and training of jihadist
fighters had not been a joint effort with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies, all along.
According to
Politico , "As late as 2002," Sanders' campaign website declared that "the defense budget should
be cut by 50 percent over the next five years." But all the defense-cutting air went out of his chest
after Bush invaded Iraq. Nowadays, Sanders limits himself to the usual noises about Pentagon "waste,"
but has no principled position against the imperial mission of the United States. "We need a strong
military, it is a dangerous world," Sanders told voters in Iowa, during the campaign.
Like Paul Street said, he's an "imperialist...Democratic Party company man."
"A Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party."
At last weekend's
People's Summit , in Chicago, National Nurses United executive director RoseAnn DeMoro endorsed
Sanders for a mission he finds impossible to accept: a run for president in 2020 on the Peoples Party
ticket. Sanders already had his chance to run as a Green, and refused. He is now the second most
important Democrat in the country, behind the ultra-corrupt Bill-Hillary Clinton machine -- and by
far the most popular. On top of that, Sanders loves being the hero of the phony left, the guy who
gimmick-seeking left-liberals hope will create an instant national party for them, making it unnecessary
to build a real anti-war, pro-people party from scratch to go heads up with the two corporate machines.
Sanders doesn't even have to exert himself to string the Peoples Party folks along; they eagerly
delude themselves. However, a Sanders-led Party would still be an imperialist, pro-war party.
The U.S. does need a social democratic party, but it must be anti-war, otherwise it commits a
fraud on social democracy. The United States is the imperial superpower, the main military aggressor
on the planet. Its rulers must be deprived of the political ability to spend trillions on war, and
to kill millions, or they will always use the "necessity" of war to enforce austerity. The "left"
domestic project will fail.
For those of us from the Black Radical Tradition, anti-imperialism is central. Solidarity with
the victims of U.S. imperialism is non-negotiable, and we can make no common cause with U.S. political
actors that treat war as a political side show, an "elective" issue that is separate from domestic
social justice. This is not just a matter of principle, but also of practical politics. "Left" imperialism
isn't just evil, it is self-defeating and stupid.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
[email protected].
@15 You mistate/misunderstood: "There was a simultaneous vote..." There was not.
S.Amdt. 232 (increase sanctions on Russia and limit Trump) was an amendment to
S. 722 (the Iranian sanctions bill).
Sanders voted for 232 because, frankly, he's all on board the Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria
and demonizing Syria. He voted against 722 for the potential damage to the multi-lateral nuclear
agreement with Iran. From his senate.gov website today:
" I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable
for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the
world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies
and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime
in Syria.
I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important
tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could
endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its
partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a
more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities,
but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
"... Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, says the conspiracy lies within the Department of Justice, which he adds is full of Obama-era holdovers who are out to get President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... mert also targeted fired FBI Director James Comey for failing to write a memo about his meeting with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in which he said she told him to treat the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter" rather than an "investigation." ..."
"... "When he said that the president lied about him and he used the L-word, Comey was lying. How do we know? Look at all of the things he said. That was ridiculous to not have done a memo, and then I heard him say he had done the memo and then he talked with some of his colleagues," the congressman said. ..."
Executive Branch: A U.S. representative from Texas is warning Americans that there most definitely is a Trump-related conspiracy
afoot, but it has nothing to do with the president's alleged "collusion" with Russia.
Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, says the conspiracy lies within the Department of Justice, which he adds is full of Obama-era
holdovers who are out to get President Donald J. Trump.
"We have a conspiracy remaining afoot in the Department of Justice that is out to destroy this president and they've got
to be fired, if not worse," Gohmert told Fox News , as
reported by The Hill .
Gohmert also targeted fired FBI Director James Comey for failing to write a memo about his meeting with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, in which he said she told him to treat the Hillary Clinton email probe as a "matter" rather than an "investigation."
During last week's Senate testimony, Comey said he kept memos of all his meetings with President Donald J. Trump. Critics like
Gohmert have said doing so with Trump but not with Obama or other Obama administration officials he interacted with at Justice suggests
political motivations rather than genuine concern.
"When he said that the president lied about him and he used the L-word, Comey was lying. How do we know? Look at all of the
things he said. That was ridiculous to not have done a memo, and then I heard him say he had done the memo and then he talked with
some of his colleagues," the congressman said.
Gohmert called for serious legal consequences for all Justice Department officials Comey talked to regarding the memos.
"We need to round up everybody he talked to, because they were all conspiring against the president," he said.
All previous Presidents, including Obama, Bush II, and Clinton, have much more serious transgressions (suppression of Hillary Clinton
investigation is one).
Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara on Sunday said he thinks there is evidence to start a case for obstruction of justice against
President Trump.
"I think there's absolutely evidence to begin a case -- I think it's very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in
the law, to be clear that no one knows right now whether there is a provable case of obstruction," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"It's also true...that there's no basis to say there's no obstruction."
Bharara also said during the interview that there is evidence from someone who is under oath that "on at least one occasion, the
president of the United States, cleared the room of his vice president and his attorney general and told his director of the FBI
that he should essentially drop the case against his former national security adviser."
"Whether or not that is impeachable or that's indictable, that's a very serious thing and I'm not sure that people fully get that
the standard is not just whether something is a crime or not," Bharara said.
"Whether or not it can be charged as a crime or Congress will impeach, it is a very serious thing."
He said there is a lot to be "frightened" and "outraged" about.
"That's an incredibly serious thing if people think that the president of the United States can tell heads of law enforcement
agencies, based on his own whim or his own personal preferences or friendships, that they should or should not pursue particular
criminal cases against individuals," he said.
"... While only five attorneys have been identified, concerns have come up over the political leanings of Quarles, Rhee and Weissmann. They have donated overwhelmingly to Democrats , totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records. Widening probe The special counsel's investigators are looking into questions of Russian interference in last year's election, and plan to speak to senior intelligence officials, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. ..."
"... Mueller is also investigating whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. ..."
"... "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history -- led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
Special counsel Robert Mueller has brought 13 lawyers on board to handle the Russia investigation, with plans to hire more, according
to his spokesman Peter Carr. Mueller has assembled a high-powered team of top investigators and leading experts, including seasoned
attorneys who've represented major American companies in court and who have worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud
scandal. Among them are James Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, both of
whom Mueller brought
over from his old firm, WilmerHale. He's also hired Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation.
"That is a great, great team of complete professionals, so let's let him do his job," former independent counsel Kenneth Starr,
who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, told ABC News. While only five attorneys have been identified,
concerns have
come up over the political leanings of Quarles, Rhee and Weissmann.
They have donated
overwhelmingly to Democrats , totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission
records. Widening probe The special counsel's investigators are looking into questions of Russian interference in last year's
election, and plan to speak to senior intelligence officials, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.
Mueller is also investigating whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice,
The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
The Post reported that the interviews represent a widening of the probe to include looking into whether the President obstructed
justice in suggesting to his former FBI Director James Comey that Comey drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump's former
national security adviser, as well as for his firing of Comey.
Mueller's investigators have asked for information and will talk to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security
Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers, according to a source, who said they have also sought information from recently retired NSA Deputy
Director Richard Ledgett.
Coats and Rogers have testified that they were not pressured by the Trump administration.
'Phony' story
Law enforcement
sources tell CNN that the special counsel is gathering information and considering whether there is evidence to launch a full-scale
obstruction investigation.
Hill Russia
investigators plow forward, Mueller meetings on horizon Trump, however, referred to the Post's reporting as a "phony" story in
a tweet Thursday. "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story.
In another tweet, Trump called it "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history -- led by some very
bad and conflicted people!" A spokesman for the office of the special counsel declined to comment, and so did a representative for
the director of National Intelligence. In a statement, the National Security Agency said it "will fully cooperate with the special
counsel," but declined to comment further.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Trump's outside attorney, Marc Kasowitz, slammed the Post's
reporting. "The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," he said.
"... It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets. ..."
A lot of the debate by the MSM focuses on the careerist power struggle of elites at the top.
That is not what brought Trump to power, nor is ideological purity of any kind the reason, although
college students at elite universities may be motivated by ideology.
Many people who voted for Trump said they had not bothered to vote since Perot. That was the
last time serious economic issues were addressed head-on. There were many cross-over voters in
the Rust Belt and elsewhere, voting for Trump because their party, when not focused on one more
layer of welfare/taxfare for single moms, focuses on racism, sexism and xenophobia.....
....in a "racist" era with a twice-elected Black president, where many government agencies
have 80% Black staff and managers
.....in a "sexist"' era where more than half of the MDs are women, as are half of the managers,
in general, when wealth has never been more concentrated due to assortative mating
....in a "xenophobic" era, where even illegal immigrants are treated much better than millions
of citizens, leading to $113 billion per year in welfare/taxfare expenditures for the illegal
immigrants alone, not counting all of the freebies for 1 million legal immigrants admitted per
year, particularly for those who reproduce
As I said in response to another article I've been off on a kick of reading about the American
unCivil War. The heated rhetoric led up to violence far before either "side" was ready. It proved
to be a messy disaster. Very few thought ahead far enough to even have their own families survive
it. Be very careful of what you wish for. John Michael Greer's "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and
"Retrotopia" should give us serious pause for thought. Our just in time grocery supply system
would fail, fuel delivery from the few states with refineries would crawl and with all those nuclear
power plants needing constant baby sitting everybody needs to settle down and really think this
mess out. Inter US civil divisions would need careful and peaceful negotiations.
The messaging Henninger identifies was rampant for eight years of Obama ("Get in their faces!"
and the Chicago Way--"They bring a knife, you bring a gun.") Social media is/was no different.
Remember the Rodeo Clown wearing an Obama mask who was summarily fired. Any critique of Obama
was automatically racist. I could go on and on with examples. The Left never policed its own,
was constantly on-guard against the Right, with enforcement of political correctness job #1.
The ankle-biting mainstream media is part and parcel the opposition and the resistence--and
the Establishment Republicans at the WSJ are just now noticing?? Someone alert Captain Renault...
In reality no intelligent plans have been written or are moving through the halls of Congress.
It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least
resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world
are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the
Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets.
But, But, ... that sounds like RINOs, DINOs, NeoCons, Neoliberals, those that think Economics
is a Hard Science... Sounds like Propaganda by the Most Powerful Corporations and Family Dynasties...
"Political Disorder Syndrome - "Refusal To Reason Is The New Normal"
PDS - won't get traction since TPTB have to approve of this kind of thing!
- Borders Are Destroyed to Attack the US Labor Rate (Deserved or Undeserved) - Globalism, CAFTA,
NAFTA, Fast-Track by Bill Clinton, deployed to destroy US Labor Rate & US Jobs & US Middle Class
= PROOF that Democrats are Treasonous, are working against the Worker (Either Communist Worker
or Other worker) - US National Security is destroyed by the cost of MIC, $1 Trillion Annually
- US Constitutional Republic is Destroyed, replaced by Globalism Ideology & Propaganda Deep Program
to hide this Fact from Middle Class, from Workers, from Job Losers, from Voters, from Students,
from Youth who will not see the entry level jobs...
IT IS A REAL MESS, Propaganda is the name of the Problem! We all know the history of Propaganda.
We know that Hillary Clinton engaged in an INFO-War long, long ago. 1971 William Renquist Memo
pointed out to Republicans that they must gear up for Foundations to fight Democrats who were
much stronger in Political Organizations at this time.
I think main street has been extremely patient. I think after three decades of being slowly
and consistently shit on though, enough is enough, and they are starting to lose it.
"... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
"... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
"... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
"... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
"... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
"... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
"... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
"... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
"... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
"... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
"... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
"... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
"... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
"... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
"... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
"... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
"... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
"... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
"... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
"... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
"... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
"... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
"... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
"... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
"... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
"... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
"... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
"... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
"... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
"... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
"... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
"The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants,
his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can
claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the
most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed
to a military confrontation with Russia."
- Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site
Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government,
treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In
fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.
Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that
Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:
"Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed
with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't
personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case
on him," Comey said." (Politico)
So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with
Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1?
His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the
2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political
elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not
guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.
What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know
that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue
when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind
or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?
Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey,
Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out."
But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?
Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence
Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia
probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."
A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours
of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?
Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over
Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia
to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce
the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before,
it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much
damage as possible on Trump and his administration.
Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?
It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started
recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in
his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the
goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes
of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."
Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the
elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as
possible on the target of a political smear campaign.
Isn't that what Comey was really up to?
Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?
"There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some
facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in
dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration
during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and
indefinite detention.
On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous
memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of
the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the
new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.
In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other
forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless
wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director",
ACLU)
Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including)
torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and
honor?
It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.
Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he
did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton?
In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?
I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager
to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just
protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?
In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation
with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about
that for a minute. Here's what he said:
"My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine
to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons,
but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel
, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."
Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined
political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective
from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old'
Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into
anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed
at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't
work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it
took.
In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink
slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired
gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off
to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together
his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.
Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.
Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey
to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump
said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.
I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this
type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged
that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if
there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that
out."
Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly
murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan
Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:
"The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the
legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime
by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even
a strong - case for obstruction.
It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate.
However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .
The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The
mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction.
.
It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If
prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or
conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal
cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors
could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.
We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump."
("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald
Trump", USA Today)
The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around
and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records,
bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial
tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches
onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit,
and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should
be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied
until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.
But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?
Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been
deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted
to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment.
Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably
the way this will end.
Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him
to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump.
But it doesn't work.
So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?
Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid
that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon,
firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)
A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political
assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the
appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
How's that for symetry!
Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire
Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful
and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be
fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.
Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven
[ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed
the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump
a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations
with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of
course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire
argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone
with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials.
The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does
not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used
a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving
leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary
by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]
Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and
insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to
launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.
Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering
foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.
Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the
President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.
But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?
Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my
view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country.
At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?
I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that
existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would
become more important than across the Atlantic.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his
betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor
or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would
be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand
Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday
Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.
The endless investigations
can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They
would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump
should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven,
too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to
a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies
down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.
This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.
Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia.
It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign
will of the American People.
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied
us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this
" Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous
criminality.
On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started
seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.
The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous,
defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.
@Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey
was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.
Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can
still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he
hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel
was appointed on false pretext.
Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members
of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote
for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must
go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..
Why should Trump hire his own executioner?
Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing?
Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation.
Why wasn't there an investigation?
Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame
him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.
Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed
to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man
whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein
and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.
If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR
OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
A little discouraged.
Don' t think the swamp is drainable.
Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances.
Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about
swamp.
Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done.
Trump underestimated deep state.
They ARE in charge.
What will the people do ?
Become more apathetic?
Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging.
Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens.
Can't go on as is.
The death by a thousand cuts.
In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey,
Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so,
and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime
associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an
effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults
are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.
I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons
I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha
Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement
made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer
due process in the yankee imperium.
The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged
was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about
what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish
this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break
with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the
Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again,
not a sell-out like Sanders.
Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump.
However, they better start getting on board with him.
They are tied together, whether they like it or not.
what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats
yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail
ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence,
adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the
99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's
puppet masters pulling the strings
IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid
apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign
to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire
is maddening
.
don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct
assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms
of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
.
i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider
that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't
like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
.
come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards
think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
(hint: NOT the libtard side )
"Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's
all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step
in"
The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn
enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially
jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the
electorate position?
I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their
hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of
their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the
great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion
or blackmail scenario.
We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein
(that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab)
and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the
jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky
soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.
Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt.
Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress.
Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming
them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or
Washington establishment for protection."
He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI.
etc etc.
Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.
Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason
he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there
they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.
@Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements
and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor.
Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.
I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone
is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good
choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes
breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended
up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging
and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.
@Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics
of the set-up with laser-like precision.
We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional
order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but
I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate
of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade"
deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia,
implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State
require to set a soft coup into motion?
Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported
and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on
day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted
to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone
under the guise of openness.
Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit.
Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the
case, out of fear and not allegiance.
Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him
into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to
do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly
from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said
anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely
political.
They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go,
but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection
of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always
open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would
prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would
look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment
line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can
doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on
his opponents..
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
@Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct
targets.)
Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a
much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of
Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.
As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we
got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's
have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve
it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come
out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc.
Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)
JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed
the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K
mark.
"..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all
back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "
YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the
murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.
That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who
recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs
to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumè that him suspect.
WaPo rumor mills (aka fake news). In case this Russiagate color revolution fails, Bezos
should be tried for sedition: "Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly". So some anonymous
officials leak information and WaPo published it without verified if it is true of an attempt to
damage Trump. That's sedition.
As of obstruction of justice and financial crimes: this is a no brainer path to impeachment (you
can always find obstruction of justice if you look closely; to say nothing about financial
machinations on Trump level), as Russian hacks are propaganda and everybody understand this.
This might be CrowdStrike hacks to conceal leaks, Ukrainian hacks, whatever. The fact that FBI
was pressed to "outsource" investigation to CrowdStrike suggests the former.
What is unclear is what DemoRats and neocons wins with President Pence. Trump already folded to
their demands and there is a distinct continuation of the US foreign policy. But backlash to
this coup d'état (or color revolution to be correct) might be unpredictable.
Notable quotes:
"... The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's own conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said. ..."
"... Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions. ..."
"... The obstruction of justice investigation into the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has now taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government. ..."
"... The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted obstruction of justice question as more than just a "he said, he said" dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said. ..."
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
The Washington Post Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz
The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing
senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether
President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.
The move by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's own conduct marks a major
turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling
during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign
and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes
among Trump associates, officials said.
Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January
that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey's
firing.
Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence,
Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers' recently departed deputy, Richard
Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller's investigators as early as this week. The investigation
has been cloaked in secrecy and it's unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.
The NSA said in statement that it will "fully cooperate with the special counsel," and declined
to comment further. The office of Director of National Intelligence and Ledgett declined to comment.
The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump's personal lawyer,
Marc Kasowitz. "The FBI leak of information regarding the President is outrageous, inexcusable and
illegal," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.
The officials said Coats, Rogers and Ledgett would appear voluntarily, though it remains unclear
whether they will describe in full their conversations with Trump and other top officials, or will
be directed by the White House to invoke executive privilege. It is doubtful the White House could
ultimately use executive privilege to try to block them from speaking to Mueller's investigators.
Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot
use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions.
The obstruction of justice investigation into the president began days after Comey was fired on
May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has now taken up that work,
and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate his team is actively
pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.
The interviews suggest Mueller sees the attempted obstruction of justice question as more than
just a "he said, he said" dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.
Probing the president for possible crimes is a complicated affair, even if convincing evidence
of a crime is found. The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict
a sitting president. Instead, experts say the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of
criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.
"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's
actions amounted to obstruction of justice."
Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color
revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate
or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using
this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.
Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge
which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result.
The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his
son-in-law deals.
In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival,
by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. Which probably is OK for neocons because
war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the
US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.
BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a
head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office
of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now
reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering
independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.
Headquarters : Washington, D.C.
Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence
matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.
This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt
to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible
digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid
Hillary hacks for the job ;-).
But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the
new level?
Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about
civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably
guessed right:
"The event was a political fraud from beginning to end. The basic thread running through all of
the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party-a party of Wall
Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a "people's party."
LOL!!! Totally spot the F on!!!!!
"Sanders lent his support to the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the Democrats and the military-intelligence
apparatus, which sees Russia as the chief obstacle to US imperialism's drive for regime change
in Syria and Iran. "I find it strange we have a president who is more comfortable with autocrats
and authoritarians than leaders of democratic nations," Sanders said. "Why is he enamored with
Putin, a man who has suppressed democracy and destabilized democracies around the world, including
our own?"
Sanders?? No fool like an old fool and tool of TPTB
Oh, I doubt he's a fool; the creed of the western political class is recognition of its own and
their interests over the interests of the majority. It is technically true that Putin is destabilizing
governments around the world – 'democracies', if you will – but it would presuppose that western
leaders are his accomplices. Because it is through them and their crackdowns and restrictions
and surveillance, which they say they must introduce for our own protection (because, you know,
freedom isn't free) that discontent and destabilization are born.
Reply
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
"... "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access." ..."
"... "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" ..."
"... "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016." ..."
"... Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia." ..."
"... Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents. ..."
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the
President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate
of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware
that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY:"In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct
access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR:"Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY:"It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had
gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn
Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence
community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief
the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from
Consortium News .
"... So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials. ..."
"... But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission. ..."
"... So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état. ..."
"... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. ..."
"... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
"... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. ..."
"... Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
""I did not have communications with the Russians," Mr. Sessions said in response to a question no one asked - and despite the
fact that he had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, at least twice during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The omission raised questions not only about his honesty, but also about why he would not disclose those meetings in the first
place."
That's neo-McCarthyism plain and simple. Congradulations! We got it. Now we need to fire all Russian sympathizers from the
government service, assuming that they exist. A very nice 17th century witch-hunt.
The only thing we do not have is resurrected Senator McCarthy (McCain is not good enough -- he does not drink).
So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should
be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials.
That means that the joke that Russia Foreign Ministry played on April 1 (Google it) about ordering Russian diplomat contact
for your political opponent proved to be true.
But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false
flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in
best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission.
And I am now not surprised that nobody investigated Comey for outsourcing (or forced to outsource by threats) the
"DNC hack" investigation to the very questionable firm with strong Ukrainian connections. Which might well be hired to perform
the hack and blame it on Russian to hide Seth Rich story.
If Trump would not be such an idiot, he would site this as a reason of firing Comey (gross unprofessionalism and criminal negligence)
and the level of fear in Clinton Mafia after that might help him to survive.
The truth is that FBI never has any access to DNC computers. None. Unlike in case of Hillary emailgate, they never were in
possession of actual hardware. And they never explored Ukrainian connection, so to speak. They took all results from CrowdStrike
investigation at face value.
So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt
to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état.
The fighting against Russiagate is about the defense of remnants of Democracy in the USA.
Regurgitation of MSM stories, like Fred is doing, does not add much value to this blog. It is essentially a propaganda exercise.
If your urge to share them is too strong, as Mr.Bill mentioned a simple link would be enough (actually the desire to read on this
topic NYT might be considered as an early sign of dementia, or Alzheimer)
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence
of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had
to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I
am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the
short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought
processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also
get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians,
so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot.
Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion
of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint
on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
Before I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm
hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its
conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its
analysis into question upon further inspection.
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "
Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the
White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process.
It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking
the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content
of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that
is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services
(RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does,
that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to
find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to
the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that
the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith
in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own
analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC
hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers
but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck
an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what
it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting
that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming
to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly
considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled,
Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S.
cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential
election.
The
CrowdStrike report, released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed
any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses
and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to
link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder
Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.
How is this not the biggest story in America right now?
Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company's report
"delusional"
in a Facebook
post . CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially
were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike
misinterpreted their data and hadn't reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.
In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.
"The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong
solely to the report's authors," the IISS said. "The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian
D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a
conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate."
In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses
from the ongoing fighting with separatists are "several times smaller than the number reported by
[CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause" of Russian hacking.
But Ukraine's denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike's report. Its release was widely
covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic
campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group-Fancy Bear-and
versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.
"The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel
in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling," Alperovitch said
in a
December 22 story by The Washington Post .
The same day,
Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour : "And when you think about, well, who would be interested
in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic
Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that
would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."
Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center
in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights:
Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was
the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left
CrowdStrike last year.
CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA's written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch
canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA's Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman
Ilina Dimitrova defended the company's conclusions.
In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar
with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed
Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike's conclusions.
The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.
If the company's analysis was "delusional" when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence
that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?
"... Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. ..."
"... He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn, The Hill]. ..."
"... Inside baseball thing here about the rules and regulations about official notes to the file. In FDA the rules on note taking are under 21 CFR (code of federal regulation) 10.70 and I am sure they would be the same for any other Federal agency OR even much more strict in the DoJ BECAUSE it is just common sense that the other person gets to see if what you have written is correct. Indeed, I have always thought the idea that FBI notes should be accorded some special deference because FBI note takers are better or more honest is JUST ABSURD. Sorry for the rant ..."
"Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard
operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president.
Their "revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight.
He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would
have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark
Penn, The Hill].
One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with perceptive,
well-reasoned arguments.
==================================================== Inside baseball thing here about the rules and regulations about official notes to the file. In FDA the rules on note taking
are under 21 CFR (code of federal regulation) 10.70 and I am sure they would be the same for any other Federal agency OR even
much more strict in the DoJ BECAUSE it is just common sense that the other person gets to see if what you have written is correct.
Indeed, I have always thought the idea that FBI notes should be accorded some special deference because FBI note takers are better
or more honest is JUST ABSURD. Sorry for the rant
21 CFR Sec. 10.70 Documentation of significant decisions in administrative file.
(a) This section applies to every significant FDA decision on any matter under the laws administered by the Commissioner, whether
it is raised formally, for example, by a petition or informally, for example, by correspondence.
(b) FDA employees responsible for handling a matter are responsible for insuring the completeness of the administrative file
relating to it. The file must contain:
(1) Appropriate documentation of the basis for the decision, including relevant evaluations, reviews, memoranda, letters, opinions
of consultants, minutes of meetings, and other pertinent written documents; and
(2) The recommendations and decisions of individual employees, including supervisory personnel, responsible for handling the
matter.
(i) The recommendations and decisions are to reveal significant controversies or differences of opinion and their resolution.
(ii) An agency employee working on a matter and, consistent with the prompt completion of other assignments, an agency employee
who has worked on a matter may record individual views on that matter in a written memorandum, which is to be placed in the file.
(c) A written document placed in an administrative file must:
(1) Relate to the factual, scientific, legal or related issues under consideration;
(2) Be dated and signed by the author;
(3) Be directed to the file, to appropriate supervisory personnel, and to other appropriate employees, and show all persons
to whom copies were sent;
(5) If it records the views, analyses, recommendations, or decisions of an agency employee in addition to the author, be given
to the other employees ; and
(6) Once completed (i.e., typed in final form, dated, and signed) not be altered or removed. Later additions to or revisions
of the document must be made in a new document.
(d) Memoranda or other documents that are prepared by agency employees and are not in the administrative file have no status
or effect.
(e) FDA employees working on a matter have access to the administrative file on that matter, as appropriate for the conduct
of their work. FDA employees who have worked on a matter have access to the administrative file on that matter so long as attention
to their assignments is not impeded. Reasonable restrictions may be placed upon access to assure proper cataloging and storage
of documents, the availability of the file to others, and the completeness of the file for review.
==========================================
For example, I now HAVE IN MY HAND, a written list from Lambert saying he will send me 205 cases of beer, and good Russian
beer, not Budweiser. I wrote it – it MUST be true!!!! SHOW ME THE BEER!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating
procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. Their
"revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight. He did not inform his superiors after any of
the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him
and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn,
The Hill]. One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with
perceptive, well-reasoned arguments.
"Amid Comey chaos, lessons from the history of America's secret police" [DigiBoston].
Worth noting that the FBI wasn't always iconic for liberals.
"Why Chris Ruddy floated the idea of firing Bob Mueller" [Chris Cillizza,
CNN]. "My (educated)
guess is that during his visit to the White House on Monday, Ruddy heard that Trump was considering firing Mueller. Ruddy thought,
rightly, that doing so would be an absolutely terrible political move. Rather than calling the President to tell him that, Ruddy
took to a medium where he knew Trump would listen: TV. We know from the 2016 campaign that Trump's advisers and friends would use
cable television appearances to send messages to Trump that he was simply not hearing in private conversations."
"Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known" [Bloomberg].
"Special counsel team members donated to Dems, FEC records show" [CNN]
.
"... Looks like Clinton mafia is playing va bank. May be because Clinton's desperate need to maintain their profile because they badly need the money to sustain their "shadow party" infrastructure. ..."
"... But if Russiagate proved to be false those who supported they all can be tried by Trump administration for sedition. ..."
"... Don't be so naïve. Russiagate is a color revolution. If it fails, those who tried to launch this color revolution should be tried for sedition. ..."
If the above happened Trump would have his defenders in his Party. They will be voted out of office
for their perfidy by voters and be forgotten if history is a guide.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty they may face consequences.
Looks like Clinton mafia is playing va bank. May be because Clinton's desperate need to maintain their profile because they badly need the
money to sustain their "shadow party" infrastructure.
And because "the Clinton clan" (people who financially depend on the Clintons) is so numerous
(Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants), that they form their own ecosystem.
But if Russiagate proved to be false those who supported they all can be tried by Trump administration
for sedition.
Trump refused to pursue "emailgate" (which was a blunder), but now I think he will not allow
Hillary to get off the hook.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection
against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement
of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority.
Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against
the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages
in or promotes the interests of sedition.
"I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump
treason snipe-hunt comes up empty they may face consequences."
What are you talking about? The Russia/Trump connection has been made just not to the level of treason or Impeachment,
yet, and it may not rise to that level.
However, the Trump directed WH cover-up of Russian Election involvement has risen to the level
of Obstruction of Justice and only time will tell if the Republicans in Congress will Impeach
Trump and the Senate Convict. Geez, pay attention, get your facts ordered and don't make leaps of nonsense about DEMs doing
their jobs as the Loyal Opposition since the GOP Leadership refuses to do its job to protect the
nation, its people, and the US Constitution.
Forget RussiaGate for the moment. Forget James Comey's upcoming testimony before the Senate
intelligence committee. Forget all the conspiratorial speculation that Donald Trump is the
plaything of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In strictly foreign policy terms, Trump's election is not really working out so well for
the Kremlin. The sanctions against Russia are still in place, and Congress wants to make them
even more punitive. Nikki Haley is lambasting Putin and his policies from her perch at the
United Nations. Various investigations into the compromising ties of the Trump team represent
a significant speed bump in the administration's efforts to restart relations with Russia.
"... I feel utterly betrayed and conned by Barack Obama. He looked, talked and exuded kind, "humanness". But he was a fraud that STILL evades the grok of huge parts of the World population. People generally find it difficult to accept that this beautiful man (Obama) with the beautiful family, is a tyrannical bastard.(Remember NYT's, Uncle Joe Stalin?). ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, refreshingly (IMO), and bravely, is obviously a crazed maniac. Many noticed her authentic self during the campaign. Now that she is increasingly free to express her inner life, I expect people on both sides of the political divide (The Ups, AND the Downs) to wake up and smell the coffee. We are being lied to about almost everything, and it is not inadvertent. ..."
I believe that Hillary Clinton IS being, and broadcasting her authentic self. I support her
100% in this . I am not being snide. The curtains are being pulled aside on The Incompetent, Wizards
of Oz (The Corrupt Over-class). Hillary C will be remembered as the Foolish Wizard who could not
keep her curtain drawn! We got a glimpse into the innards of the Heath Robinson, Control Booth,
Political Contraption. (George Soros playing with himself!)
I feel utterly betrayed and conned by Barack Obama. He looked, talked and exuded kind,
"humanness". But he was a fraud that STILL evades the grok of huge parts of the World population.
People generally find it difficult to accept that this beautiful man (Obama) with the beautiful
family, is a tyrannical bastard.(Remember NYT's, Uncle Joe Stalin?).
Hillary Clinton, refreshingly (IMO), and bravely, is obviously a crazed maniac. Many noticed
her authentic self during the campaign. Now that she is increasingly free to express her inner
life, I expect people on both sides of the political divide (The Ups, AND the Downs) to wake up
and smell the coffee. We are being lied to about almost everything, and it is not inadvertent.
Clarky90 said, " We are being lied to about almost everything, and it is not inadvertent."
Exactly!
And the only solace I have from the Trump show is that the curtains will be pulled back completely
to expose the puppeteers of this charade they call a democracy.
Which should make it much easier to generate authentic opposition, doncha think? Trump was
The Great Reveal, next up is The Great Reveal for Dems: that they too love War and Billionaire
Corporo-Fascism
"Everybody Needs to Stop Telling Hillary Clinton to Shut Up"
Throughout the campaign, culminating in the mindbogglingly stupid "deplorables" remark, Clinton's
contempt for anyone who questioned her was clear. Her post election tour brings more of the same.
So yeah, people are sick of hearing it, and have every right to say so.
Three Takeaways From Bernie Sanders' Speech At The
People's Summit
"He may not be the leader of the free
world, but to the 4,000 activists gathered at The
People's Summit in Chicago, Sen. Bernie Sanders reigns
supreme.
The former presidential candidate and senator from Vermont headlined the progressive activist
conference Saturday night, drawing whoops, hollers, and standing ovations from the crowd that fought
alongside him on the road to the White House. Sanders' new calling: turning the 'resistance' movement
into action in the face of a president he's called a "fraud."
Sanders took aim at President Trump, the Democratic Party, and the outsized role of corporations
in American politics, hitting the major themes from his campaign stump speech and introducing some
new ones.
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S.
attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over
"tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved
from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but
Russians, Iranians and others operate.
In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on
opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise
under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something
awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay
the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.
The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued "
Human Slaughterhouse:
Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government
executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons
incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack
on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though
neither of them is credible.
[3]
Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is
based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent
of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse
. See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research,
May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306
.)
The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably
negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based
on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of
others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,
Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017),
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA
officer Philip Giraldi);
Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's
Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/
(The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf
and the second, an addendum to the first, is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view
);
aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/
. (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the
[UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their
claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and
more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html
.").
It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued,
the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.
Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were
hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election.
It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last
election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know
pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking
and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play
to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then
explained the difference between leaking and hacking.
[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/
.
There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern
and William Binney observed:
The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha"
moment, as President
Donald Trump said he had fired
FBI Director
James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up
story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others
looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with
Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on
no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually
claim to find, in light of this:
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the
agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look
like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example.
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA.
Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls
the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents
required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that
amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState
has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for
'proving' the Russians hacked."
[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.
The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times
carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad
government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered
political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs
in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior
to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after
meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan
capital.
I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate
insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect,
in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage
in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment,
would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:
"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were
not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for
one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,'
he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall
and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a
crematorium,' he said."
Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and
I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise,
took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:
"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May
23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign
ally, into backing away from him."
Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on
the Hudson typically takes.
[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily
Fox News program:]
"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon.
The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more
consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which
we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests
on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."
Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian
diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr.
Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic
eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian
president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:
Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon
in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning
language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy
and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height
of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by
Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media
voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices
fresher, more diverse and more agile.
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears
at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .
I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best
to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia.
This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries
of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which
can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition
and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective,
form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.
In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign
policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which
the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful
combination:
"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually,
by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of
gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent
even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting
their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley
Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the
escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance
to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns,
stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have
posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!
Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971
and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been
a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation,
and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been
a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was
posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY
.
What if "more public participation" can't save American
democracy?
It's time to make peace with reality and develop a new
plan.
Updated by Lee Drutman Jun 9, 2017, 12:00pm EDT
American democracy is in a downward spiral. Well, really
two downward spirals.
The first is the downward spiral of bipolar partisanship,
in which both sides increasingly demonize each other as the
enemy, and refuse to compromise and cooperate - an escalating
arms race that is now going beyond mere gridlock and
threatening basic democratic norms.
The second is the downward spiral of distrust between
citizens and elites, in which citizens treat "corrupt" and
"establishment" as interchangeable terms. The public
consensus is that politicians are self-serving, not to be
trusted. In this logic, only more public participation can
make politicians serve the people.
"... Sadly the Cheneyite rot is so deep at this point that we'll simply have to ride it out . . . Svechin wrote about the corrupting influence of a political elite overwhelmed by its own decadence and delusions that it confuses its own interests with those of the country that it rules ..."
The fault line in American politics is no longer
Republican vs. Democrat nor conservative vs. liberal but establishment vs.
anti-establishment. This is an inevitable result of serial failure in establishment
policies. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the establishment's repeated
military interventions abroad in wars against non-state opponents. When such
interventions fail in one place-first Somalia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Libya,
now Syria-it does the same thing again somewhere else, with the same result.
Why has the establishment allowed itself to be trapped in
serial failure? Once we understand how it works, the answer is plain: it cannot do
otherwise. On Capitol Hill, the legalization of bribery-"campaign contributions"-means
money rules. That puts business as usual in the driver's seat because that is where the
money is. If a member of Congress backs, say, the F-35 fighter/bomber, he can count on
campaign contributions from its manufacturers and jobs for his state or district. (The
Pentagon calls that "strategic contracting.") If instead he calls for reforming our
military so it can perform better in Fourth Generation wars, where fighter/bombers are
useless, there's no money.
My long-time colleague Paul Weyrich and I both began our
Washington careers as Senate staff, Paul in the late 1960s and me in 1973. Shortly
before his death in 2008, I said to him, "When we arrived on the Hill, at least half the
members of the Senate thought their job had something to do with governing the country.
Now that figure is at most 10 percent. All the rest think about is having a successful
career as a professional politician and retiring very, very rich." Paul agreed.
Just as money locks in current policy, so does ideology.
To be a member of the establishment you must spout the ideology of "democratic
capitalism," the notion that America can and should remake the rest of the world in its
own image. Other peoples see this, rightly, as an attempt to ram the Brave New World
down their throats. Many are willing to fight to prevent it. But if a member of the
Washington establishment dares question the ideology and suggests a policy based on
realism, he immediately loses his establishment membership.
Over breakfast in Denver several years ago I said to my
old boss, Sen. Gary Hart, "If you are a member of the establishment and you suggest more
than five degrees rudder change in anything, you cease to be a member of the
establishment." He replied, "I'm exhibit A."
Below these factors lies the establishment's bedrock. It
is composed overwhelmingly of people who want to be something, not people who want to do
something. They have devoted their lives to becoming members of the establishment and
enjoying the many privileges thereof. They are not likely to endanger club membership by
breaking its rules. Beyond following money and adhering to its ideology, the rules are
three.
The first is, don't worry about serial failure. Within
the Beltway, the failure of national policies is not important. Career success depends
on serving interests and pleasing courtiers above you, not making things work in flyover
land. As in 17th-century Spain, the court is dominated by interests that prosper by
feeding off the country's decay.
Second, rely on the establishment's wealth and power to insulate its
members from the consequences of policy failure. The public schools are wretched, but
the establishment's children go to private schools. We lose wars, but the generals who
lose them get promoted. The F-35 is a horrible fighter, but no member of the
establishment will have to fly it. So long as the money keeps flowing, all is well.
Third and most important, the only thing that really
matters is remaining a member of the establishment. This completes the loop in what is a
classic closed system, where the outside world does not matter and is not allowed to
intrude. Col. John Boyd, America's greatest military theorist, said that all closed
systems collapse. The Washington establishment cannot adjust, it cannot adapt, it cannot
learn. It cannot escape serial failure.
The public is catching on to all this and, on both sides
of the political spectrum, turning to anti-establishment candidates. If we are
fortunate, some will win. If the establishment manipulates the rules to hold on to power
indefinitely, when it collapses it may take the state with it.
Paul Weyrich is still an inspiration, as Bill recounts here. He tried to make
that ninety percent do the right thing, appealing to their better natures but
threatening their heart's desires. It was, and is, a constant battle.
As for
the closed system – the only way to drain DC's Bipartisan Hot Tub is from the
outside. That's where the plug is – no one on the inside can reach it, and none
there really wants to.
"To be a member of the establishment you must spout the ideology of "democratic
capitalism," the notion that America can and should remake the rest of the
world in its own image."
They may spout it, but they don't believe it and
they don't act on it. They have learned the lesson of Iraq. Here's Donald
Rumsfeld in 2015, with the advantage of hindsight: "I'm not one who thinks that
our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at
every moment of their histories. The idea that we could fashion a democracy in
Iraq seemed to me unrealistic."
The establishment cheerfully tolerates and supports Saudi Arabia's regime.
No one in the establishment thinks it wise to press for democracy in any
serious way. Ditto for Egypt, where our aid violates US law under any fair
reading.
"If the establishment manipulates the rules to hold on to power indefinitely,
when it collapses it may take the state with it."
___________________________
I agree but, as Friar Laurence in Romeo and
Juliet says, "I spy a kind of hope". I believe a tipping point in our political
culture was reached in 2008 when the electorate chose a young and inexperienced
black man with a VERY scary name over a mainstream war hero and did so by a
wide margin. I expect Bernie to be nominated and then win by margins that make
BHO's victory look close.
Great article. It's long been apparent that the "establishment" seems oblivious
to the consequences of their wasteful and foolish policies, but when you point
out the foolishness has no (immediate) consequences for them, and even a
positive impact on their careers, it all makes sense. Long term, though, it's a
sure descent into the abyss for all of us. Of course, the "little people" are
falling first and faster, so the elites no doubt are calculating they'll land
on top of us so we'll cushion their landing.
As depressing the picture painted here may be, I actually think it's
optimistic.
To be a member of the establishment you must spout the
ideology of "democratic capitalism," the notion that America can and should
remake the rest of the world in its own image.
Now, could someone explain to me how Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, or Iraq are
now more conformant to some American ideal? I believe the truth is much worse
than giant corporations having interest in perpetual wars: The establishment
has become a vast network of private rackets that uses the American military &
economic might as the ultimate extortion tool. Just ask the two worst
secretaries of state in history posing (and seeking cover) as ultra-feminists.
It was under Mad Albright's tenure that the US started to support (and bomb
on behalf of) the shadiest of the terrorist figures in Kosovo, accused by
several UN personnel of butchering Serbian and (traitor) Albanian prisoners to
harvest organs for trade. You can't make this stuff up, it's beyond horrific.
And, surprise, madam secretary leaves her post to turn into a hedge fund
manager with investments and interests in the region. Payback for help, anyone?
Who wouldn't want to harness the US Air force for its private goals? And would
anybody be surprised if HRC took this model one step beyond to make payments to
the Clinton Foundation pretty concurrent with the "services" provided by the
State Department? And how is this different (other than organ trafficking) from
our senators and congressmen retiring vastly richer than when they went into
politics? Just where did that money come from?
In summary, it's NOT just evil corporations, it's the vastly concentrated
power of an out of control and overreaching government. Once you have that, you
are bound to have individuals and networks trying to harness that power for
their private purposes. So yes, let's clean up political financing, but let's
also go back to the idea of limited government. And stay vigilant to keep it
limited, because, you always end up in trouble otherwise.
Lame article, sorry. Bill Lind seems unable to understand what strategic theory
is. Still attempting to make his reified 4GW notions into reality. John Boyd
"America's greatest military theorist"? Ok, E-M theory of aerial combat is
significant, but that is mathematics-based and has to do with aircraft design
(quite limited really) which is not strategic theory at all, is it? But
confusion among US (a)strategic thinkers is the norm and has been for some time
. . . interests cloud their little heads . . . But then Dick Cheney is Boyd's
greatest follower . . . so . . . follow the leader . . .
After reading
Jeffrey Sach's blog post . . . I asked myself "why did I waste my time on this"
. . .
Given the realities of the 2-party system, with the neocons dominating GOP
foreign policy and liberal interventionists controlling the Democratic side,
it's not hard to see how this total lack of accountability has persisted for so
long. Hopefully, the pushback that the establishment candidates of both parties
are experiencing from the voters will have its effect on national policy – if
not in this election cycle, perhaps in the next one.
Well put, JohnG. The system is thoroughly corrupt and given the divisions
within American society may well be beyond repair. If so, we are doomed. Maybe
the HRC email controversy will expose not only her personal corruption but that
of the whole system, though I wouldn't bet on it. She may only be the tip of
the iceberg and as such only the worst of a bad lot whose numbers are legion.
The LAST thing the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex want is for ANY
War to end, as it cut off their justication for a bloated military budget that
continues to enriched them and their cronies for God know how long.
"Lame article, sorry. Bill Lind seems unable to understand what strategic
theory is. Still attempting to make his reified 4GW notions into reality."
From my perspective Bill Lind's 4th Generation War explanation for the long
string of US defeats by non-state opponents matches up well with the facts.
To be sure, our taking seriously Lind's "4GW notions" would necessarily lead
to (1) a different US foreign policy and (2) a radically scaled-back flow of
money to the shadow military-industrial state and their hired politicians.
So might it be, seydlitz89, that your discomfort is less with Lind's "4GW
notions" than it is with (1) or (2), or both?
Ironic, isn't it, that many of the late Col Boyd's air combat theories have
become establishment doctrine, almost half a century later. I can only assume
that Boyd was sharp enough to realize that they have little application to
today's fourth generation warfare. But I may be wrong.
Democratic government is supposed to be answerable to the people. But there are
2 big problems with that. One, the people have to stay informed and know what
the issues are as well as what potential representatives believe. Is there any
reason to move on to the second big problem? Okay, just for discussion, the
second problem is that the first problem allows for all the following problems
forever after amen. Holding our representatives accountable requires that we
hold ourselves accountable for electing the correct representative. Ain't gonna
happen, simply because the correct representative, the one telling us that we
are the ones responsible, is never going to be elected. The one that will get
elected is the one that says others, like immigrants, blacks, elites and those
who are not true christians, true patriots, or core americans, are the cause of
all our policy and economic problems. That's the guy we want to lead us. We may
get him. And he might do what we want, but it is unlikely he will do anything
we need to have done to bring back america. Bringing back america is our job
after all, and who wants that responsibility. The supposed anti-establishment
candidates are simply the ones that say they will take care of the problems we
allowed to happen. And we already know they won't or can't because we would
never demand so much from ourselves.
We are nearning the end of "the rule of political spoilsmen," but are we also
nearing the end of the American experiment or, perhaps, even the catastrophic
interruption of the progress of human civilization?
71:3.10 The ideals of
statehood must be attained by evolution, by the slow growth of civic
consciousness, the recognition of the obligation and privilege of social
service. At first men assume the burdens of government as a duty, following the
end of the administration of political spoilsmen, but later on they seek such
ministry as a privilege, as the greatest honor. The status of any level of
civilization is faithfully portrayed by the caliber of its citizens who
volunteer to accept the responsibilities of statehood.
for the US political and military establishments . "there's no success like
failure failure's no success at all". There are many, many causes, the one
highlighted this year is an electoral law system that only allows for "coke and
pepsi" and holds up, in effect bails out or life-supports, the two moribund
parties [one may actually die this year, and the other will follow shortly
thereafter, extinction of the dinosaurs] by not allowing replacements to grow.
cheers.
Regarding 4GW I think you putting the wheelless cart before the
dead horse. 4GW started as a list of speculations published in an article in
the Marine Corps Gazette in 1989, that is there wasn't originally any "theory"
at all. In 1991, Martin van Creveld published the "The Transformation of War" (TTW)
since he needed to divorce war from politics for political/propaganda reasons
(Israel's occupation of Palestinian land). Formerly MvC had promoted
Clausewitzian strategic theory, had in fact presented a paper in 1986 entitled
"The Eternal Clausewitz". TTW provided 4GW with some actual "theory", although
Lind claims that 4GW actually exists (reification) and is not theory at all.
Lind also talks about the "moral being the highest level of war" and claims
that's Boyd's view, but according to Chet Richards Boyd never said anything of
the kind. We had a long discussion on this back on the sonshi forum about a
decade ago.
Clausewitz became a problem for Dick Cheney and the Neocons since strategic
theory links political purpose (not limited to those of "the state") with
military aims achieved through military means. Too often states or other
political entities wish to hide their actual involvement (not to mention their
goals) in wars and thus 4GW comes in handy as a cover for that, but useless in
understanding strategy . . . read the Sachs article . . .
I would also add that 4GW became a useful excuse for US military
incompetence since the generals could claim, "How could we have won, it was
4GW!".
As to Boyd, OODA loops don't really provide anything other than a model for
friction above the tactical . . .
The Russians don't fall for any of this, following instead Svechin, the
great Russian Clausewitzian strategic theorist and understanding the uses and
limits of organised violence. They understand the nature of the conflict they
are involved in in Syria and are acting strategically, something the US hasn't
been able to achieve since the end of the Cold War/First Gulf War . . . that is
since the rise of 4GW confusion . . .
Thank you, seydlitz89, for taking the time to give so much background history
regarding this discussion of Fourth Generation War, etc.
For those of us who find William Lind's 4GW arguments convincing, it's very
useful to read counter-positions presented so well by someone as well-versed in
the subject as you obviously are. Sincerely. Thank you.
"Lame article, sorry. Bill Lind seems unable to understand what strategic
theory is. Still attempting to make his reified 4GW notions into reality."
The reality has been hitting us in the face for more than 60 years but as Lind
points out, reality means nothing to Washington insiders, or other devotees of
country wrecking military-industrial profiteering.
I will make this very simple for you, seydlitz89. If the people of a country
you are trying to occupy or control don't want you there, it will be ruinously
expensive for you to stay there, and eventually you will leave. Got it?
Thank you for the kind words.
Sadly the Cheneyite rot is so
deep at this point that we'll simply have to ride it out . . . Svechin wrote
about the corrupting influence of a political elite overwhelmed by its own
decadence and delusions that it confuses its own interests with those of the
country that it rules
. . . 4GW is part of/has become a pawn of that
larger phenomenon . . . the greater confusion . . .
The problem here is that our political leaders, by and large, do not understand
grand strategy or military strategy, and do not wish to do so and risk
opprobrium from other elites. Elite culture insists acceptance to the belief
that violence solves nothing, and never can. Unfortunately, our foes disagree,
with the backing of history. We lost in Iraq because Obama ceded victory by
abandoning the battlefield, as if saying a war was over could possibly end it
on favorable terms the same mistake we made in Vietnam. Rather, the problem in
the Middle East is that we haven't killed enough extremists the mistake we
didn't make in WWII and so the battle-hardened jihadis that remain believe
they can win if they only endure. So far, they seem to be right. The real
problem here is the creation of an elite that is isolated from ordinary
Americans, from the realities of the global economy, from their own failure as
leaders due to their dysfunctional worldview based on a life of privilege,
freedom from want, and a belief that all of that is deserved istead of the
result of winning the birth lottery. Their unconscious embrace of socialist
policies is more about their unease of their fortunate privilege, and it stops
when the pain starts they call for the elimination of private property but
insist their iPads are exempt as 'personal' property rather than private
property. They call for equality of opportunity but aren't willing to give up
their spot at an Ivy League university. They call for more taxes but
incorporate in Ireland, or dock their yacht in Rhode Island to avoid
Massachusetts taxes. They no longer support enlightened self-interest but
instead push for restrictions on freedom of speech, call for more gun control,
and seek to restrict political opposition all in the name of peace and freedom
and happiness. They are the modern Marie Antoinettes, and the mob is sharpening
the pitchforks.
seydlitz89 "The Russians don't fall for any of this, following instead Svechin,
the great Russian Clausewitzian strategic theorist and understanding the uses
and limits of organised violence"
Svechin? Really? Most of his work was borrowed from the pre 1914 Nikolai
General Staff Academy. The bigger Soviet thinker at the time was Verhovsky.
Someone got very excited about Svechin at Fort Leavenworth in the late
1970s/early 1980s (probably because someone decided to translate him) but in
the Russian context he's a relative minor figure – no one follows him.
"Alas the pretend progressives here cannot be bothered."
PGL you're the only "pretend progressive" here. Real leftists do well in an election and so
PGL throws a little temper tantrum. You can't make him discuss it! He won't admit he was wrong!
He supported Corbyn even though he didn't talk about the election once during the entire campaign.
What a tedious phoney.
LONDON - Among the many satisfying outcomes of Britain's general election has been the roll
call of pundits reeling out apologies for getting it so wrong. The Labour Party has, against all
odds, surged to take a 40 percent share of the vote, more than it has won in years. And so the
nation's commentariat, who had confidently thought that the party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership
would be wiped off the political map, are now eating giant slices of humble pie.
Nobody is in politics to gloat. Labour's leadership team and supporters alike want the party
to win not for the sake of winning, but in order to bring Labour's economic and social agenda
to Britain, to measurably improve people's lives. Still, a little schadenfreude is definitely
in order.
Mr. Corbyn, from the left of the party, unexpectedly took its helm in 2015 after a rule change
allowed, for the first time, rank-and-file members to have an equal vote for their leader. And
he has been ridiculed, dismissed and bemoaned ever since. Cast as an incongruous combination of
incompetent beardy old man and peacenik terrorist sympathizer, Mr. Corbyn faced down a leadership
challenge from his own party about a year ago and constant sniping, criticism and calls for him
to quit throughout.
The political and pundit classes, in their wisdom, thought it entirely inconceivable that someone
like him - so unpolished, so left wing - could ever persuade voters. After Britain's referendum
decision, last June, to leave the European Union, more scathing criticism was piled upon the Labour
leader for his decision to, well, accept the democratic referendum decision, however bad it was.
By the time Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election six weeks ago, her party ran
a 20-point poll lead ahead of Labour and her personal approval ratings were sky high while Mr.
Corbyn's were abysmally low. Liberal pundits were aghast at the thought of the Labour Party self-destructing
under Mr. Corbyn's supposedly toxic leadership. He was once again urged to step down.
Then the campaign started - and every prediction was turned on its head. The well-funded, hyper-efficient
Conservatives and their chorus of supporters in Britain's mostly right-wing press ran a terrible
campaign. Mrs. May came across as robotic and out of touch; she didn't seem to like engaging with
the press, much less the public. The more people saw of her, the more her ratings sank.
For Mr. Corbyn, the opposite was true. His detractors said his appeal was limited to a niche
of radical left activists, but in reality his quiet confidence, credibility and integrity - so
refreshing at a time when politicians are viewed as untrustworthy careerists - drew crowds of
enthusiastic supporters to ever-growing rallies. At one point, arriving to a televised debate
just over a week before the election, he was greeted with solid cheers en route to the event.
That was when his leadership team sensed something significant was taking place.
Part of this extraordinary success was a result of the party's campaign. Fun, energetic, innovative
and inspiring, it created its own momentum, with organic support mushrooming out of the most unlikely
places, flooding social media with viral memes and messages: Rappers and D.J.s, soccer players,
economists and television personalities alike climbed aboard the Corbyn project. Momentum, a grass-roots
organization of Corbyn supporters, activated the party's estimated 500,000 members - many of whom
had joined because Mr. Corbyn was elected as leader - into canvassing efforts across the country,
including, crucially, in up-for-grabs districts. Supporters were further encouraged by the sight
of Labour candidates demolishing long-hated Conservatives on television, appearances that were
swiftly turned into video clips and raced around the internet.
But the main mobilizer of support was the party's politics. For decades, Labour has been resolutely
centrist, essentially offering a slightly kinder version of neoliberal consensus politics. Those
on the left had long said that this was what had caused the party's slow decline, a hemorrhaging
of support from its traditional working-class voters. With Mr. Corbyn at its helm, the party tacked
firmly to the left, proposing to tax the few for the benefit of the many and offering major national
investment projects, funding for the welfare state, the scrapping of university tuition fees and
the re-nationalization of rail and energy companies.
It was a hopeful vision for a fairer society, offered at a time when the country is experiencing
wage stagnation and spiraling living costs, with many buckling under because of the economic crash
of 2008 and the Conservative Party's savage austerity cuts that followed. Given the chance for
the first time in decades to vote for something else, something better, a surprising number of
voters took it. Young people, in particular, seized this offer: With youth turnout unusually high
at 72 percent, it's clear that Labour brought them to the ballot box in droves.
Labour's shock comeback has tugged the party, along with Britain's political landscape, and
the range of acceptable discourse back to the left. In a hung Parliament, the Conservatives still
came out of the election as the main party, and now looks set to go into coalition government
with the homophobic, anti-abortion Democratic Unionist Party. But the Conservatives are now a
maimed party with a discredited leader - weaknesses to be seized upon and exploited by a now united
and empowered Labour party.
The grifters in the party didn't lose you dope. They all got paid. It's all so very much like
making a movie. So what if it didn't break even at the box office, everyone involved got theirs.
Seriously though you are correct. Sanders would have won against Trump. Everyone knows that,
except the die hard centerist Democrats that are trying hard not to look in mirror.
You wingnuts cant seem to comprehend that the Democratic primaries
was a series of state elections in which Hillary legitimately got more voters to vote for her.
They picked Hillary, for all your bleating about "elites."
Krugman posited once that Bernie might win the nomination by beating Hillary with disaffected
white voters in the red states despite being ultimately unelectable because of his radical views
in the general election. Of course that is not at all what happened.
"....This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to
which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism
has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these
"populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their
identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear
about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage
thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open
their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."
I recall something more damning, but have not been able to find it after repeated attempts. My
belief is that it was obviously so far off the mark that it has been taken down off Krugman's
NYT blog and maybe any reference to it here at EV as well.
Jeremy Corbyn may have hung the British Parliament. In doing so, the Labour Party leader defied
most expectations, but his success should not be such a shock-and provides a lesson for American
progressives. Corbyn deprived Theresa May of the Conservative majority, which she had hoped to expand
with Thursday's snap-election, with a vibrantly left-wing rejection of austerity.
Labour's challenge will be to maintain its momentum. But May's earliest moves already secured the
likelihood of another backlash to her government: She is attempting to form a coalition government
with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, which once launched a campaign to "Save Ulster
from Sodomy" and vigorously opposed marriage equality and abortion rights. May's catastrophic performance
only left her with the option to pivot further right and away from the youth vote that supported
Labour. The left should never rest too confidently in victory, but it is in a strong position to
reclaim the government from Tory rule.
This contradicts predictions from a number of liberal British commentators and from Labour's centrist
faction. In April, commentator Nick Cohen warned Corbynites: "You don't have a radical programme
that a 20th-century Marxist or any other serious thinker would recognise. All that's left of the
far left is a babble of sneers and slogans." Former Prime Minister Tony Blair repeatedly refused
to endorse Corbyn, saying in April that the Labour leader posed "zero" threat to Theresa May's government.
"My view about the right-wing populism is very, very clear. It can only be defeated by progressive
forces building out from the center," he told Politico. Après moi, le déluge.
And what a flood it is! Corbyn won more seats than Ed Miliband did in 2015. The Evening Standard
reports that it was the party's biggest vote share since Blair's 2001 win, and according to The Independent
a larger share than the victory that put Blair in 10 Downing Street in 2005. Exit polling projects
that youth turnout increased 12 points from Miliband's shambolic performance in 2015, a reaction
to Brexit and to the Conservative Party's austerity kink. But Labour's success is not restricted
to youth. It won gains in deeply conservative areas, unseating Conservatives in Canterbury and likely
Kensington-two seats the party's never held. In Ipswich, they unseated Brian Gummer, who wrote the
Conservatives' electoral manifesto.
The parallels between British and American politics are obviously inexact, but they do exist.
Like America, the U.K. is recovering from a shock victory for the populist right. It sits crushed
by a conservative government unapologetically committed to a platform of austerity; Trump's infamous
skinny budget is a Tory wet dream. Tories are steadily whittling the U.K. welfare state down to nothing,
bleeding the poor while bloating the rich. And if Labour had adopted the tactics of the Democratic
Party-if it had run a centrist candidate, if it had dismissed cries for equitable access to health
care and education as the utopian ambitions of misguided youth-then Theresa May would likely have
a majority government.
There are lessons here, if Democrats wish to learn them. But they will have to radically reorient
the party. Health care is their best wedge issue: Trumpcare is unpopular, and the Affordable Care
Act, though inadequate, is a tangible benefit that voters are reluctant to lose. The party should
similarly focus on youth turnout, and that means paying more attention to the policies of Senator
Bernie Sanders: free public college tuition (not Andrew Cuomo's milquetoast alternative), and student
debt forgiveness. That's how you win young voters.
Democrats face a difficult path to victory. So did Labour, but it achieved massive gains by putting
forward an authentically progressive manifesto that promised tangible improvements to people's lives.
They positioned themselves unapologetically in accordance with their name: They are the party of
labor, and not of capital, and so they are the party of the many and not the few. They did not shirk
from utopianism, or from hope; they treated young and old alike with serious consideration, and made
reasoned, convincing appeals for their votes.
Democratic candidates are carefully vetted by insiders--the DNC, the DCCC, and
the DSCC. Like Bernie, no one gets any party support unless they heel to the neoliberal agenda.
"... "Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security..." Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism ..."
"The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided
an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your 'little
men,' your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us
did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Milton
Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945
===
"Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited,
steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful
interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts,
in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential
to the claims of national security..." Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism
===
"It seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner
independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the
emerging circumstances.
The fact that the foolish person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent.
In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person,
but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless
tool, the foolish person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing
that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once
and for all destroy human beings."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison
===
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
"... After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now. ..."
"... TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. ..."
"... The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine wrote in The Baffler ..."
"... Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as all but incontrovertible. ..."
"... In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions. ..."
"... Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January, Comey testified that the FBI had been denied access to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials told reporters , "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated." ..."
"... Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching certainty - despite the fact that it was forced to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation of placing the blame on Russia was false." ..."
"... Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts" who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR, announced last month that it had been valued at one billion dollars. ..."
Claims of "Russian interference" have been ubiquitous in U.S. political discourse for almost a full year now; these often amount
to a mélange of allegations ranging from "hacking" to "influence campaigns" to "online trolls" sent by the Kremlin to harangue unsuspecting
Midwestern voters. "Hacking," however, remains the centerpiece of the narrative - the idea that Russian state actors "hacked" the
Democratic National Committee and exfiltrated emails is routinely cited as the centerpiece of the overall "interference" thesis.
After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian
government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now.
TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also
under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's
"period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server
breach - which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor
Megyn Kelly - were
issued in June
2016, when the contract was still active.
Last week at a forum with Vladimir Putin, Kelly listed
all the authoritative American entities which she claimed have corroborated the conclusion that Russian state actors "interfered"
in the 2016 presidential election. (Notwithstanding its vagueness and imprecision, the term "interference" has come to be the standard
term American media personalities invoke when seeking to describe how "Russians" maliciously undermined the sanctity of the 2016
US election process.) Querying Putin, Kelly repeated the
canard that "17 intelligence agencies" had
all independently concluded that Russia indeed "interfered" - whatever that means, exactly. She then continued: "Even private, non-partisan
security firms say the same that Russia interfered with the US election."
The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to
describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine
wrote in The Baffler,
Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already
knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for
any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as
all but incontrovertible.
In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama
appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing
Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions.
Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only
entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January,
Comey testified that the FBI had been
denied access
to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials
told reporters , "The FBI
repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well
after the initial compromise had been mitigated."
Comey's long-awaited Congressional testimony on Thursday may provide additional insight into the FBI's reliance on the firm.
Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held
exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching
certainty - despite the fact that it was
forced
to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of
its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation
of placing the blame on Russia was false."
Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts"
who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR,
announced last month that it had been valued
at one billion dollars.
"... TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001. ..."
"... I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures. ..."
"... A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email. ..."
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence
failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring
and Summer of 2001.
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting
the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements
and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was
behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence
to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President
Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded
to my email.
"... "Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security..." Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism ..."
"The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided
an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your 'little
men,' your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us
did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Milton
Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945
===
"Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited,
steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful
interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts,
in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential
to the claims of national security..." Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism
===
"It seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner
independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the
emerging circumstances.
The fact that the foolish person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent.
In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person,
but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless
tool, the foolish person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing
that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once
and for all destroy human beings."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison
===
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man."
Jeremy Corbyn may have hung the British Parliament. In doing so, the Labour Party leader defied
most expectations, but his success should not be such a shock-and provides a lesson for American
progressives. Corbyn deprived Theresa May of the Conservative majority, which she had hoped to expand
with Thursday's snap-election, with a vibrantly left-wing rejection of austerity.
Labour's challenge will be to maintain its momentum. But May's earliest moves already secured the
likelihood of another backlash to her government: She is attempting to form a coalition government
with Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, which once launched a campaign to "Save Ulster
from Sodomy" and vigorously opposed marriage equality and abortion rights. May's catastrophic performance
only left her with the option to pivot further right and away from the youth vote that supported
Labour. The left should never rest too confidently in victory, but it is in a strong position to
reclaim the government from Tory rule.
This contradicts predictions from a number of liberal British commentators and from Labour's centrist
faction. In April, commentator Nick Cohen warned Corbynites: "You don't have a radical programme
that a 20th-century Marxist or any other serious thinker would recognise. All that's left of the
far left is a babble of sneers and slogans." Former Prime Minister Tony Blair repeatedly refused
to endorse Corbyn, saying in April that the Labour leader posed "zero" threat to Theresa May's government.
"My view about the right-wing populism is very, very clear. It can only be defeated by progressive
forces building out from the center," he told Politico. Après moi, le déluge.
And what a flood it is! Corbyn won more seats than Ed Miliband did in 2015. The Evening Standard
reports that it was the party's biggest vote share since Blair's 2001 win, and according to The Independent
a larger share than the victory that put Blair in 10 Downing Street in 2005. Exit polling projects
that youth turnout increased 12 points from Miliband's shambolic performance in 2015, a reaction
to Brexit and to the Conservative Party's austerity kink. But Labour's success is not restricted
to youth. It won gains in deeply conservative areas, unseating Conservatives in Canterbury and likely
Kensington-two seats the party's never held. In Ipswich, they unseated Brian Gummer, who wrote the
Conservatives' electoral manifesto.
The parallels between British and American politics are obviously inexact, but they do exist.
Like America, the U.K. is recovering from a shock victory for the populist right. It sits crushed
by a conservative government unapologetically committed to a platform of austerity; Trump's infamous
skinny budget is a Tory wet dream. Tories are steadily whittling the U.K. welfare state down to nothing,
bleeding the poor while bloating the rich. And if Labour had adopted the tactics of the Democratic
Party-if it had run a centrist candidate, if it had dismissed cries for equitable access to health
care and education as the utopian ambitions of misguided youth-then Theresa May would likely have
a majority government.
There are lessons here, if Democrats wish to learn them. But they will have to radically reorient
the party. Health care is their best wedge issue: Trumpcare is unpopular, and the Affordable Care
Act, though inadequate, is a tangible benefit that voters are reluctant to lose. The party should
similarly focus on youth turnout, and that means paying more attention to the policies of Senator
Bernie Sanders: free public college tuition (not Andrew Cuomo's milquetoast alternative), and student
debt forgiveness. That's how you win young voters.
Democrats face a difficult path to victory. So did Labour, but it achieved massive gains by putting
forward an authentically progressive manifesto that promised tangible improvements to people's lives.
They positioned themselves unapologetically in accordance with their name: They are the party of
labor, and not of capital, and so they are the party of the many and not the few. They did not shirk
from utopianism, or from hope; they treated young and old alike with serious consideration, and made
reasoned, convincing appeals for their votes.
Democratic candidates are carefully vetted by insiders--the DNC, the DCCC, and
the DSCC. Like Bernie, no one gets any party support unless they heel to the neoliberal agenda.
Populism and the Politics of Health
MARCH 14, 2017 1:43 PM
by Paul Krugman
...
This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which
left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has
failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?
The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity
politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist"
voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics
desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe
it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have
no idea that's what happened.
That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their
eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.
In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state
is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental
contradiction is now out in the open."
Reply
Friday, Christopher H. - ,
June 09, 2017 at 11:12 AM
There has been a silence from the center left during the Corbyn campaign and now after it is over.
Luckily they have Comey to talk about. I will be curious to hear from Chris Dillow.
"In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk
social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however,
Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That
fundamental contradiction is now out in the open"
"... Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind. ..."
"... He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today. ..."
"... Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate. ..."
"... This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government by the deep state, media and uniparty ..."
"... So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection. ..."
"... Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email investigation. Why would he do that? ..."
"... Comey took notes because he planned to blackmail Trump in the future just like J Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI. ..."
"... "Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments. I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist psychopaths. It's that simple. ..."
"... Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. ..."
"... Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts ..."
"... Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA. ..."
"... Not one coward on that Senate committee had the balls to ask about the Seth Rich investigation........disappointing ..."
"... Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election. Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing. ..."
"... The threat of being "Clintoned" is a powerful force. ..."
There will come a day when the city square will be packed with gibbets filled with swinging heads
of traitorous bastard commies -- most readily found in leftshit cities. The degeneracy must end.
Today's testimony by Comey was a farce, a transparent attempt by a spent and bitter bureaucrat trying
to hurt a sitting President.
Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President
asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred
to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot,
helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their
fucking mind.
Tucker chimes in and reviews the day's events, pointing out the hypocrisy of Comey and his dealings
with AG Lynch, who asked for Comey to word the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal as
a 'matter.' If that's not collusion and political pressure on the FBI, nothing is.
He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which
was confirmed by Comey today.
After watching this political circus it is very clear that no one should be re-elected from
either party, with the single exception of Paul.
Looks like what we really need is a new political party that actually serves the public tax
payers, unfortunately it may take a major financial depression and its accompanying turmoil to
bring that about.
IMHO, the Comey hearing was John McCain's chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. I think
his idea to go after Comey's interactions with the Obama regime was a great idea, but he came
unprepared and unrehearsed. McCain had an opportunity to display leadership, but he failed to
lead.
Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC
which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate.
It's time 81 year old McCain - last in his Naval Academy class - shuffled off to an assisted
living center in Arizona.
Comey created a memo because it's hard to leak to multiple sources at one time in person.
We're living history folks. This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government
by the deep state, media and uniparty dominated by leftojihadis. The Gang of 8 is composed
of 4 dimocrites and 4 rinos. The rinos had a duty to come forward and not only refute the lies
in the media but to reveal it all as a hoax. Only Nunes told President Trump what was going on
and he was forced to recuse himself from the intelligence committee investigation.
Even an atheist has to admit there's divine intervention at work here. Flawed though he admits
to be, Trump is being guided and protected by a force more powerful than the swamp.
So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the
whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection.
But Mueller won't. He & Comey are besties of 25 year standing. All Mueller will do it find
no direct links between the Russians and Trump or his administration but justify Comey's investigation
by saying the Russians are bad, evil people who were trying to co-opt naive and inexperienced
Trump colleagues.
If they wanted an honest and truthful investigation they would not have selected a retired
swamp general.
It scares me that people actually believe this shit. I guess we are doomed considering how
many morons like PitBullsRule are lapping up the koolaid with their heads in the sand
Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email
investigation. Why would he do that?
Comey's (limited hangout) strategy: Say a few things to look honest, so he could sell "the
Russians did it (hack)" - despite showing no evidence. Otherwise, there would be no need for a
Special Counsel and he knows Mueller will forment more troubles for Trump, perhaps for years.
Trump needs to end this Russian hack nonsense ASAP.
I'd like Loretta Lynch to show me where in the FBI handbook it explains the proper procedure
for conducting "matters".
They just make shit up to suit their needs. The Comey incident is another sad example of how
every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the point
they can no longer perform their intended function.
"Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments.
I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against
the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist
psychopaths. It's that simple.
"how every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the
point they can no longer perform their intended function" and should therefore be disbanded. Fixed
it for you.
Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple
to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. Trump's
possible recording constrained Comey's M.O..
Nobody will do anything about any of this. Time to shitcan the lot of them. I hope not a single
doofus up for re-election goes back to D.C. in '18.
It's hard to know which to slap first, those that break the law out in the open--or those that
turn a blind eye to the flagrant lawlessness of the trangressors.
Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts I think.
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media in order to have an effect on the country
(ie a counsel)
He admitted he was concerned enough with his meeting with Trump to make a memo of it - instead
of going to the DOJ as required by law
He admitted he was concerned with Lynch telling him to not use the word investigation (which
was the truth) and agreeing to it, instead of resigning or reporting it.
He demonstrates that he leaked information to the media, but not the truth that Trump was not
under investigation - thus showing politcal bias in his job.
There are a few crimes there that I gather the DOJ has no option but to prosecute, how can
it not? Since they are also prosecuting Winner for the exact same thing?
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey said that he behaved 'slightly cowardly'. Well,
that is the sort of behavior one expects from a Weasel.
[No insults intended to the small mammals grouped together in the weasel family.]
Great review Tucker Carlson! Comey is a disgruntled loser like Killary. Comey never followed
up on Seth Rich murder, a more serious matter than playing stupid politics.
Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing
his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to
release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United
States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI
partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA.
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey was actively covering up for the murderers
who murdered Seth Rich and the people who hired them. He should be shitting whole goats knowing
that Attorney General Sessions seized everything in his office while he was in LACALIFUSA. Comey
will probably be joining Obama shortly wherever it is that he is hanging out overseas.
Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election.
Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed
to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing.
This sound like neofascism, not so much as populism...
Notable quotes:
"... One major component is offering simplistic solutions to complex problems: remove government regulations to create more jobs, restrict foreign imports to create more jobs, ban immigration from certain countries to curtail terrorism, build a wall to prevent illegal immigration, ban teaching contraception to prevent teenagers from having sex, allow guns to let armed citizen vigilantes defend us against mass murderers, privatize education, government services and infrastructure to make them more "economical", etc... ..."
"... And most of all: elect a strong leader who is not bound by laws to come in and kick ass and make the country great again. ..."
"Some people were raising the question, what is genuine populism?"
One major component
is offering simplistic solutions to complex problems: remove government regulations to
create more jobs, restrict foreign imports to create more jobs, ban immigration from
certain countries to curtail terrorism, build a wall to prevent illegal immigration, ban
teaching contraception to prevent teenagers from having sex, allow guns to let armed
citizen vigilantes defend us against mass murderers, privatize education, government
services and infrastructure to make them more "economical", etc...
And most of all: elect a strong leader who is not bound by laws to come in and kick
ass and make the country great again.
May 31, 2017 "Men in dark suits" rule the US – Putin on Deep State
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with French publication Le Figaro, has revealed
that a US president is more often than not just a figurehead of government.
Mar 6, 2017 Zakharova warns of Orwellian US Media 2.03.17
Have a listen to what Zakharova has to say in relation to "fake news". Is there a deliberate
campaign to undermine trust in all traditional media, so that the public can no longer form an
opinion?
That's too simplistic: DNC leak did caused damage for Clinton campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access to the DNC servers. ..."
"... CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it. ..."
"... CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme. His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1] ..."
Would you trust this guy with technically verifying who perpetrated the alleged Russian hack? Believe it or not, the above photo of CTO Dmitri Alperovitch was taken directly from CrowdStrike's official website, the "American
cybersecurity technology company" tasked with the digital sleuthing of the DNC server hack.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Did Guccifer 2.0 Fake "Russian Fingerprints?"
Here's another fake report produced by CrowdStrike regarding a hacked "Ukrainian artillery app" during the Ukrainian War. It's
important to note that the following mainstream media account was published by Voice of America (VOA) -- "a United States government-funded
multimedia news outlet".
What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access
to the DNC servers.
CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email
hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As a matter of documented fact, it was actually CrowdStrike who hacked the DNC server before the 2016 election. The following
exposé is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to know the real back story.
DNC
Russian Hackers Found!
The plot to frame Russia -- for the DNC's own criminal conspiracy -- was closely coordinated between the DNC and the CIA and
carried out with the full support of the Obama Administration. Given that the heads of virtually all 17 agencies within the U.S.
Intelligence Community were ready and willing to support the necessary crime wave, it was an obvious brainchild of Deep State
.
CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme.
His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to
maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly
demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.[1]
The preceding graphic delineates the time frame according to which CrowdStrike was stealthily employed by the DNC to eventually
identify the fictitious 'Russian' hackers. They even named the alleged state actor COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR. That's because all they
do -- 24/7 -- is hunt Russian bear even where they don't exist.
BOTTOM LINE
There are very good reasons why this story will not go away, and only gets bigger with each passing day.
When
the CIA, DNC, CrowStrike et al. started off with such a flagra... Because this complex and convoluted criminal conspiracy is
being used as a basis to instigate a war against Russia, it's really just another classic false flag operation. Such CIA-conceived
black ops, that are then used as NSA-driven global PsyOps, can only come this far when Deep State so orders it. Their ultimate
goal is to overthrow the Trump presidency before their New World Order agenda is thwarted any further.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps these highly radioactive details explain the now-notorious grin worn by Dmitri Alperovitch in his company photo posted
above.
"... Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no? ..."
"... The snail's pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump's frustration. What explains the FBI's torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age. ..."
"... We hear daily on cable TV of the "Trump-Russia" scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell: ..."
"... "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark." ..."
"... Where are the criminals? Where is the crime? ..."
"... Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this ? ..."
"... All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city's hatred for President Trump, and its fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency. ..."
"... For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime. ..."
Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out, "We had no relationship at all.
I never met him. Have you
all lost your senses
over there?"
Yes, Vlad, we have.
Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.
If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the KGB?
Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly
intercept everything Russians say to Americans,
why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no?
The snail's pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump's frustration. What explains the FBI's torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover
had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age.
We hear daily on cable TV of the "Trump-Russia" scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence
official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting
CIA
Director Mike Morrell:
"On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all.
There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears
that Trump wanted a "back channel" to Putin so he could honor his commitment t
o seek better relations with Russia.
Given the Russophobia
rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what
is criminal about this ?
Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels.
Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the
Kaiser and the
Brits . FDR ran messages to Churchill through
Harry Hopkins.
As for Trump asking Director
James Comey to cut some
slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about
having to fire the man.
So, what is really going on here?
All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city's hatred for President Trump, and its
fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency.
For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of
the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution
to overthrow a ruling regime.
Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump's victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their defeat with his
tweets.
Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized upon that old standby. We didn't lose! The election was stolen in
a vast conspiracy, an "act of war" against America, an assault upon "our democracy," criminal collusion between the Kremlin and the
Trumpites.
Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the usurper.
The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to have South Vietnam's
president abort Lyndon Johnson's new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final hours of that election.
Then, as now, the "t" word, treason, was trotted out.
Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and Reagan, after 49-state
landslides, were faced with attempts to
overturn the election results.
With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With
Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in
destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold War in a bloodless victory for the West.
After Lincoln's assassination,
President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a
ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated
and devastated South.
The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the Cabinet without
Senate permission. Johnson defied the Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.
"Tennessee" Johnson was impeached, and missed conviction by one vote. John F. Kennedy, in his
1956 book, called the
senator who had voted to save Johnson a "Profile in Courage."
If Trump is brought down on the basis of what Putin correctly labels "nonsense," this city will have executed a nonviolent coup
against a constitutionally elected president. Such an act would drop us into the company of those Third World nations where such
means are the customary ways that corrupt elites retain their hold on power.
"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."
"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."
"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.
This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined
Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on
social media:
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.
President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a
blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the
investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him
in private, which Comey recorded in his
much-discussed memo .
The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:
Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Risch : He said, "I hope."
Comey : Those are exact words, correct.
Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?
Comey : I don't, as I sit here.
Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a
few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia.
Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the
New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking
on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really
now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated
that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned
and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision
was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the
credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a
disgruntled former
employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the
FBI."
Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation
of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important
to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but
to protect the FBI."
... ... ...
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]
Fired FBI Director
James B. Comey orchestrated the leak of details
from memos of his conversations with President Trump, he admitted to Congress on Thursday, saying he had hoped it would spur the
Justice Department to announce an independent prosecutor to probe the Trump operation.
Mr. Comey said he used a law professor friend
at Columbia University as a go-between to share information with The New York Times. He didn't name the professor, but said he wanted
to get information out after Mr. Trump took to Twitter to dispute that he had asked the
FBI to let former National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn off the hook.
"I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine
to do it," Mr. Comey testified.
The revelation was among the most striking of the day for
Mr. Comey , who spent 2 and 1/2 hours answering questions
publicly to the Senate intelligence committee.
The former director said he felt compelled to take notes of his interactions with Mr. Trump because he was afraid the president
would "lie" about them.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up.
Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of
the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that
Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was
installed.
Evidence
Sanders as sheep-dog
Black
Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . Sanders made it
clear from the start that he ruled out the possibility of running as an independent. That was
only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep' into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
>> "Enough with the emails!"
>> Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
>> Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
>> Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
>> Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
>> Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
May 31, 2017 "Men in dark suits" rule the US – Putin on Deep State
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with French publication Le Figaro, has revealed
that a US president is more often than not just a figurehead of government.
Mar 6, 2017 Zakharova warns of Orwellian US Media 2.03.17
Have a listen to what Zakharova has to say in relation to "fake news". Is there a deliberate
campaign to undermine trust in all traditional media, so that the public can no longer form an
opinion?
TYT Politics reporter Michael Tracey (http://www.twitter.com/mtracey)
reports that CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm retained by the DNC to analyze its "hacked" servers, had a contract with the FBI.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm
was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way,
CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake
Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion
with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Well there you go America you have your Russian hacker, and it's a CIA contractor who is in charge of running the DNC computer
system. This is how Democrats are claiming the Russian hack of the election and they're computer systems were rigged by Russia, because
the owner of CrowdStrike who runs the DNC computer systems is Russian.
This officially destroys the Russia/Trump collusion Democrat conspiracy theory, because the DNC hired a Russian to run the
parties computer system to make it look like a Russian hack just in case Trump won the election. Trump needs to bring up this man
on Twitter, because the mentioning of this man by the President would absolutely destroy the Russia/Trump collusion. This kills the
narrative by Democrats on Russia/Trump collusion for one reason only...The DNC has colluded with a Russian hacker to work on their
computer system.
"... Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting US Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, US taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang. ..."
"... For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel. ..."
"... Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency." ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Neither Comey nor Mueller – who are reported to be " joined at the hip " – deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence ..."
The mainstream U.S. media sells the mythical integrity of fired FBI Director Comey and special Russia-gate prosecutor Mueller,
but the truth is they have long histories as pliable political operatives
Posted on June 07,
2017 June 6, 2017 Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey
as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into
proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their
impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration
(Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of
the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence
Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal
responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.
Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded,
"that the system had been blinking red
." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed "
criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed
at all.)
Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten "war on terror," which only served
to
exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .
Unfulfilled Promise
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified
to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever
witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive
and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing
him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to
Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller
directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants
who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more
detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions
in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were
brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned
out to be terrorists .
A History of Failure
Long before he became FBI Director, serious
questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting US Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering
up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes.
When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, US taxpayers footed
a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.
For his part, Deputy Attorney General
James Comey , too, went
along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance
of Americans and
torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without
charges or right to counsel.
Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing
a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's
singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification
of a "state of emergency."
The Comey/Mueller Myth
What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men from forcing the sick Attorney
General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing
board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.
The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and
lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs after his own agents warned
against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear.
Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute
NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
Neither Comey nor Mueller – who are reported to be "
joined at the hip " – deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like
"G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with
former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses
of power along with official incompetence.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships
the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out
against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller
exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert
Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is
archived
in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled "
Questions for the FBI Nominee
" was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington
Post page.)
"... Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money – not the people. ..."
"... Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical enough to see the games that are played. ..."
"... (Trump supported Hillary in 2008) ..."
"... (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was) ..."
Razzel-dazzel faux populist leaders need a reason to betray their base, excuse their caving, and
otherwise toe the establishment line. I call shill opposition to a faux populist President enforcers
. They are joined by apologists who try to explain away betrayals and caving on issues.
Trump is a 'fascist' as much as Obama was a 'Muslim socialist'.
Trump wasn't turned by the Deep State as apologists claim. He knows how faux populist politics
works because he was close to the Clintons and led the 'birther movement'.
Corruption today is as well engineered and covered-up as it was during Tamany Hall in late 1800's
New York City:
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system The Tweed ring at its height was
an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the
courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and
an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.
Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that
US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money
– not the people.
Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical
enough to see the games that are played.
Interestingly, much of the establishment games seem to center on the Clintons. The Hillary camp
(Trump supported Hillary in 2008) helped to keep Obama in line, as much as the Republican
opposition (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was)
. And Hillary's Democratic Party has been the principal force that provided Trump with excuses
to betray his base.
But here's the rub: if Bernie was a sheep-dog for Hillary and Trump's populism was sure to overcome
Hillary's negatives and negativism, then what real choice did American voters have?
Cover Photo: 1871 Cartoon by Tomas Nast depicts Tammany as a ferocious tiger killing democracy.
The image of a tiger was often used to represent the Tammany Hall political movement.
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans,"
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
"... The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification. ..."
"... A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates a clash between that individual's self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner. ..."
"... So what exactly is Mueller's conflict? He and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004. ..."
"... Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against. ..."
"... Pursuant to his appointment, Mueller has been directed to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But that's not all. He is empowered to investigate "any related matters" . Those last three words are important because they allow the special counsel unfettered discretion to expand his probe in almost limitless directions. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation of alleged campaign collusion with the Russians will inexorably involve President Trump's former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who was fired after his controversial meeting with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. The FBI interviewed Flynn about his meeting and there have been questions raised about Flynn's other Russian contacts. ..."
Robert Mueller has a serious conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving as special counsel.
He has had a long and close relationship with someone who will surely become a pivotal witness –James Comey.
No one doubts Mueller's sterling credentials. That is not the issue. He is imminently qualified. The problem arises in his duty
to fairly and objectively evaluate the evidence he gathers.
How can Americans have confidence in the results if they know the special counsel may harbor a conspicuous bias? They cannot.
The conflict inevitably discredits whatever conclusion is reached. It renders the entire investigatory exercise suspect, and it only
elevates the controversy surrounding it.
For this reason, Mueller should not serve as special counsel.
Conflict Defined
The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest
in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates
a clash between that individual's self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he
can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.
Identical rules govern prosecutors who, for example, must recuse themselves from handling a case against a person with whom they
have worked or had a personal relationship. The same would be true if a prosecutor had a close relationship with a witness in the
case. The prior association raises the real or perceived possibility of prejudice or favoritism which is contrary to the fair administration
of justice.
So what exactly is Mueller's conflict? He and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years
at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over
the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller
as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a
casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
The Investigation
Pursuant to his appointment, Mueller has been directed to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government
and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But that's not all. He is empowered to investigate
"any related matters" . Those last three words are important because they allow the special counsel unfettered discretion
to expand his probe in almost limitless directions.
Mueller's investigation of alleged campaign collusion with the Russians will inexorably involve President Trump's former National
Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, who was fired after his controversial meeting with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. The FBI interviewed
Flynn about his meeting and there have been questions raised about Flynn's other Russian contacts.
This is likely what prompted President Trump's private meeting in February with then-FBI Director James Comey in which the president
is alleged to have asked Comey to end the Flynn investigation. The words reportedly used by Mr. Trump hardly constitute an attempt
to obstruction of justice, but that has not stopped Democrats and the media from declaring it a crime.
So it is clear where all of this is headed. Mueller's probe will morph into an investigation of the Trump-Comey meeting to determine
whether the president tried to obstruct justice. It will become a case of "he said he said". Which man will the special counsel believe?
His good friend or the man who fired his good friend? How can Mueller fairly and impartially assess Comey's credibility versus Trump's?
There is also the fairness of the broader investigation to consider. It is reasonable to assume Mueller was not pleased to see
Comey canned. Any animosity which the special counsel may bear could influence the course of his overall investigation into wrongdoing
by President Trump and his associates. He may be tempted to conjure criminality where none really exists.
Even if Mueller takes pains to avoid partiality, how can anyone be assured he will succeed? Even impeccably honest people can
be subject to influence in ways they don't even recognize themselves. It is the human condition. Which is precisely why there are
legal and ethical rules which demand recusal based on prior relationships.
If Robert Mueller truly embraces a fidelity to the law and all its attendant principles of ethics, then he should disqualify himself
from serving as Special Counsel.
Anything less threatens to subvert the rule of law and the trust Americans must have in their system of justice.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts
Something was really wrong with Comey. Such an unprofessionalism is not excusable.
Notable quotes:
"... Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all." ..."
"... Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to leave Intel. ..."
"... So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would anyone believe connections to DHS : ..."
"... To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)? ..."
"... note: this site is a bit tinfoil hat for me, but I liked the way these paragraphs summarized where we are on this ..."
"... In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers. ..."
"... The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents. ..."
"... I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial Complex ..."
"... The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power. ..."
The fantasy story line inside the Political Industrial Complex* (PIC) is that Team Trump colluded
with Russia to tilt last year's election to Trump. Of course the endless screw ups by Team Clinton,
and the high level of frustration across this great land with PIC and its elites, had nothing
to do with the election results. It has to be those pesky Russkies!
The story goes that the FBI – and all 16 intelligence agencies – concur that the Russians were
targeting the Democrats, and this began with the exposure of DNC emails prior to the Democrat convention
last year.
Well, that's ONE STORY
A fuller picture is becoming evident. One where nearly all the conclusions of Russian influence
are based upon a report from one company –
a company contracted by the DNC --
On Thursday, a senior law enforcement official
told CNN that the DNC "rebuffed" the agency's request to physically examine its computer servers
after the alleged hacking. Instead, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike's assessment that the servers
had most likely been hacked by Russian agents.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers
and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," CNN
quoted the senior law enforcement official as saying. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely
upon a third party for information.
Sounds just like Hillary Clinton and her email server – where the government cannot do a real
investigation of the actual computer evidence. If this sounds fishy, it is. Because this company
is not a middle of the road, independent agent.
It is, in fact, a young start-up with much of its prior success tied to the Obama administration
(less now than when it began 6 years ago), and of course its future rests in the hands of the Intelligence
Community and the niche community of federal cyber-security specialists. All who make their living
off the federal government in one way or the other. They know who is lining their bank accounts
One of the founders is Dmitri Alperovitch who was born in Moscow, Russia in 1980 and who moved
with his family to the US in 1990. Clearly he had not forged nefarious ties to Putin's regime by
the age of 10 when he emigrated, so his Russian background is not really of much interest. But he
does have an interesting past, which I will get to in a second.
Founder Dmitri Alperovitch has been the best known face of CrowdStrike, partly due to the
profile feature done on him by Esquire in late 2016. But his co-founder, George Kurtz
– like Alperovitch, a former executive at McAfee – has had a high professional profile as well.
Worth noting at the outset is that Kurtz obtained a $26 million financing deal for the CrowdStrike
start-up in February 2012
from equity giant Warburg Pincus , after Kurtz had been serving there as the "entrepreneur
in residence."
This equity firm is where the initial seed money for CrowdStrike came from (Warburg was the
only capital investor at the beginning; Google came in with the $100 million in 2015).
Warburg Pincus remains a primary investor in CrowdStrike, along with Google and
Accel Partners . In 2016, Warburg, whose
president since
2014 has been Tim Geithner , Obama's former secretary of the treasury,
raised $29,709 for Hillary Clinton , the largest single recipient of campaign funds raised
by Warburg employees and PACs. (No contributions were made through Warburg-related entities to
Donald Trump.)
That's partly because Chabinsky was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division and
Chief of the FBI's Cyber Intelligence Section before he left the Bureau for private life in 2012
(the year he
joined CrowdStrike ).
But there's more. [Shawn] Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services, and the Chief Security
Officer (CSO) for the company. But when he
came on with CrowdStrike, in April 2012 , he was coming off his final position with the FBI:
Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Service Branch. (Or, as he
was usually referred to, the "FBI's top cyber official.")
In other words, CrowdStrike scored the FBI's two biggest Obama-era cybersecurity names – Henry
and Chabinsky – the year it was formed as a start-up .
Strong ties to Obama's FBI, and one would assume FBI Director Comey. Hmmm .
Alperovitch's first big break in cyberdefense came in 2010 , while he was at McAfee. The head
of cybersecurity at Google told Alperovitch that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists
in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the
breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee's clients.
Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked
to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for
the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she
said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all."
Now just hold on one second here. How in the world does a nobody at MacAfee get on a plane to
meet the Secretary of State in just 3 days? No vetting? No preliminaries with underlings? Just fly
out to DC to review a single paragraph??
This has to be fictional drama.
BTW, earlier in the same article we have this contrary story line:
In 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm
McAfee. While sifting through server logs in his apartment one night, he discovered evidence of
a hacking campaign by the Chinese government. Eventually he learned that the campaign had been
going on undetected for five years, and that the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one
companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms,
and the International Olympic Committee.
While Alperovitch was writing up his report on the breach, he received a call from Renee James,
an executive at Intel, which had recently purchased McAfee. According to Alperovitch, James told
him, "Dmitri, Intel has a lot of business in China. You cannot call out China in this report."
Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling
the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to
leave Intel.
So which story-line is the right one? Not sure, but let's just say not just anyone gets called
to review Hillary's speeches.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would
anyone believe
connections to DHS :
Through their common roots in McAfee, Alperovitch and Kurtz have an extensive history with
top cyber expert Phyllis Schneck, who appears in the Esquire piece from October. In fact,
Alperovitch and Schneck were at Georgia Tech together (see the Esquire article), and
later were
vice presidents
of McAfee at the same time Kurtz was McAfee's chief technology officer (CTO). Alperovitch
has obviously had a close professional relationship with Schneck; their names are both on
four separate patent applications .
To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is
based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed
to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)?
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence that
it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system
and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is
only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naïvely
flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least, Alperovitch
"reported" there was an attack.
I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the
unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial
Complex*
* The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated
on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan
exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and
lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain.
It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news
media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad
news will disrupt said power.
"... Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? ..."
"... "They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!" ..."
"... "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the Democratic computers is a national security agency ..."
Professor Stephen Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election' March 31, 2017
chat 176 comments
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton, spoke Thursday evening with
Fox News' Tucker Carlson about the
latest shoes to drop in the investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.
The Wall
Street Journal reported late Thursday that Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, has told the FBI
and congressional investigators that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution -- not
a particularly good sign for the Trump White House.
Cohen, one of the country's foremostexperts on Russia, has been arguing for months that the anti-Russia hysteria in Washington,
D.C., is becoming a
"grave national security threat."
Carlson began the discussion by bringing up what he sees as the core issue-- the allegations that the Russian government "hacked
our election" by breaking into email accounts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign office.
"Everyone assumes this is true," he said. "We're all operating under the assumption that it's true. Do we know it's true?"
"No," Cohen answered flatly. "And if you listen to the hearings at the Senate today, repeatedly it was said -- particularly by
Senator Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the proceedings -- that Russia had hijacked our democracy. What he means is that, the
Russians, at Putin's direction, had gone into the Democratic National Committee's emails, which were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton,
given them to Wikileaks, Wikileaks then released them to damage Mrs. Clinton and put Trump in the White House."
He noted, "This is a very dramatic narrative and they're saying in Washington that this was an act of war.... So whether or not
it's true is existential. Are we at war?"
After studying Russian leadership for 40 years, focusing on Putin in particular, Cohen said it was hard for him believe that the
Russian president would have done such a thing.
"I could find not one piece of factual evidence," he said. "The only evidence ever presented was a study hired by the Clintons
-- the DNC -- to do an examination of their computers.They
[Crowdstrike] concluded the Russians did it. Their report
has fallen apart." He
added, " Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? "
Tucker pointed out that even Republicans say that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies (including Coast Guard Intelligence!) have
concluded that Russian intelligence was behind this.
"They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in
January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could
name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!"
The professor made one more critical point: "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the
Democratic computers is a national security agency ," he said.
He continued: "When they admit that they have no evidence, they fall back on something else which I think is very important. They
say Putin directed Russian propaganda at us and helped elect Trump. I don't know about you, Tucker, but I find that insulting --
because the premise they're putting out ... at this hearing is that the American people are zombies. ... It's the premise of democracy
that we're democratic citizens," he said. "That we have a B.S. detector in us and we know how to use it."
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Maybe not, but let's not forget that there IS evidence that the Obama administration apparently employed police-state
tactics to spy on their political rivals during the election, and to widely disseminate the information they collected in hope
that it would be illegally leaked in order to undermine the Trump administration.
Remember, the only felony we have clear proof of is the leak of Flynn's surveillance data to the press.
Time to get focused on where the crimes are, and stop falling for the progressive's shell game.
RedDog
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Now what do we have here....
WikiLeaks Reveals "Marble": Proof CIA Disguises Their Hacks As Russian, Chinese, Arabic...
"... On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass. ..."
"... Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence. ..."
Following Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte's alleged assault of a reporter, some in the mainstream media
are trying to blame the incident on President Trump. CNN host Don Lemon argued that Trump has culpability because he's said "very
horrible things" about reporters and suggested that they are the enemy of the American people. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said that
Trump has helped whip up "hostility" toward the press, while Joe Scarborough said a "straight line" can be drawn between Trump's
anti-media rhetoric and the Gianforte incident.
On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're
largely giving Democrats a pass.
"Let's discuss Tom Perez and his cussing crusade that he's been giving at so many different fundraisers.
Let's talk for a
moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and
'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the
right of fomenting violence.
The reason I voted the way I did is that I think Military Intelligence played a greater role in deposing
Nixon than did the CIA Washington, D.C. police detective Carl Shoffler who arrested the burglars
was a Military Intelligence agent assigned to the D.C. police department. He had prior knowledge
of the planned break-in at Watergate on June 17, 1972.
Howard Hunt was a CIA agent and at least two of the arrested burglars had long-standing connections
to the CIA The CIA hierarchy was well aware of Hunt's activities prior to the arrests at Watergate.
The CIA was drastically and negatively affected by the fallout of the Watergate scandal while the
Military escaped basically unscathed.
The dictionary defines "depose" as: to remove from high office." I believe the Watergate break-in
operation was primarily a CIA operation. I do not believe its intent was to remove President Nixon
from the presidency. I do believe Shoffler's intent was to remove Nixon from office and that he had
shared his prior knowledge of the planned break-in with his superiors in the Military and that a
decision adverse to Nixon had been reached.
Thanks for voting. I have not studied the boundaries or links between military intelligence and
the CIA as regards Watergate, and at times I use the term CIA to refer to the entire intelligence
complex. Particularly when dealing with unofficial, off the books operations, a lot of operations
are done by an informal network of current/former military/intelligence people who move around within
organizations. I consider George HW Bush to be a senior if not THE senior person in the CIA watergate
hierarchy; however, Bush was most likely not a CIA employee during the Nixon years; however, he remained
part of unofficial CIA old-boys network which really ran things.
I have a hard time understanding the boundaries and linkages between the CIA, DIA, ONI and other
military intelligence agencies. At times they seem to act in unison, and at other times, they are
somewhat independent.
It seems like you agree that Nixon was deposed by the intelligence complex. Can you suggest a
better phrasing of the question which might better include your viewpoint?? And what are some other
Military Intelligence links to Watergate?
On 3/14/2013 at 5:05 PM, Mark Gorton said: Douglas,
Thanks for voting. I have not studied the boundaries or links between military intelligence
and the CIA as regards Watergate, and at times I use the term CIA to refer to the entire intelligence
complex. Particularly when dealing with unofficial, off the books operations, a lot of operations
are done by an informal network of current/former military/intelligence people who move around
within organizations. I consider George HW Bush to be a senior if not THE senior person in the
CIA watergate hierarchy; however, Bush was most likely not a CIA employee during the Nixon years;
however, he remained part of unofficial CIA old-boys network which really ran things.
I have a hard time understanding the boundaries and linkages between the CIA, DIA, ONI and
other military intelligence agencies. At times they seem to act in unison, and at other times,
they are somewhat independent.
It seems like you agree that Nixon was deposed by the intelligence complex. Can you suggest
a better phrasing of the question which might better include your viewpoint?? And what are some
other Military Intelligence links to Watergate?
Best Regards,
Mark
This is a complex issue.
Both the CIA and Military Intelligence had separate secret operations inside the White House that
essentially monitored everything Nixon said or did.
The Watergate break-in was a CIA operation. However, Military Intelligence possessed prior knowledge
of the planned break-in. This was because Carl Shoffler, the D.C. detective who arrested the burglars
at Watergate, was a Military Intelligence agent assigned to the D.C. police. He had learned of the
planned break-in weeks before it took place.
The CIA had its own file on the role of Military Intelligence inside the White House and in Watergate.
Military Intelligence undertook an operation to steal this key CIA file that was successful.
This prevented the real role of Military Intelligence in Nixon being deposed from ever becoming
part of the public record.
Here is Justin Murphy describing his background,
research, and activism:
Why is there not more rebellion against status quo institutions? How have economic and political
processes pacified our capacity for radical collective action? As a political scientist, I
am interested in the roles played by information, communication, and ideology in the pacification
of political resistance and conflict. Before joining the faculty of Politics and IR at the University
of Southampton in the UK, I did my PhD at Temple University in the US. There I was active in
Occupy Wall Street ,
some civil disobedience
and shutting down of
things , some longer-term campaigns against
the big U.S. banks , and sundry other
works and deeds , including a
radical warehouse project where
I lived for nearly three years.
So Murphy is an academic on the left. He is therefore part of the establishment, a card-carrying
member of the institutional structure that dominates intellectual discourse in the West. But, unlike
the vast majority of his academic brethren, he is quite aware that the left is now the status quo
and that it is doing everything it can to preserve its elite status - and that its self-preserving
tactics are at base nothing more than irrational assertions of power and privilege. Murphy makes
these claims in a blogpost: "
The psychology of prohibiting outside thinkers . " Part of the subtitle says it all: "
The real motivation of respectable progressivism is managing guilty conscience and conserving bourgeois
privileges ."
What's so refreshing about this is that instead of "exclud[ing] independent right-wing intellectual
work on moral grounds," he would actually "enjoy thinking" with intellectuals on the right. Indeed,
moral indictments have become the stock in trade of establishment intellectuals - as noted in my
three-part "
Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival ." Moral condemnations are easy.
No intellectual heavy lifting required. All one need do is appeal to conventional moral intuitions
as shaped by the the same institutions that are now the status quo - the media and academic culture.
As I note, those who dissent from the status quo are "not only misguided, [they are] malevolent
consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon,
or so goes the stereotype And that's the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral
community. There's no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety.
You are like an
outlaw
in Old Norse society - 'a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on
sight without any legal repercussions.'"
Back to Murphy:
Very simply, ["institutional intellectuals"] are imposing a cordon sanitaire that
is instrumentally necessary to the continuation of their unjustified intellectual privileges in
the institutional order. I am increasingly convinced there is simply no other public function
to this political repetition compulsion. The reason this is important, from the left, is that
this cordon sanitaire is straightforwardly a mechanism to conserve the status quo, everything
progressives pretend to be interested in overthrowing. This is why neo-reactionary intellectuals
speak of the status quo political order as dominated by a left-progressive "Cathedral."
The religious analogy is quite apt. Like moral pronouncements, religious dogmas are not refutable
and need not be justified empirically. They are nothing more than intellectually shoddy ex Cathedra
pronouncements that take advantage of a pre-existing intellectual consensus.
First, it seems to be a fact that the genuinely intellectual wings of the alt-right or neo-reaction
(NRx) or whatever you want to call it, are probably too intelligent and sophisticated for bourgeois
intellectual workers to engage with, let alone compete with. So if those essays are actually
pretty smart and a legitimate challenge to your institutional authority as a credentialed intellectual-you
are functionally required to close ranks, if only with a silent agreement to not engage.
Now, as soon as anyone from this non-institutional world produces effects within the institutional
orbit, it is actually a really serious survival reflex for all institutionally privileged intellectuals
to play the morality card ("no platform!"). If all these strange, outside autodidacts are actually
smart and independently producing high-level intellectual content you don't have the time to even
understand, let alone defeat or otherwise control, this is an existential threat to your entire
livelihood. Because all of your personal identity, your status, and your salary, is based directly
on your credentialed, legitimated membership card giving your writings and pontifications an officially
sanctioned power and authority. If that door is opened even a crack by non-credentialed outsiders,
the whole jig is up for the respectable bourgeois monopoly on the official intellectual organs
of society.
This comment really strikes home with me. I wrote three books on Judaism from an evolutionary
perspective, the first of which was
reviewed positively
in academic journals; the second was
less widely reviewed
, and the third was basically
ignored apart from a favorable review by Frank Salter in the Human Ethology Bulletin
. Instead I was subjected to a vicious witch hunt spearheaded by the SPLC, joined by a great many
of the faculty in the College of Liberal Arts, especially the Jewish faculty. In all of the exchanges
on faculty email lists there was never any attempt to deal with the academic soundness of these books.
Labels like "anti-Semitic" sufficed. So now, nearly 20 years after publication, Culture of Critique
remains ignored by the academic establishment even as it gains traction on the Alt Right.
The same can be said about Murray's The Bell Curve . It is referenced at times but almost
always with the adjective 'discredited' even though the data are rock solid. I know a liberal academic
who commented, "I don't have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell
Curve."
Murphy:
An interesting question is, because respectable intellectuals are often pretty smart and capable,
why are they so fearful of outside intellectual projects, even if they are as evil as some fear?
They are smart and capable intellectuals, so you'd think they would embrace some interesting challenge
as an opportunity for productive contestation. Why don't they? Well, here's where the reality
gets ugly. The reason respectable intellectuals so instinctively close ranks around the moral
exclusion of NRx intellectuals is that currently working, respectable intellectuals privately
know that the intellectual compromises they have made to secure their respectability and careers
has rendered most of their life's work sadly and vulnerably low-quality.
I suspect this is quite true. There is a replication crisis centering on psychology and particularly
in
social psychology , the most blatantly politicized field within psychology. This is my summary
of Prof. Jonathan Haidt's comments on the topic:
when scholarly articles that contravene the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic
journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become super rigorous. More controls are needed, and
more subjects. It's not a representative sample, and the statistical techniques are inadequate.
This use of scientific rigor against theories that are disliked for deeper reasons is a theme
of Chapter 2 of The Culture
of Critique where it was also noted that standards were quite lax when it came to data
that fit the leftist zeitgeist.
Whole areas of education and sociology doubtless have similar problems. For example, in education,
there have been decades of studies "discovering" panaceas for the Black-White academic achievement
gap - without any success. But, as Prof. Ray Wolters notes ("Why Education Reform Failed," The
Occidental Quarterly [Spring, 2016]) , hope springs eternal because there are always
new wrinkles to try. Fundamentally the field fails to deal with IQ or with genetic influences on
IQ and academic performance.
The same is likely true of huge swaths of the humanities where verbal brilliance, post-modern
lack of logic and rigor, and leftist politics have created wonderlands of inanity. All this would
be swept away if the outsiders triumphed. I strongly suggest following @RealPeerReview on Twitter
to get a feeling for what is now going on in academia. Remember, these people are getting jobs and
students are paying exorbitant tuition to hear them lecture.
Murphy:
To convince status-quo cultural money dispensers to give you a grant, fourr instance, any currently
"successful" academic or artist has to so extensively pepper their proposal with patently stupid
words and notions that knowingly make the final result a sad, contorted piece of work 80% of which
is bent to the flattery of our overlords. But we falsely rationalize this contortion as "mature
discipline" which we then rationalize to be the warrant for our privileged status as legitimate
intellectuals.
And then, twisting the knife:
Because we know deep down inside that our life's work is only half of what it could have been
had we the courage to not ask for permission, if there ever arise people who are doing high-level
intellectual work on the outside, exactly as they wish to without anyone's permission or money,
then not only are we naturally resentful, but we secretly know that at least some of these outsiders
are likely doing more interesting, more valuable, more radically incisive work than we are, because
we secretly know that we earn our salary by agreeing to only say half of what we could.
Can't think of a better way to end it. What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging
this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it's not so surprising
given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really
get interested in a field? Why don't professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural
selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species - why don't these White people become
vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European
genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?
This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.
"This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests."
Both are selfish materialistic interests. You will never be able to understand why Whites are
committing suicide if this is all you can see. You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity,
like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your
premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.
You yourself admit you cannot understand it – i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises.
One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time
to think beyond them.
Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to
break free.
Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.
The left used to call the intellectual enablers of capitalism "bourgeois intellectuals." This
included various professions like economics, political science, etc.
Since Sociology was the Revolution Party led by Jews, it got a pass.
Today, with commies like the handsome negro Van Jones, at one of the major networks, and these
networks nothing more than Pravda Dem Party hackworks, we need a new term for the media-Left-Revolutionary
minority-racist-jewish-liberal-anti-fa, academic , etc. cultural revolution.
The fact that , per this article, it has become so trendy as to attract opportunists of many
colors, it arguably is in danger of strident internal divisions, like the LGBTxyz, loonies that
have self-destructed. Something that denotes the internal instability of the Dem coalition would
be useful.
The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration
of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any
such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing.
Dunno, but the Brave New World needs a catchy term. Liberal Opportunism also must be compassed
in the term. Liberal World Equality Trashniks, etc.
Joe Webb
Excellent stuff. The hard truths that our society refuses to listen to and tries its best to
suppress.
This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests.
Not hard to understand – genetic interests are not individual interests unless the individual
chooses to make them so. Many of these people are childless, as a result of lifestyle choices
– choosing to engage in homosexual or recreational activity instead of reproductive for hedonist
reasons, postponing childbirth until too late for career materialist reasons. Such people have
turned away from the instinctive objective of reproduction in the most fundamental way, and have
no direct interest in the future beyond their own brief lives. No wonder they are free to engage
in the profound selfishness of destructive altruism.
Others think their children will be sheltered from the consequences by their own establishment
status, or genuinely believe the dogmas they have repeated for so long.
Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There's no need to talk with
you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse
society - 'a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight
without any legal repercussions.'"
Projection of such an incredible amount of animus directed at one individual must be an indicator
of a huge lacking in our culture. Common decency aside, the simple repetition of such hostility
must be masking other ills. S.H.I.T. Happens! Self. Haters. Impugning. Trump. Happens! Examined
here:
One wonders if psychologists are ignorant of history.
Some 300 years BCE a Greek calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, the
right figure is 40.000. Yet Columbus' sailors were afraid to fall of the earth.
For some 1600 years the christian church prevented all independent thought, in 1600 the
pope had Giordano Bruno burned alive, for heretic thoughts, about the universe, about the holy
trinity.
At about the same time Calvin burned Servetius, the man who discovered blood circulation,
alive to death, also about the trinity. So Servetius was unable to tell the world about the
blood circulation.
Galileo got away with house arrest.
Even around 1860 the pope declared that philosophical thinking not controlled by the church
was illegal.
So there is nothing special in the christian culture about no independent thought. On top of
that, as Chomsky states: in any culture there is a standard truth, if this truth is not considered,
no debate is possible, but between those who know better.
We see this right now, much wailing about the indeed horrible carnage in Manchester, that the
USA, Predators with Hellfire, causes such carnage every week three or fout times, it cannot be
said. Terrorism is caused by the Islam, not by the west.
@AaronB "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests."
Both are selfish materialistic interests. You will never be able to understand why Whites are
committing suicide if this is all you can see.
You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching
your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.
You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises.
One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time
to think beyond them.
Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break
free.
Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.
This is a fascinating take on the true Establishment, if not the 'counter-culture'; both of
which are politically correct and engineered to be self-perpetuating.
The progressive Trojan Horse has penetrated the kingdom's walls. Tolerance! (Do not resist.)
These progressive movements are also censorious, authoritarian and highly exclusive.
'We are all One'. Bigotry will not be tolerated!
At their core, these liberal movements and their rainbow collection of accompanying values
represent the subversive interests of an invasive species.
Like moral pronouncements, religious dogmas are not refutable and need not be justified
empirically. They are nothing more than intellectually shoddy ex Cathedra pronouncements that
take advantage of a pre-existing intellectual consensus.
This is a bit unfair to religious dogma. From Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to Augustine and Aquinas,
many theologians did their most notable work, precisely in arguing against people who did not
share their views.
@anonHUN Can you elaborate? You mean they aspire to be saints, and sacrifice themselves or
to repent for the sins of their fathers? (by going extinct?) Well true, Christianity introduced
this kind of nutjobs to the world who aimed to die without resisting "evil" and expecting to win
that way on the metaphysical plane. Progressives don't believe in such things though.
Dec 7, 2011 Council on Foreign Relations – The Power Behind Big News
One version says that the CFR is an organization sister to the Royal Institute of International
Affairs (Britain), both founded in 1921 right after World War I when the League of Nations idea
failed. The sole purpose of such organizations is to condition the public to accept a Global Governance
which today is the United Nations.
@Santoculto I agree absolutely, no doubt it's more and more ''spiritual'' than just ''evolutionary''.
Yes, existentialism is one of the ''plague'' that is destroying west BUT existentialism should
be a good thing, a emancipation from childish belief systems, less for people who hasn't been
selected to be mature, so instead a clear evolution of ''spirit'' be beneficial, it's become maladaptative.
'''They''' create a moral game that is impossible for those who can't think in ''multiple' perspectives
to win.
@utu I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike
them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly
w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted
him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because
cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can
fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That's why also Derbyshire
and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.
Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation. The evidence for an instinct to reproduce
seems to be obvious in the widespread desire for children/grandchildren of one's own. Any reason
to deny the obvious presumption?
Though of course it's not really relevant to the point I was making, since "instinct for reproduction"
could as easily have been written "genetic imperative for reproduction" without affecting the
point.
@utu I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike
them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly
w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted
him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because
cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can
fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That's why also Derbyshire
and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.
What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the
academic world is vanishingly rare.
It's not incredibly pathetic, it's just disgustingly pathetic. As you've said, they're all
intellectual whores. That's what the public sector has always been comprised of. I know. I worked
for three governments (briefly) and I devoted an even shorter part of my one and only life to
appointments at three universities, including two of the World's top 30 (according to the Times
Higher Ed) research schools.
But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested
in a field?
The idealism remains, but those young idealistic scholars, realizing what a degraded, sordid,
bureaucratic world the university has become, went out into the real world, whether to drop out,
make money, or pursue the intellectual life with real, personally paid for, freedom.
Why don't professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works
when there is an invasive species or sub-species - why don't these White people become vocal
opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European
genes?
They are far from the brightest of the bunch and they are, as we already said, intellectual
whores.
How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?
How many kids does Frau Merkel have? How many kids does Frau Theresa May have? Why would they
care about the future of their own people. Same problem with a lot of female quota academics.
There's no solution other than to tie the feminists in bags and dump them in the Bosphorus,
and the same with the academic eunochs, the scoundrel academic deans, and the slimebag university
presidents and vice presidents. Screw the whole dirty lot of them.
Trump could make a start by ending all Federal support for universities.
@AaronB As you probably realize, the West isn't engaged in altruistic self-sacrifice, but
in suicide. There is a big difference. One is good, the other bad.
One is based on love and compassion, the other on self-disgust. If we were capable of love
we would defend our way of life, not destroy it - if we could love, our life would have some meaning,
and some happiness. Love is a transcendent, non-materialist, value.
What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.
This isn't Christian, either. Suicide is forbidden in Christianity, nor can one force others
to sacrifice themselves, as in forcing entire unwilling nations to self-destruct.
Also, our policies are obviously increasing misery, hatred, and bloodshed, in the long run,
and the short run. If we were motivated by compassion, we could send money, aid, entire teams,
to other countries. But that would not serve our true purpose.
Meantime, if you want to take a kick at the crooks in academic administration, go over to the
blog of Professor John McAdams -
booted from the Marquette U, supposedly a Christian institution, for the terrible crime of standing
up for a student who wished to make a case against gay marriage in a philosophy class - and give
him your encouragement and support.
@CanSpeccy Meantime, if you want to take a kick at the crooks in academic administration,
go over to the blog of Professor John
McAdams - booted from the Marquette U, supposedly a Christian institution, for the terrible
crime of standing up for a student who wished to make a case against gay marriage in a philosophy
class - and give him your encouragement and support.
There is an interesting point in the life of any maturing intellect when one discovers the
gap between how the Academy insists on "explaining" how the world works and how the world really
works. It is very hard to resist the urge to talk about it. [Even harder to look at the raw scientific
data "no platformed" out of the dialogue.]
Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy's new enemies already know how the world works, and will only double
down on their "explanation" because it serves their group interests. Further, Murphy will likely
face professional backlash for discussing the Emperor's attire. This will be exciting for a young
scholar, but likely will sour with time. Cordelia was the youngest of Lear's daughters, and Socrates
probably got the fate he deserved.
What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.
Yeah, hate by the globalist elite for the mass of mankind (aka what Bill Clinton's history mentor,
Carroll Quigley called the Money Power), which is rather different from self-hatred, although
self-hatred or at least the lust for what is self-destructive is what a mass-hating elite seeks
to instill in the masses.
Societies don't live or die according to the minds of the mass, but according to the wisdom
and ambitions of the leadership. So let's forget the BS about a lack of spirituality, let's recognize
who are the bastards driving the West to destruction and how they and their agents are to be exposed
and destroyed.
I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting
the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups
in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied
across borders and separate polities.
The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald's
ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility.
But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point
of view.
What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the
academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it's not so surprising given the above. But
what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested
in a field? Why don't professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection
works when there is an invasive species or sub-species - why don't these White people become
vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European
genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?
This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests.
Be that as it may, I think phrasing opposition in terms of anything pertaining to genes is
disastrous . And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly try
to bring up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration restriction.
They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All these terms denote
supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).
Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect their
polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one world ) with
a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration restriction
should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state's borders. A citizen's right to cross
the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.
"I don't have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve."
Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts
the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development.
I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and technologically
innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much more internationally
cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur , and progress harnessed to the hypercapitalism
as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity will be brought
well within striking distance for that generation.
The great silence from the Universe (we're all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what
evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having
evolved
twice ) plus we now we know that bacteria
can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting
by getting a little too advanced.
@AaronB You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows
he does not understand what it is based on.
Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand
White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.
His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.
Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely
altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe
current White behavior as altruistic.
Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure -
survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which
seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.
Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of
the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.
These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.
@AaronB You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows
he does not understand what it is based on.
Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand
White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.
His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.
Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely
altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe
current White behavior as altruistic.
Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure -
survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which
seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.
Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of
the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.
These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.
@AaronB You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows
he does not understand what it is based on.
Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand
White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.
His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.
Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely
altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe
current White behavior as altruistic.
Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure -
survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which
seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.
Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of
the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.
These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.
"... Muslim fundamentalism is such a strong growth that it needed no Western provocation to
set it in motion. We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less,
that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale.
That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
... Western countries have been arming and training Muslim fighters knowing full well that
those fighters were Jihadis, and were more than likely to join even more extreme Jihadi units.
Knowing full well also that some of those Jihadis, but now trained in killing and invigorated
by contact with other true believers, would return to their countries of origin and do what harm
they could.
... We see ragged groups of thugs using, often inexpertly, the deadly equipment we give them
or the supply of which we facilitate. ... For there is now no doubt that the flood of foreign
Jihadis that have wreaked such havoc in Syria and neighbouring countries was released by us or
with our active complicity. It could not have happened but for Western assistance. We do not acknowledge
it."
survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating – a fact ...
Oh sure!
Just what a globalist shill for European genocide would say.
The truth, however, is quite the opposite.
Thus, if in a territory of fixed carrying capacity, indigenous females are impregnated by alien
settlers, then in the next generation, the proportion of indigenous genes in the gene pool will
be diminished.
Some survival strategy!
That that is a strategy for self-genocide is why Jews won't "marry out" and insist on having
a Jewish state.
And the genocidal effect is the same if you merely have mass immigration, especially when combined
with below replacement birth rates as have been engineered throughout the West by government policy
on abortion, divorce, toleration of immigrant polygamy, and the promotion of sexual perversion
under the guise of sex "education." Under those circumstances, it doesn't matter who the indigenous
people mate with, their genes in the gene pool will be diluted, eventually to extinction.
Even if the indigenous mate only with one another, the frequency of their genes in the gene
pool will be diminished both proportionally and in total, unless the population grows without
limit.
@Sean I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting
the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups
in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied
across borders and separate polities.
The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald's
ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility.
But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point
of view.
What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the
academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it's not so surprising given the above. But
what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested
in a field? Why don't professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection
works when there is an invasive species or sub-species - why don't these White people become
vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European
genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?
This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests.
. And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly try to bring
up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration restriction.
They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All these terms
denote supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).
Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect
their polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one
world ) with a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration
restriction should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state's borders. A citizen's
right to cross the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.
"I don't have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve."
Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts
the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development.
I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and
technologically innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much
more internationally cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur , and progress harnessed
to the hypercapitalism as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity
will be brought well within striking distance for that generation.
The great silence from the Universe (we're all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what
evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having
evolved
twice ) plus we now we know that bacteria
can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting
by getting a little too advanced.
@AaronB You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against
itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with
Western ideas, and are most affected by them.
In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and
dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were
not so deeply affected.
But today, the masses have caught up - obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.
The "bastards" who are responsible - unfortunately, you can't hunt down materialism.
If you don't see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break
free.
Santoculto - but you see, "beauty" is a metaphysical concept - it transcends mere matter. Materialism
has no use for beauty. We see this today - with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture,
our art, has become ugly. Beauty is "useless".
We have some "thing" driving us forward - selfish materialism. If you don't like it, and wish
to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a "thing".
@AaronB You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against
itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with
Western ideas, and are most affected by them.
In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and
dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were
not so deeply affected.
But today, the masses have caught up - obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.
The "bastards" who are responsible - unfortunately, you can't hunt down materialism.
If you don't see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break
free.
Santoculto - but you see, "beauty" is a metaphysical concept - it transcends mere matter. Materialism
has no use for beauty. We see this today - with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture,
our art, has become ugly. Beauty is "useless".
We have some "thing" driving us forward - selfish materialism. If you don't like it, and wish
to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a "thing".
@reiner Tor People love having grandkids, even feminist Hillary Clinton (who otherwise
didn't care much for reproduction) begged her only daughter to produce grandkids for her. Childless
spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two reasons why,
with one of them being bitter about not having children. What makes you think it's not hardwired?
@ FKA Max – thanks, that sounds interesting. I don't know if Europeans are less altruistic
than others, but I do know that the Muslims whom the Crusaders came into contact with considered
Europeans to be especially ethnocentric.
In my view, genetic determinism is simply a limited view – nations change their character,
often dramatically, over time. Examples are numerous – dishonest Germans, lazy Chinese, etc,
etc.
To ignore this, truly one must do violence to one's mind.
@Nickels – yes, but that is the materialist trap. One cannot simply choose not to be a materialist
for prudential reasons – as prudence itself is a materialist value. Materialism certainly undermines
itself in many ways, though. It is, even, self-contradictory (if our minds are evolutionary,
we can't assume it produces truth – but then our minds produced the theory of evolution, which
we then have no basis to believe in, and so on. It's circular, and self-undermining.)
– but beauty is not a physical thing – it is a relation between things, a certain proportion,
an arrangement of things. Therefore, it is metaphysical – i.e above physics.
Agree with you about the Vatican – though beautiful, it represent power and wealth, values
utterly foreign to Christianity.
First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering
my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.
You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group" - if the indigenous group agrees
to assimilate to the invaders identity - religion, etc - then the indigenous group need not
suffer any loss of genetic frequency.
Even today, if you convert to Islam - assimilate - you will be provided a wife in many places.
Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.
There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam - many low-status Western males
will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual
and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse
off.
To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason - our distinct identity
must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western
elites, by their behavior.
Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger - the
optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into "hordes", which happened in many cases. A tribe
that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason - it did not make genetic
sense.
Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse
to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel - attractive Palestinian women
should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli
men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called
"checkpoint", where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually
harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about
how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.
European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women
- both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.
Yes - Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of
individual Jews is not served by this. This is why "assimilation" is so deplored by the Rabbis,
who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it - they know no materialist explanation
can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating
with gentiles - it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and
only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And
the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.
In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting
to Christianity and assimilating.
And so on and so forth.
Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that
open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into
place.
First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering
my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.
You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group" - if the indigenous group agrees
to assimilate to the invaders identity - religion, etc - then the indigenous group need not
suffer any loss of genetic frequency.
Even today, if you convert to Islam - assimilate - you will be provided a wife in many places.
Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.
There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam - many low-status Western males
will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual
and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse
off.
To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason - our distinct identity
must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western
elites, by their behavior.
Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger - the
optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into "hordes", which happened in many cases. A tribe
that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason - it did not make genetic
sense.
Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse
to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel - attractive Palestinian women
should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli
men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called
"checkpoint", where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually
harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about
how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.
European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women
- both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.
Yes - Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of
individual Jews is not served by this. This is why "assimilation" is so deplored by the Rabbis,
who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it - they know no materialist explanation
can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating
with gentiles - it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and
only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And
the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.
In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting
to Christianity and assimilating.
And so on and so forth.
Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that
open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into
place.
This is exactly why "neoreaction" should have been the face and force behind the Alt-Right,
not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left is when equality
is questioned on an ideological level - the immediate reaction to accuse their opponents of
moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.
Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it's the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce
the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only
get you so far.
@utu And who are these Jews who... Got a source for that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ
I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has
not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes
of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic
societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that.
It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural
mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading
role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive .
@AaronB @ FKA Max - thanks, that sounds interesting. I don't know if Europeans are less
altruistic than others, but I do know that the Muslims whom the Crusaders came into contact
with considered Europeans to be especially ethnocentric.
In my view, genetic determinism is simply a limited view - nations change their character,
often dramatically, over time. Examples are numerous - dishonest Germans, lazy Chinese, etc,
etc.
To ignore this, truly one must do violence to one's mind.
@Nickels - yes, but that is the materialist trap. One cannot simply choose not to be a materialist
for prudential reasons - as prudence itself is a materialist value. Materialism certainly undermines
itself in many ways, though. It is, even, self-contradictory (if our minds are evolutionary,
we can't assume it produces truth - but then our minds produced the theory of evolution, which
we then have no basis to believe in, and so on. It's circular, and self-undermining.)
@Santoculto - but beauty is not a physical thing - it is a relation between things, a certain
proportion, an arrangement of things. Therefore, it is metaphysical - i.e above physics.
Agree with you about the Vatican - though beautiful, it represent power and wealth, values
utterly foreign to Christianity.
I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes
survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50%
of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more
of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if
you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.
First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide.
I didn't say what I thought you support. I said that what you were saying was consistent with
the objective of those who do seek European genocide.
if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity – religion, etc –
then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.
That's a clever piece of bullshit. What your saying is, as long as the indigenous Europeans
agree to become part of some other group then the loss of their genes does not matter because,
hey, they agreed in advance to merge and be submerged and ultimately eliminated.
As for
You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group"
More clever bullshit, since it is you who are doing the conflating.
Even today, if you convert to Islam – assimilate – you will be provided a wife in many places.
Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.
So you are crassly advocating conversion of Europe to Islam on the preposterous falsehood that
it will increase European genes in the European gene pool, which is mathematical nonsense.
If a European turns Muslim in Europe, it's most likely that he will marry a European or several,
and if it is several, so much the worst for the genes of those European males who might otherwise
have married but who will have to make do without a wife at all.
Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse
to mate with them
Bollocks. Tell that to the 40 million living descendants of Ghengis Kahn.
Take Israel
Please do.
There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam – many low-status Western males
will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued
intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically.
I've already exploded that idiotic fallacy in an earlier comment (see #52, above). I'm not
engaging in a 'tis 'tisn't dispute.
To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason
Any group thinking the way you want the Europeans to think will be wiped from the page of history
in very short order.
attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They
are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them.
The Palis haven't surrendered yet. They want to kill everyone of you Jews or at least drive
you back wherever the Hell you came from.
Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger
You certainly pack a lot of BS into one comment. The optimum strategy depends greatly on circumstances.
Genocide, as practiced by the Jews of old against the original inhabitants of Israel, involving
slaughter of the males and post menopausal females, and impregnation of the females is often
the optimum strategy, but circumstances alter cases in a vast number of different ways, so
your comment is, frankly, fatuous.
European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local
women
There was no European colonization of Asia, so what are you talking about?
Yes – Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival
of individual Jews is not served by this.
There is no such thing as the genetic survival of individual Jews or anyone else. All that
counts, in the evolutionary sense, are genes, and the share of your gene in the gene pool,
and what is apparently "highly obvious" to you is not the case.
In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting
to Christianity and assimilating.
"Obviously"? Usually a sign of bunk to be asserted. You have no arguments at all. Mere ridiculous
and uninformed comment that happens to conform exactly with the globalist project for the destruction
of the independent, sovereign, democratic, and by tradition Christian, European states.
And so on and so forth.
Yes, very good. That typifies the deficiency in fact and logic of your entire spiel.
Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas
that open up before you.
And once you open yourself up to unadulterated bullshit, it's amazing how quickly you can inadvertently
destroy your own people and posterity.
May 22, 2017 The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party
Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded
the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain,
professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of
the Democratic Party.
@AaronB "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests."
Both are selfish materialistic interests.
You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can
see.
You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally
scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle
of materialism.
You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises.
One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time
to think beyond them.
Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to
break free.
Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.
@Jason Liu This is exactly why "neoreaction" should have been the face and force behind
the Alt-Right, not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left
is when equality is questioned on an ideological level -- the immediate reaction to accuse
their opponents of moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.
Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it's the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce
the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only
get you so far.
I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes
survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50%
of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more
of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if
you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.
@Sean I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting
the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups
in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied
across borders and separate polities.
The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald's
ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility.
But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point
of view.
What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the
academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it's not so surprising given the above. But
what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested
in a field? Why don't professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection
works when there is an invasive species or sub-species - why don't these White people become
vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against
European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?
This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary
interests.
Be that as it may, I think phrasing opposition in terms of anything pertaining to genes is
disastrous . And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly
try to bring up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration
restriction. They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All
these terms denote supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).
Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect
their polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one
world ) with a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration
restriction should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state's borders. A citizen's
right to cross the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.
"I don't have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve."
Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts
the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development.
I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and
technologically innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much
more internationally cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur , and progress harnessed
to the hypercapitalism as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity
will be brought well within striking distance for that generation.
The great silence from the Universe (we're all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what
evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having
evolved
twice ) plus we now we know that bacteria
can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting
by getting a little too advanced.
@jilles dykstra One wonders if psychologists are ignorant of history.
Some 300 years BCE a Greek calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, the right
figure is 40.000.
Yet Columbus' sailors were afraid to fall of the earth.
For some 1600 years the christian church prevented all independent thought, in 1600 the pope
had Giordano Bruno burned alive, for heretic thoughts, about the universe, about the holy trinity.
At about the same time Calvin burned Servetius, the man who discovered blood circulation, alive
to death, also about the trinity.
So Servetius was unable to tell the world about the blood circulation.
Galileo got away with house arrest.
Even around 1860 the pope declared that philosophical thinking not controlled by the church
was illegal.
So there is nothing special in the christian culture about no independent thought.
On top of that, as Chomsky states: in any culture there is a standard truth, if this truth
is not considered, no debate is possible, but between those who know better.
We see this right now, much wailing about the indeed horrible carnage in Manchester, that the
USA, Predators with Hellfire, causes such carnage every week three or fout times, it cannot
be said.
Terrorism is caused by the Islam, not by the west.
In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.
How would that work genetically?
If I paid you $10,000 and gave you a day, could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope
model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids
yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?
Actually, I could come up with such models for free.
But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every
point of view.
Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course,
are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in
mind.
@annamaria A case in point - Libya: http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-bears-responsibility-for-the-manchester-atrocity/
"The illegal NATO war against Libya was Hillary Clinton's war above all others. It was her
who took a stable, prosperous, secular socialist country and turned it into a failed state
and a terrorist playground. Gaddafi warned that he was the rampart holding back al-Qaeda from
Europe, but Hillary Clinton did not care. She even laughed about Gaddafi's inhumane, barbaric
execution at the hands of terrorists.
Had Hillary Clinton not been able to convince Barack Obama and his useful war propagandists
David Cameron in Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy, the dead children in Manchester might be with
us today.
Hillary Clinton famously said of Gaddafi's illegal execution, "We came, we saw, he died". Indeed,
she came, she saw, he died and now thousands of more have died in Libya, many others have died
in Europe because of this, including those who recently perished in Manchester."
But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every
point of view.
Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course,
are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in
mind.
@Alden You're too intelligent to keep repeating Calvinist and enlightenment propaganda.
Columbus and his sailors knew that the earth was round and if they just keep sailing west they
would eventually run into Asia about 5,000 miles from The coast of Spain.
What Columbus didn't know was that the Americas are between Europe and Asia.
Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs
to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor.
By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in
the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was
done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.
I very heard of the scientific method? It was created around 1100 AD by priests and monks
at the Roman Catholic University of Paris Sorbonne.
Your own country the Netherlands was under the North Sea in 500 AD. It was Roman Catholic
monks who settled on the beaches and began a thousand year process of land reclamation that
literally built the land now called the Netherlands.
Every university established in Europe before 1800 was established by the church. During
those 1600 years you cite the only libraries in Europe belonged to the church
@AaronB You know, if we adopt the genetic perspective, then none of this matters at all.
Behaviors get selected for in a vast impersonal process that doesn't care about the outcome.
I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.
If someone has inherited a concern with his genetic transmission, or if someone has not,
is a neutral fact with no significance from this point of view. If that person's genes don't
make it to the next generation, that is a fact - it is without value. We have banished value,
and created a world of impersonal facts.
There can be no discussion, because there are no values, there are no reference points -
it is all a vast impersonal process that is utterly blind.
You cannot derive value from fact - and your attempt to do so is merely the metaphysical
instinct hard at work, trying to derive meaning from the concepts available to you, even if
those concepts cannot yield meaning.
Such is the strength of man's metaphysical instinct (the search for value and meaning) -
finally, after much toil and effort, we arrive at a world view which banishes all metaphysics,
yet we try immediately to sneak it in through the back door.
Tell me, why *should* I care about my genes? Ah, but with that word "should", we are back
into metaphysics, and out of the genetic world-view.
These double-binds and knots that Western thinking has finally tied itself into - if we
cannot untie these knots, we are doomed to death.
Because this talk of genetic transmission will not give us the motivation to save ourselves.
@Alden There is a theory that Hildabeast attacked Libya on orders from the bankers because
Ghaddafi took Libya out of the international monetary system.
America needs a leader like Ghaddafi, a leader who cares about his own people and nation.
@Jason Liu This is exactly why "neoreaction" should have been the face and force behind
the Alt-Right, not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left
is when equality is questioned on an ideological level -- the immediate reaction to accuse
their opponents of moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.
Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it's the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce
the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only
get you so far.
@utu The anti Catholic propaganda was particularly strong in The Netherlands: "Liever Turks
dan Paaps"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps
"Childless spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two
reasons why, with one of them being bitter about not having children. "
You sure understand more about the person using certain vocabulary, than the subject they
are opining about. Chuckling at the images he's conjuring up. To judge from what I've seen,
those "spinsters" probably got more action than most properly married and childed women.
There are lots of other reasons to be bitter than not having kids. Like having kids you wish
you'd never had. Some of the bitterest people I've ever met have been parents. Both kinds.
It is common to overestimate the desire of women to reproduce. I was flabbergasted at the young
women I met years ago who declared with absoluteness, they wanted no children. That seemed
so final and I couldn't get why they didn't see the potential in raising super-kids. They said
it with absolute conviction and awareness that they would probably not die young and would
be old without kids. Today, most are just fine. Most do not seem bitter. Maybe they should for
the good of society you want high quality people to reproduce. But these are the very types
least concerned, and by and large they are just fine with the situation. What is convenient
for the individual is not always good for society; but it does make for a happy individual.
I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.
Doesn't matter whether you see why or not. The genes of those who do care are more likely to
be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such
things is largely a cultural matter. Hence, as
Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide explained, genocide can be achieved by:
a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national
groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The
end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions,
of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion.
It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and
dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort.
That is exactly what the European peoples are exposed to now. In arguing for the Islamification
of Europe, through mass immigration you are promoting genocide of the Europeans, for whatever
reasons, maybe hatred of Europeans, or maybe it pays - for you to raise a family and thus increase
the representation of your genes in the gene pool.
@Alden Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish
Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against
the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean
and Atlantic safer for Europeans.
I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic
Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus
consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance
between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti
science religion.
Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the
Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing
the Americas were between Spain and Asia.
Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric
in the last 80 years.
@MarkinLA I just think Hillary was looking to her Presidential run in 2016 and saw an opportunity
to burnish her "foreign policy" bonafides. She thought it would be a cake walk and successful
and could then brag in 2016 how she was head and shoulders above everybody else in foreign
policy. Benghazi happened and everything was supposed to go down the memory hole.
@Alden Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish
Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against
the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean
and Atlantic safer for Europeans.
I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic
Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus
consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance
between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti
science religion.
Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the
Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing
the Americas were between Spain and Asia.
Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric
in the last 80 years.
@Alden I know but the English stopped the anti Catholic nonsense when they stopped attending
their Protestant churches. But Dykstra just keeps posting the same old same old.
restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates
I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration.
Why does it seem so that so many arguments are stigmatized and have negative connotations?
Different argument will work with different people. Some arguments will fall on deaf ears in
the US but might be persuasive in some European countries.
Cultural arguments (destruction of cultures of both of the host and that of the immigrant,
irreconcilable religious and cultural differences)
Economic arguments (group and individual impact of immigration, who benefits and who does not)
Legal arguments (sovereignty, ownership of land and country, national home, who can live in
it and who can decide if every citizen is a part owner of the country, rule of reciprocity
and 1st categorical imperative: what if everybody did this)
Biological arguments (irreversibility of miscegenation, loss of natural biological diversity)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxL_wuYtSg
@AaronB I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe - quite the opposite!
I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really
compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
"The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations
than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter.
"
So is it genetically determined, or a cultural attitude, subject to change? Since you distinguish
between the two, I assume you do not think culture is genetically determined - otherwise the
two sentences are identical.
If it is genetically determined, then the European population is clearly composed of people
who do not possess the gene that makes one care about the survival of one's group - and then,
what are you hoping for?
@Wizard of Oz You unfairly snipe at SS and JD for some reason. My tecollection is that
Steve was brought up Catholic but his genetic father is Jewish. But i can't see in any case
why he should be expected to write to your prescription.
Also you seem to have missed the Derbyshire piece about the Jews in America who still mrntally
live in 1880 Russia hiding from the Cossacks.
@utu Various prejudices and misconceptions function in popular culture. Nobody really question
them. You can find them in Monty Python.
Arriving in England, I went from a country where religion was everywhere, but of little interest
to me, to a country that had little interest in religion, but still defined me by my purported
beliefs. Modern Britain is a country founded in large part on anti-Catholicism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice
And then you have this:
Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that Anti-Catholicism is football related
(specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish
Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent
of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this
makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack
than a Protestant. (wiki)
I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!
I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have
no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
What is this self-sacrifice?
What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?
What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent
jobs from Americans?
What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East
- perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure - who will take any job that a European
has and do the work for a lower wage?
The only sacrifice you are saying "we" have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy
globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist
bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals
that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor
or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global
governance regime.
It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the
Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought "representatives of the people," not the materialism
of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European
peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity
of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken
to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.
@Alden Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.
I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that
included civil obligations such as conscription. That's why the Jews left, not programs, not
affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.
In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas
are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories
about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to
other countries. That's why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries
that did not have the draft. They didn't go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because
all those countries had conscription.
Russia's draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out
and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee
enlistment and the Jews didn't go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially
mandatory voting: every person casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill
out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a vote for "I'll go with the majority's
decision."
The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this process: everyone
is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the
people who vote by proxy. It's Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from
the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will
very much favored Trump over Clinton.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all
5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that have been truly competitive over the last five presidential
elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from
determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would
only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country",
as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from
determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would
only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country",
as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
This is not a new trick, but still it was impressive. Macron played his hand well and brought
extreme neoliberals to power using threat of fascism, while his neoliberal views might be even closer to neo-fascism then LePen's.
"Divide and conquer" and "bait and
switch" proved again very effective tools. In other words Macron victory is another neoliberal coup after
Argentina and Brazil. Neoliberal zombies do not want to die. The power of neoliberal
propaganda
is still substantial -- the population can be brainwashed despite the fact that must now understand that
neoliberal promised are fake and the redistribution of wealth up destroys middle class and
impoverishes lower
60-80% of population
Notable quotes:
"... Les Républicains (LR), ..."
"... In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks. ..."
"... The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism. ..."
"... To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En Marche!" ..."
"... The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system". ..."
"... Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good Canard Enchainé ..."
"... These "civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence. ..."
"... Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie "Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But how? ..."
"... Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has no price tag. ..."
"... The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of égalité ..."
"... Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that "there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field. ..."
"... Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions. ..."
"... Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as "communist". ..."
"... La France Insoumise ..."
"... categories populaires ..."
"... Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro. ..."
"... A "color revolution" was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland. ..."
A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won
only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of "fascism" allegedly embodied by
his opponent, Marine Le Pen. Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French
voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked. Now they
are stuck with him for five years.
If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the
trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to "globalization", using whatever is left of the power of
national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to "the markets"
– that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably
those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.
The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly
thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election
of Marine Le Pen would have meant.
From a Two Party to a Single Party System
Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially
ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly
the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which
has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Républicains
(LR), in obvious imitation of the United States . For decades, there has been nothing
"socialist" about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans.
In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed
European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially
since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic
policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its
farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.
This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread
reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful
reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular
economic conformism.
To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled "En
Marche!" has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties. It has broken and
absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all
party loyal to Macron.
The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the "Socialist" government was so unpopular
that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking
ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was
advertised by all the media as "new" and "anti-system".
Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist
government, the Republican candidate, François Fillon, looked like a shoo-in. But despite his pro-business
economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign
policy including good Canard Enchainé to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign.
The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of "establishment politicians",
these revelations were fatal. The impression that "politicians are all corrupt" played into the hands
of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his
passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there's nothing illegal about that.
In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give
a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating
one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation,
candidates from "civil society", with no political experience, but loyal to him personally. These
"civil society" newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition,
who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen's
longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical
differences masked their political convergence.
The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican,
Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican,
alongside his own selections from "civil society".
Transforming France
Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents' hints
at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent
renewal of Europe's old wars. But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled
leftist "revolutionaries" such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie
"Merci Patron", could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to "oppose him later". But
how?
Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever. In recent decades,
as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France
has lost 40% of its industry. Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry
is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently
the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it
up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs. But violence is powerless when it has
no price tag.
Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting
back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the
June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period
not to "reform" the country, as his predecessors put it, but to "transform" France into a different
sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but
a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany
by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.
As usual, the newly elected French president's first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty
to the increasingly lopsided "Franco-German partnership". He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor
Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded
by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German
consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree
of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.
First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers
various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron,
the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual
initiative, symbolized by startups.
The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of
égalité , equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical
ideal of "equality of opportunity", meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above
the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the
self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can't
rise above the others.
Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal
access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations
for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the
benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways. One way is the imposition
of "competition" rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public
services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with
the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue
that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.
Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping
to become a billionaire.
Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that
"there is no such thing as French culture". From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse
cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital. He has clearly signaled his rejection
of French independence in the foreign policy field. Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for
improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition
on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is
indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is "Minister of Europe and of Foreign
Affairs", clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who
has remarked that "she does not feel French", has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense.
Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in
various joint Western interventions.
The Divided Opposition
Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron's
catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped
out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only
be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which
prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine
opposition must be " souverainiste ", concerned with preserving French sovereignty.
Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition:
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.
Mélenchon ran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the
party he personally left behind years ago). Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from
Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making
it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change. Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out
as a "fascist", there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron's challenger, he would have
been increasingly denounced as "communist".
Mélenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot
be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency. He therefore took a stand against both
NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their
two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead
calling on his movement, La France Insoumise , to choose between Macron and abstention.
Finally, 25% of Mélenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron – almost
exclusively motivated by the alleged need to "stop fascism". That compares with the final total results
of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.
That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and
allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron.
She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat
her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she
retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene. The problem for Mélenchon is that
his electorate is more versatile.
Despite his loud appeal to "youth", Macron was elected by France's huge population of old people.
Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest
age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron's 56%.
[1] According
to poll of 7,752 representative voters by Le Figaro/LCI,
The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories. Macron won a whopping
83% of the votes coming from the "superior socio-professional categories" – categories where the
"winners" in competitive society are largely ensconced. But in what are described as " categories
populaires ", a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor
of Le Pen. And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63%
of workers' votes.
Note that the "superior socio-professional categories" are where the significance of these results
will be defined. Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities
– are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be "racist",
and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by "fascism".
One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among
foreign "leftists" over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of
the poor. It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago. These days, the winners in the
competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in
favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working
class, don't deserve much of anything, because they must be "racist" to be wary of globalization.
The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have
pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called
"bobo" – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant
human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment
industry. In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.
What if Marine Le Pen had won?
Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine
Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.
It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France
from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent "fascist threat". The ghost would be exorcised.
If the word has any meaning, "fascism" implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear
her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan,
as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit
for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.
Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over
the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two
opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party's
founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter
Marion Maréchal Le Pen. In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le
Pen has built her own bastion, as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of
votes in the presidential election.
This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone
of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left's
official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go
her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn't believe in Gorbachev). This change owes everything to her
encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to
face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual
substance she needed. Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite
grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left
wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front
and found a new "Patriot Party". However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and
must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which
will not be easy.
Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides,
provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world,
starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots
for escape from the euro.
But not to worry, none of this "fascist" program would ever have come to pass. If she had won,
bands of protesting "antifascists" would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking
police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to
stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections,
[2] "Si Le
Pen avait été élue le plan secret pour 'protéger la République'", Le Nouvel Observateur, May 17,
2017 , ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A "color revolution"
was ready to be stirred up. The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various
national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been
complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure
of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite
possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something
just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that
I happen to agree with. I recently produced
my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup,
call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being
directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to
suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed
hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers
are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would
have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process
and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."
Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry
of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent
from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary
Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent
to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.
Ray
suggests that
Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI
cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular
was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by
Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced.
As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously
while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians,
it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated.
If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking
to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is
"Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?"
and then followed up with a second Piece
"The
'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up
of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually
committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.
Like Parry, I
am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is
awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators
ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge
within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a
group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.
Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted
of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly
suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted
in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced
a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore
was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.
Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how
the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working
by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so
when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through
executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support
allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless,
anyone even vaguely
connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential
traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of
the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.
Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional
liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who
believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.
The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy
mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive
action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing
down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal
for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also
fit.
The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with
the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment.
The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for
the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves
by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics
should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and
Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like
Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their
views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists
for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign
policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical
weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as
narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in
a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security
and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump
can do. Are They
Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified
The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered
to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.
In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system,
the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.
I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the
same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans
and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence
was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not
fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention:
have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where
They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North
Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was
all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During
this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of
agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack
on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones
plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental
bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start
of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.
While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give
him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting
for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide
peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him
out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant
and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey?
I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed
that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence
of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for
the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump.
This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What
next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that
is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated
this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of
FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates
and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and
her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated
to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?
The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.
Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece,
Netherlands.
In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want
to rid themselves of this establishment.
GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment
and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.
The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states,
power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars,
power of governments, on the other hand.
In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the
establishment, 40% rejects it.
In other countries more or less the same.
The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections
the efforts to contrue a government are a failure.
Belgium was more than a year without a government.
In Spain one government after another.
The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around.
Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland
and Hungary.
The Greek rebellion failed completely.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.
What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares
it with China.
Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep
state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.
A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president
won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.
Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent
Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that
the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.
Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The
story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life.
Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made
a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull
the trigger for him.
Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt
for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense
of service to his country.
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the
highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis
, as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership
growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we
should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when
our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination
to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of
millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on
?
Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty
pool" being played out in the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate
their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director"
at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that
Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary
due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives
in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release
Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie
nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted
Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head".
What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts
of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of
the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT
from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media,
by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the
Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist")
asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed
unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation?
Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the
Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?
Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't
matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to
see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably
already know or at least can guess.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.
For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion,"
but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.
Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla
of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would
not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.
If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the
various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected
president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already
too late for that.
I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to
loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from
deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time
he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small
feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.
The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama
left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change
on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them
apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and
predictable like Tom Pence.
@animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would
be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining
and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but
the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public
communications.
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing"
which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering
operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
Some of the investigations have expanded
their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate
Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know
more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal
investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This
may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey
firing??)
Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections
involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He
is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley
with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter
resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out
as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though
he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable
of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not
have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.
And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized
the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.
I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He
needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.
Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying
anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop
these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.
@Hobo
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian
thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in
a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
... ... ... ...
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft,
or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and
that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House.
Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House
itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with
that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to
the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated
interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of
his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."
It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's
bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered
Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives
utilizing
Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?
@Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties
and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really
a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard
beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive
cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its
good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate
in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power
they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live
in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them
all is what we must do.
I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself.
Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents
itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts
of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being
fought.
The "establishment" does not seem to care.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our
wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep
State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration
in office.
Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year.
Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the
establishment class and the deep state it lords over.
The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted
to war.
Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story.
Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.
The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending
our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed
the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently
of any administration in office.
Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories
is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under
investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is
no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making
the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome
legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good
investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."
At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?
There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps
its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?
@utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case
scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump
was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many
people will believe it.
@iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered
Hillary's bid
There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought
this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch
saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation)
and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince
a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited
by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance
State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse
has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their
nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are
waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation"
of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th
October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage
in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands
of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly
covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the
attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The
deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey.
Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.
My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign
assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement
will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting
his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner?
and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?
The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid.
They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against
Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which
there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the
people.
Citizens United worsened the crisis of dark money influencing our country. We need to
get corporate money and lobbyists out of politics.
I've decided to stop accepting PAC/lobbyist $$. Bottom line: we can't allow our future to
be driven and shaped by special interests.
It always amazes me so few zamericans seem to even discuss these basic themes; with such a
completely corrupt political system, there is little chance even a solid, well meaning president
could accomplish much.
In fact , such corrupt system hardly produces any good statesmen to begin with
"... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
"... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
"... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
"... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
"... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
"... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
"... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
"... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
"... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
"... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
"... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
"... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
"... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
"... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
"... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
"... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
"... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
"... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
"... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
"... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails,
but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Why?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign
government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton
crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top
of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails
which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads
that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to
do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.
We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither
the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is
that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?
And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the
last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?
According to Fox News:
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home
had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .
Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich
family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)
Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their
political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking
story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins
who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline,
are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins
who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.
WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active
interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction
of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?
I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not
just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being
used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could
actually change the course of history.
Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust
what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked"
by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset
with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray)
appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit
to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .
Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages
about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical
danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian
government.
"The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the
same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting
that information out had legal access to that information
Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services,
NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"
"I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they
are leaks by Americans."
("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news,
but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.
Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and,
so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?
Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In
fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof
of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called
The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a
smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran
journalist Robert Parry summed it up:
"The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further,
the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive
because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert
Parry, Consortium News)
Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking
gun", eh?
If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because
it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was
corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that
served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:
"On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia
deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe
this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one
reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked"
from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts
were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved
by the directors of the three agencies and me."
This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from
just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout
the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through
some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .
A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over
the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no
role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA
and reviewed and approved their conclusions .
The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether
it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency
."
("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)
Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't
it?
Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected
the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create
consensus.
3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?
Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.)
4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?
No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This
of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.
5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?
Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."
6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question
their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?
Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:
"I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian
interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions
are under assault internally."
When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)
Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of
the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")
7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?
No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would
'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's
no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:
"12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed
there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:
The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that
the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)
Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes
to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want
to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?
How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?
First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant
and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will
help to put things into perspective:
"Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense
of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal
Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy
grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.
"These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding,
all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,"
the letter states.
Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and
observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen
apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI
Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)
Get the picture?
Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't
trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.
American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify
Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:
"There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July
2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence
gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table",
American Thinker)
Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving
the way for impeachment proceedings?
Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings
in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These
things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer
Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the
CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"
("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)
Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the
claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative
as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet'
our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't
seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely
been limited to the wimps in Europe.
sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a
governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.
imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington
projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.
once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking
for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it
out ability project power.
our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries
like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.
forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and
the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.
watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights
here.
@Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and
retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family
now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough
influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and
the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around
to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity
and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes
of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players.
Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical
& economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of
that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there
is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening
is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like
this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.
And then, the gates of hell break open in America.
@Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled
to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in
this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?
Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and
volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the
likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And
they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that
there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person
casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a
vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this
process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's
Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over
Clinton.
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away.
We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong
arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on
our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the
Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps
I should have said " won the popular vote count ".
As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.
My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.
I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military
dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland
mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking
version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.
If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia
action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go
along with the official line.
Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.
All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in
"national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global
security".
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped
away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters
strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well
on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts
to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what
it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the
drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.
It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only
that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.
I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to
remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol
Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly
for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.
"Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."
I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months?
I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in
Washington State is the cause of his delusions?
We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders,
and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but
my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due
to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan,
as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.
He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational
institutions. None of that in the USA.
As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere
about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike
the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).
He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of
that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time,
and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right
now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout
4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you
will only find in the video game!
December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security
In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing
the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political
ploy.
Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss
his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.
Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?
It is Julian, not Julien.
I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that
slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly
extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.
Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some
great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about
the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default
on bail.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that
have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without
the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could
safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that
I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its
borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will
they do that?
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot
be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national
cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to
tear the homeland apart.
The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system,
to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.
Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks
were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the
French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern
countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.
At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment,
Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.
@Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that
u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head??
https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
"... John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign ..."
"... Mr. Brennan became so concerned last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress, speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president. ..."
"... Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad intelligence community report revealing that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election. ..."
John O. Brennan, the former director of the CIA, said publicly for the first time Tuesday that he was concerned about possible
ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
President Trump asked two top intelligence officials to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between his campaign and
Russia, former officials said. Both of the intelligence officials are testifying before lawmakers on Tuesday.
Mr. Brennan, the former CIA director, said Tuesday that he became concerned last year that the Russian government was trying to
influence members of the Trump campaign to act - wittingly or unwittingly - on Moscow's behalf.
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials
and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
Mr. Brennan told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee.
It raised questions in my mind about whether Russia was able to gain the cooperation of those individuals," he said, adding that
he did not know whether the Russian efforts were successful. He added, "I don't know whether such collusion existed." It was the first time he publicly acknowledged that he was concerned about possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
He said he left office in January with many unanswered questions about the Russian influence operation. Intelligence officials
have said that Russia tried to tip the election toward Mr. Trump.
Mr. Brennan became so concerned
last summer about signs of Russian election meddling that he held urgent, classified briefings for eight senior members of Congress,
speaking with some of them over secure phone lines while they were away on recess. In those conversations, he told lawmakers there
was evidence that Russia was specifically working to elect Mr. Trump as president.
Mr. Brennan was also one of a handful of officials who briefed both President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in January on a broad
intelligence community report revealing
that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered an "influence campaign" targeting the presidential election.
Citizens United worsened the crisis of dark money influencing our country. We need to
get corporate money and lobbyists out of politics.
I've decided to stop accepting PAC/lobbyist $$. Bottom line: we can't allow our future to
be driven and shaped by special interests.
It always amazes me so few zamericans seem to even discuss these basic themes; with such a
completely corrupt political system, there is little chance even a solid, well meaning president
could accomplish much.
In fact , such corrupt system hardly produces any good statesmen to begin with
"Universalist Democrat"="Neoliberal Democrats" or Clinton wing of the party.
Notable quotes:
"... Rhetorically, universalist Democrats often end up appealing for a party that offers a space for everyone to voice their concerns. Hillary Clinton is a great example of this ..."
"... Populists, according to Gerring's categories, were the dominant force in national Democratic politics from 1896 to 1948. ..."
"... Their organizing political principle was a moral fight between the common man and a few moneyed elites who exploited the masses for personal gain. Populists often targeted trusts. They used moral language, explicitly calling policies "right" or "wrong" and believed that the government was the only force strong enough to restrain big business, ensure that the basic needs of citizens were met and bring people into a state of true equality." ..."
"Gerring writes that universalism started
to take hold in the Democratic Party in the postwar era as national Democrats shifted away from an
anti-elitist, populist message and toward rhetoric centered on unity, peace and prosperity.
Universalists tend to see abstract concepts rather than specific people or institutions as problems
- think of the efforts to stop poverty, end racism or reduce income inequality. Universalist Democrats
cast themselves as managers of the welfare state rather than crusaders against a powerful elite,
and they often championed the rights and causes of a wide array of individual groups.
Democrats' focus on LGBT rights, civil rights protections for African-Americans, comprehensive
immigration reform, women's rights and more can all be thought of as part of as a universalist commitment
to the particular needs of groups.
Rhetorically, universalist Democrats often end up appealing for a party that offers a space for
everyone to voice their concerns. Hillary Clinton is a great example of this" .
"Sanders, however, doesn't ultimately trace his policy positions to a fight with poverty or for
better health care, but to a fight against Wall Street bankers or pharmaceutical companies. His economic
narratives have clear and present antagonists . In these ways, Sanders is more of a populist than
many modern Democrats. Populists, according to Gerring's categories, were the dominant force in national
Democratic politics from 1896 to 1948.
Their organizing political principle was a moral fight between the common man and a few moneyed
elites who exploited the masses for personal gain. Populists often targeted trusts. They used moral
language, explicitly calling policies "right" or "wrong" and believed that the government was the
only force strong enough to restrain big business, ensure that the basic needs of citizens were met
and bring people into a state of true equality."
"... The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. ..."
"... The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. ..."
"... These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been going on in the U.S. for awhile now. Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current situation. ..."
"... This is exactly how leadership selection in the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at this point. ..."
The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under
Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore.
The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance
sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. This
is how the system has operated - Cheney ran it under Bush, Clinton ran it under Obama, it's all
bureaucractic infighting. If you read about Soviet history you see the same thing:
The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc
countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres
of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions
were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been
going on in the U.S. for awhile now. Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by
the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current situation. Pence,
they figure, will be far more amenable to control. Even though Trump has been going along with
the standard Republican domestic agenda, he's just viewed as too unpredictable for their tastes.
This is exactly how leadership selection in the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is
no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at this point.
I'm not concerned about it though, if the grossly corrupt federal government is locked up with
this nonsense for the next four years, that's fine. Perhaps state governments can step up and
work together to solve problems while Washington gnaws its own belly, that's about the best we
can hope for.
"... Intelligence [agencies] started #Russiagate ..."
"... Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI. ..."
"... But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January? ..."
"... If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January? ..."
"... Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction? ..."
"... But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th? ..."
"... Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March 20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation, especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page. ..."
"... Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis. ..."
"... We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media hysteria and excess , and possibly even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite literally driving the country crazy. ..."
"... Mueller quit his regular job, so he needs to be Special Counsel for as long as possible. So, it's (2). He doesn't have to say he's found anything, he just needs to say the investigation continues. It could continue into and after the next general election, making Trump a lame duck from now until the end of his term. ..."
Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing
colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned
by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI.
Amid the chaos of James Comey's firing, new questions about the timeline of his fateful investigation
... ... ...
Todd went out of his way to hammer at the question of whether or not he knew of any evidence of
collusion. Clapper again said, "Not to my knowledge." Here Todd appropriately pressed him: If it
did exist, would you know?
To this, Clapper merely answered, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since
I left the government."
That's not an unequivocal "yes," but it's close. There's no way to compare Clapper's statements on
March 5th to his interviews last week and not feel that something significant changed between then
and now.
Clapper's statements seem even stranger in light of James Comey's own testimony in the House on
March 20th.
In that appearance, Comey – who by then had dropped his bombshell about the existence of an investigation
into Trump campaign figures – was asked by New York Republican Elise Stefanik when he notified the
DNI about his inquiry.
"Good question," Comey said. "Obviously, the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along.
The DNI, I don't know what the DNI's knowledge of it was, because we didn't have a DNI – until Mr.
Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning."
Comey was saying that he hadn't briefed the DNI because between January 20th, when Clapper left
office, and March 16th, when former Indiana senator and now Trump appointee Dan Coats took office,
the DNI position was unfilled.
But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director
under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January?
If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it
to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence
of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January?
Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle
in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly
be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction?
Again, prior to last week, Clapper had said he would know if there was a FISA warrant issued on
this matter. But then on April 11th,
law enforcement and government officials leaked – anonymously, as has been the case throughout
most of this story – that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump associate
Carter Page.
So what's going on here? In talking to people on the Hill last week, I heard a number of theories.
One interpretation is that the FBI, concerned about operational security, conducted a secret investigation
during the last months of Barack Obama's presidency without informing the likes of Clapper and other
agency chiefs.
But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it
under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting
public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th?
Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March
20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than
one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation,
especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page.
But the context of these interviews still makes Clapper dissembling in his March interview a strange
and unlikely possibility. Clapper has not been in the habit of doing Trump political favors this
season. And if indeed it's standard practice for a DNI to not know what counterintelligence operations
the FBI might be up to, it would have made a lot more sense for Clapper to say that on Meet the
Press on March 5th.
Instead, he did Trump a solid by stating unequivocally that there were no FISA warrants out, and
that he would have known if there were, adding he had seen no evidence of collusion. Why?
When James Comey was fired last week, I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view.
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes
and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive
who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the
Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs,
if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless
it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington
who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation
support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged
crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone
higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper
– possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to
get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason. Gutting a money-laundering
case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger
nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
However, let's say the FBI is actually investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and
the Russian state. That's the most serious possibility, and the one exciting so much public dread.
If it's that, what's at the heart of that case? Why can't we be told what's going on? Operational
secrecy would be a believable excuse, were it not for the fact that so much else has been leaked.
Intelligence sources even
appeared to give up their ability to capture Russian officials celebrating Trump's election win.
If something like that can be leaked, and if even foreign governments can be told about "leverages
of pressure" Russia
allegedly has
on Trump , it stands to reason that the American public should have heard what's behind the Trump-Russia
investigation by now.
Trump easily could have committed some disqualifying act in response to this scandal. The worry
about that is why we've always needed an independent investigation.
Such an investigation into Trump's campaign might very well uncover a range of improprieties and
shady dealings by some of the campaign "associates" who've figured into news reports. This wouldn't
be surprising, I don't think, even to some of the people in the White House.
But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil
liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in
which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of
the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations.
It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret
evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified
or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one
seems to care.
We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media
hysteria
and excess , and possibly
even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation
with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant
stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite
literally driving the country crazy.
The public deserves to know what's going on. It deserved to know before the election, it deserved
to know before the inauguration, and it deserves to know now.
Mueller quit his regular job, so he needs to be Special Counsel for as long as possible. So,
it's (2). He doesn't have to say he's found anything, he just needs to say the investigation continues.
It could continue into and after the next general election, making Trump a lame duck from now
until the end of his term.
"The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in
America. His discretion is tremendous. . . .While the prosecutor at his best is one of the
most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is
one of the worst."
A prosecutor has almost unilateral, unchecked ability to destroy the lives of those he charges.
It is beyond troubling that our top law enforcement officer chooses the company of those who repeatedly
failed their duty.
It's obvious that this Russia-Trump investigation is a ruse to spy on Trump and his associates
for dirt. I'm sure the Obama Admin spied on other political foes. His admin has a history of it.
Let's hope that Mueller actually has some integrity and finds the truth.
See: Trevor Aaronson: "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War On Terrorism,"
Irish Good ol boy Mueller as FBI DIRECTOR created the Terror Factory- conspired to entrap Muslims
and arrested them as terrorists to justify the FBI's inflated budget.
The FBI are the keystone cops. They are coverup operators & incompetent. Nothing but a gangster
operation.
Mueller mentored Comey. Both are corrupt, pretending to be patriotic.
Comey got $3 million as a "board member" at Lockheed Martin to shut down Clintons Treason investigation.
Mueller wants Trump's tax returns to dig into. He has UNLIMITED boundaries to probe.
Obama never gave up his life to an independent counsel. Lynch Holder & Yates protected him.
Rod Rosenstein must be compromised. No other answer why he didn't protect Trump.
Gangsters are running our country like a banana republic.
No honest person can lead these criminals. They turn the tables & charge the innocent.
(See Senator Stevens because he ran for another term in Alaska. They killed him!)
Substitute Trump for Hil-Lia-y & any special counsel will have enough
evidence to execute her.
Why doesn't Tahibbi investigate the uranium hil-liar y sold to the Russians & how she LAUNDERED
A payoff INTO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION; or Why the FBI DIDN'T SEIZE THE DNC COMPUTERS; or why was
Seth Rich assassinated?
Or how john podesta got rich on Russian banking while working in the Obama White House.
What came first, Matt, voter fraud or Trump's large crowds?
Read the book, "Shattered" & you will discover how & Hil-liar-y CONSPIRED TO SPIN THE WAG THE
DOG EXCUSE AS A RUSSIAN HACK WHEN IT WAS SETH RICH , & they murdered him.
Gumshoe reporter or Goebbels parrot, which are you, Matt?
Maybe the investigation is a ruse started by Obama apparatchiks with the idea that Trump would
self-destruct under the pressure Looks like it's working.
The "Russia" investigation is a red herring, a hoax. Can anyone, anyone name the statute that
is being referenced for this "investigation?" They can't because there is none. Is there any claim
or evidence that a single vote was compromised by the "Russians" in favor of Trump? Anyway, they
don't want him POTUS, because he is no pushover, like HRC would have been. it's all a fiction,
all of it.
"... Such investigations NEVER stick to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further. The order the Acting Attorney General wrote includes language which allows for nearly unlimited digging in "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It will thereby continue until -inevitably- some dirt will be found that can be blown out of all proportion and lead to prosecutions or impeachment. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Flynn's communication of the decision was influenced by money. Flynn had registered his lobbying under the Lobbying Disclosure Act with the Clerk of the House of Representatives effectively September 15, 2016. ..."
"... Trump believes that better relations with Russia are important for the well-being of the United States, Pence would likely pursue an anti-Russian policy. That, I believe, is the real issue here. There are no unbeseeming relations between Trump and Russia. Russia had little, if any, influence on the 2016 election. There was no "Russian meddling". But Trump's somewhat more friendly behavior towards Russia, which he campaigned for, is disliked by the-powers-that-are. ..."
"... He didn't even know what hit him. His assistant attorney general gave him the news just 30 minutes before he released it to the media. Anyone who thinks the rump is the engineer is dreaming. he's in the caboose, playing solitaire with the twits. ..."
"... I disagree this is bad. This appointment should give Trump & Sessions cover to appoint a decent FBI Director and properly go after Hilary Clinton, John Podesta, Clinton Foundation and find out who had Seth Rich murdered. ..."
"... who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information? Just Rex Tillerson and McMaster (and the two Russians). McMaster is in regular communication with Paul Wolfowitz. Isn't it possible that McMaster is the mole, and then he has tried to hide his tracks by defending Trump publicly? ..."
"... The 'Russia did it', in conjunction with the 'Trump is in bed with the Russians', narratives, both completely unsubstantiated, were chosen to be seized on as a red-herring to stick like a burr to, to milk for all they could be milked for, for a variety of reasons by the PTB. ..."
"... For example, there is still a handy residual fear of Russia in the States, and Putin has been relentlessly demonized, so let's make use of it, and Russia effectively opposes 'full spectrum dominance, etc', and the spooks and MIC depend for a living on a scary big boogieman. ..."
"... The leaked extreme pathology on display easily interpreted in the Podesta emails via Wikileaks, along with the Weiner computer 'treasure trove' of emails - and the latter reportedly turned the stomach of an experienced key member of the NYPD, and involved evidence or indications of many serious crimes, Clintons involved - and then the murder of Seth Rich for having been in effect a hugely important whistleblower via Wikileaks, this mass of evidence re the seamy sick side of the massive Swamp had to be buried, silenced. ..."
"... There were two interpreter-scribes in there, both of whom made a transcript of the conversations. Putin's offer to turn over his was rebuffed, leading one to believe mischief is afoot on our side. ..."
"... The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. ..."
"... The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. ..."
"... Filling his admin with goldman sachs scum ..."
"... Bombing Syria and helping out IS and al Qaeda for the neocons ..."
"... Considering dual citizen garbage like Lieberman ..."
"... and almost every other campaign promise he ever made. And while this is happening Trump supporters are still patting themselves on the back with blather about the power of their 'memes'. ..."
"... The Dutch are just one of many tentacles of the Christian Colonial octopus/ Swamp Alliance. All of Christian Colonialism's warmongering, banksterised, govt-toppling, movers and shakers (US, France, Germany, UK etc etc) are on board with the Get Trump conspiracy. One thing they have in common is that they all (including Oz) get their "News" from the Jew-controlled MSM and are anti-Palestinian and apologists for Jewish Colonialism in Palestine. The worsening facts-on-the-ground in "Israel" speak volumes about Christian Colonialism's support for the Israel Project. ..."
"... "Israeli"-dominated News is the de facto bullshit/ talking-point manufacturer & coordinator for The West. ..."
"... Language in the remit that authorizes an open-ended investigation is a mandate to find something to pin on the target of the investigation, not an authorization for a "proper investigation." ..."
"... Mueller's charge is to find something to pin on Trump, not to conduct a "proper investigation." ..."
"... Trump is NOT a member of the club which is the Republican Hierarchy. Those are the real motherfuckers. They do not want him to be prez and he is not welcome in their club. Neither is Trump an official errand boy for the Deep State (many among both parties are official errand boys and girls). Again, Trump is not an official errand boy. ..."
"... Trump has tried to appease the rotten motherfuckers. He really has. Trump is already ratfucking the middle class and the poor in accordance with their prescription. Trump will keep on trying to please them (See Joe Lieberhebrewratbastard). ..."
"... No matter, they strapped Pence to his back, BECAUSE they want a malleable errand boy who will DO Exactly as he is instructed ..."
"... Things are not as they seem. IMO this is a carefully scripted plan by the Deep State to push Trump into Total War, not that he was not inclined to do so anyways. His Russian connections lead to mafia ties so deep he could lose everything under Rico. He knows this. Once the War begins the internet kill switch is thrown and the lights go out. Martial Law. Like in WWI, if you criticize the war you go to jail. A Deep State Dream. ..."
"... Trump was a Trojan Horse ..."
"... MIC and international Banks will be rolling in the dough. Everyone wins except those caught in the carnage down below (bottom 99%) and of course those nations we obliterate with Shock & Awe on Steroids (nukes) ..."
"... Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office. ..."
"... Trump does not have any experts or thinkers of note that do not belong to the "meritocrats", i.e. the Washington establishment. Bannon is perhaps a thinker, but hardly of note. I even doubt that Trump has any good instincts, except that at occasion he had the childish gift of noticing that this or that has "no cloths". But the next thing a child does is throwing a tantrum for some petty reason. ..."
"... Wow what a show. Faux populist Obama was also politically weakened by crazy opposition. Faux populist Obama was also forced FORCED! to do the establishment's bidding. Could Trump be the Republican Obama? Are we all falling for essentially the same con? Few can wrap their heads around that possibility. Yet ... ..."
"... That doesn't necessarily mean it'll be Trump's dirt that washes up. If Seth Rich is proven to have leaked the emails to Wikileaks, the Russian hacking narrative evaporates, and the Ukrainian collusion to manipulate the election from the Democrat side is legitimately within the ambit of the investigation. We may yet see the Democrat Party prosecuted as a continuing criminal enterprise, and none too soon. ..."
"... They describe the capabilities of US Internet advertisers, even worse post-net-neutrality, and project it onto Russia. Their desperation reeks. ..."
"... Obama was never in the "opposition", Trump is indeed in the opposition but the question is if he have the strength to stand up to these sick people in deepstate/msm. With attacks on Syria etc it doesnt look good but there is no comparsion to the wimp Obama. ..."
"... "Politicians, journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for 'Putin's puppets.'" http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/how-muellers-investigation-could-turn-raging-mccarthyesque-witchhunt/ri19884 ..."
"... "the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials" Which part of this sourcing in the article did you not understand? The more interesting questions are what is the purpose of releasing this information by a US puppet, who colluded in the release and how it plays into the 'Trump betrayed Israel' hysteria. ..."
"... My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a 'faux populist model of governance'. Elements of this model are ..."
"... A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she intends to capture a future payoff for himself. ..."
"... Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable hands' by TPTB. ..."
"... crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists. I call them "enforcers". ..."
"... ... they are self-funding operations. once the money starts to flow a portion is set aside for kickbacks, bribes, and efforts to protect the mainstream funding itself. it is truly a parasitic operation that feeds on the fruits of its effort on others' behalf, and thus strengthens itself, becoming a stand-alone operation. ..."
"... there are tens of thousands of people in ac/dc working in these operations, looking out for taiwan's interests, israel's interests, making sure that russia stays demonized ... all the various corporate issues ... but at base and before all else, looking out for number one. ..."
"... a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government in favor of the lucrative process of policy misdirection itself. ..."
"... Y'all may remember that Trump's domestic business dealings had some Mob connections. I think Wm Engdahl, among other, reported on this. Well, if you google Trump and Russian Mafia you will see an entirely different idea as to what this attack on Trump might be about. ..."
The Trump administration made a huge mistake by not preventing the
just announced special council investigation into the alleged, but likely non-existing "Trump-Russia" connections:
The Justice Department appointed a special counsel Wednesday to investigate possible coordination between President Trump's associates
and Russian officials - a clear signal to the White House that federal investigators will aggressively pursue the matter despite
the president's insistence that there was no "collusion'' with the Kremlin.
Robert S. Mueller III, a former prosecutor who served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013, has agreed to take over the investigation
as a special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein announced. The move marks a concession by the Trump administration
to Democratic demands for the investigation to be run independently of the Justice Department. Calls for a special counsel intensified
after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey last week.
It is weird that the WaPo report above calls this "a concession by the Trump administration to Democratic demands for the investigation".
It further states that the White House was not informed about it until it had been made:
The White House did not learn of Rosenstein's decision until just 30 minutes before the public announcement was made.
Anyway. This is bad and the Trump administration should have pulled all strings to prevent it. Such investigations NEVER stick
to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further. The
order the Acting
Attorney General wrote includes language which allows for nearly unlimited digging in "any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation." It will thereby continue until -inevitably- some dirt will be found that can be blown out of all proportion
and lead to prosecutions or impeachment.
Both men were rising stars mentored and guided by Eric Holder in the 1990s during Holder's time in the Justice Department under
the Clinton administration.
...
Mueller, now 68, and Comey, now 52, would become close partners and close allies throughout the years ahead.
...
Both, Comey and Mueller, were involved in the dramatic hospital scene at the bed of Attorney General Ashcroft to stop Bush's illegal
program of spying on U.S. citizens. The program in question stopped for a moment but the spying simply continued under a different
legal justification.
The attempts to smear Trump and those around him over foreign connections have entered absurd territory. The lead headline at
McClatchy today is a. old news, b. confusing the timeline only to further throw dirt into the direction of Trump:
One of the Trump administration's first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before
he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he'd been paid
more than $500,000 to represent.
The incoming Trump administration temporarily stopped the Raqqa campaign which the Obama administration had decided would be done
with Kurdish forces. This was
on January 17 , only a few days before the Trump administration took over. The Obama administration itself had deliberated about
the issue for over 8 month and its choice was not its preferred option:
Most of the shortcomings outlined by the Trump team were obvious to Obama's advisers he added. In fact, the senior Obama administration
official said, arming the Kurds was Obama's Plan B, after it became clear that Plan A - using Turkish forces to take Raqqa - would
not be feasible.
It is doubtful that Flynn's communication of the decision was influenced by money. Flynn had
registered his lobbying under the Lobbying Disclosure Act with the Clerk of the House of Representatives effectively September
15, 2016. According to his later
filling (pdf) at the Foreign Agent Registry, his consulting contract with the Turkish owned company had ended three month later,
on November 15, 2016. The owner of the company Inovo, which had hired Flynn, is Ekim Alptekin, an ally of the Turkish President Erdogan.
(Alptekin's lawyer ones
asserted that the
company had acted on behalf of Israeli gas interests. The two Israeli gas companies possibly involved both denied any such connection.)
Alptekin himself denied any connection to
Trump administration decisions and correctly noted that Trump had practically no chance of winning the election at the time Alptekin
had hired Flynn who was then just one of many Trump advisors.
There is no reasonable relation between Flynn's lobbying for Turkish interest and the halt of the Raqqa campaign preparations.
Attempts to drawn lines between
the Turkish lobbying and Russian interests end up as convoluted rumor collections. With the Raqqa halt the Trump administration
simply rejected to take responsibility for a military adventure (which had not even started) based on a dubious last-minute Obama
decision. It wanted to review the issue and decide after its own assessment.
One has to ask why McClatchy is reporting this now? That Flynn had was lobbying for Alptekin's company was registered in September
and
first reported in November 2016. The temporary halt of the Raqqa campaign planing was decided on January 17 and
reported on February 2 2017. Where then is the "news" value in this May 2017 McClatchy report?
Aspecial council investigation will, of course, jump on such not-news reports like McClatchy's. He will dramatically invite witnesses
and leak further rumors to the media - even when the basic facts show that there is nothing to it. Such investigations pursue death
by a thousand cuts.
The Democrats, and especially progressives, work against their voters interest when they pursue a Trump impeachment which would
let Vice President Pence take the White House:
Pence is a horror -- fiscal sadist, misogynist, homophobe, lover of the carceral state.
Pence is way more conservative than Trump. With Republicans in power in Congress he could easily implement all the horrific policies
he ever dreamed of.
But the borg and the Democratic leadership are
not concerned about that:
Democrats cheered the [special council] announcement as a step forward in resolving the unanswered questions about Russian meddling
in last year's presidential election - and whether the president or anyone at the White House has interfered with the investigation.
Trump believes that better relations with Russia are important for the well-being of the United States, Pence
would likely pursue an anti-Russian
policy. That, I believe, is the real issue here. There are no unbeseeming relations between Trump and Russia. Russia had little,
if any, influence on the 2016 election. There was no "Russian meddling". But Trump's somewhat
more friendly behavior towards Russia, which he
campaigned for, is disliked by the-powers-that-are.
We can now expect a very long drawn special council investigation with lots of media leaks and reporting. It will drown out all
other important issues. It will likely end badly for Trump and badly for peaceful global power relations.
Posted by b on May 18, 2017 at 07:07 AM |
Permalink
1) Allow me to hail your work. I myself have done research on the Web, I know how much work it can be, and the speed at which
you find relevant information and put it together is absolutely stunning.
2) To quote you, "It will end badly for Trump, badly for global power relations", and I add, badly for Western democracies. The
gloves are coming off: we Westerners (USA, EU, etc) have democratic systems... as long as we vote as we are told. In other terms,
ours is a wolf in sheep's clothing system, and the truth is we live in banana republics.
Our US-led system has never seen anything wrong about toppling elected leaders and sponsoring the worst dictators in places
like Asia, Europe, the Middle-East or South America. They've done it for decades. Why did we ever imagine they would hesitate
to do the same at home?
I'm persuaded there's nothing there, so are you, b. Yet for obvious reasons, many are not. So Trump did the wise thing: he is
cooperating with the only chance he has of putting this manufactured issue to bed.
While special investigations can be pretty bad, I do not see a superior alternative. Investigations are part of the executive
function of the government, at least in USA, and the executive power has too many temptations to meddle, temptations that Trump
did not resist. On paper, the special prosecutor is accomplished and "non-partisan", one can quibble if they could not found someone
with a higher numeral, like Robert S. Mueller IV (III means that both dad and grandad were Roberts, rather than alternate between
two names like kings of Denmark who alternate between Christian and Frederik).
As I understand it the task is to "oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence
the 2016 presidential election and related matters" Mueller was appointed by Bush. As I understand it, he has to report to Rod
Rosenstein, a Republican, who
fired Comey . The devil is in the "related matters" - which might be anything from the DNC leak to the Obama administration
spying on the Trump campaign.
@2 bf, 'Trump did the wise thing: he is cooperating with the only chance he has of putting this manufactured issue to bed ...'
He didn't even know what hit him. His assistant attorney general gave him the news just 30 minutes before he released it
to the media. Anyone who thinks the rump is the engineer is dreaming. he's in the caboose, playing solitaire with the twits.
The show will go on. The rump will continue from somewhere in the white house at the length of his leash, blowing off steam
as he goes, but the pressure in the boiler will continuously drop and the sound of his whistle will diminish, calling more and
more lonesome night after night from the tracks along the twitter line. an endless line of dictators will stream through the white
house, each duly proclaimed his new best friend.
People all over the world will begin to reduce as much as possible their exposure to all things American, especially the dollar.
Trump's experience in dog-eat-dog BizWorld would have included worse scenarios than this Star Chamber gambit by the Swamp. And
the Swamp is so politicized and corrupt that Team Trump will drown them in their own bs.
"Pence is a horror-fiscal sadist, misogynist, homophobe, lover of the carceral state."
They forgot "Israeli-firster" and this doesn't even scratch the surface. The only thing worse than having the U.S. with nobody
in charge since election day is having a sniveling little psychopath like Pence in charge. I still think I'll be right about WW
III - I was just one president too early. God does have a sense of humor, and the joke is on the U.S. Few tears will be shed.
We had it coming for a long time now.
I disagree this is bad. This appointment should give Trump & Sessions cover to appoint a decent FBI Director and properly
go after Hilary Clinton, John Podesta, Clinton Foundation and find out who had Seth Rich murdered.
Justice for Seth Rich. Fire Clinton Corrupt Cabal Crony Andy McCabe and put him in the dock for the cover-up. Do it Trump and
don't stuff it up!
Speaking of "Israeli-firster" and "appoint a decent FBI Director", it appears that in the latest iteration of Tales from the
Crypt, none other than Joe Lieberman has been resurrected from the undead to become odds on favourite as the next FBI Director.
The same uber-Zionist Lieberman who makes Pence look positively meek in regard to Israel, who sponsored the Iraqi War Resolution
Act , and who along with fellow lunatics McCain and Graham comprised the more war act known as the Three Amigos.
Does this idiocy ever stop? -- US with its deep state and media is really in a mess with this hatred against Russia and the sick
witch hunt to find 1 piece of evidence to get rid of Trump. This is McCarthyism all over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] The term
refers to U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting
roughly from 1947 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression as well as a campaign spreading fear of influence
on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents".
somebody
How is this hysteria a good thing? There is no russian connection. Its a hoax and its scary how people buy this, eventually
this will result in hot war.
Re: Posted by: pantaraxia | May 18, 2017 9:51:03 AM | 13
Well. If Trump is dumb enough to make Lieberman his next FBI Director he will have only himself to blame for his failed Presidency.
Given Lieberman's a well known swamp creature though I can't possibly see Trump making such a huge error so soon after making
such a great decision - ie - Firing Corrupt Comey. Take it to the bank - there is no chance Lieberman will be FBI Director.
Debsisdead@12 - "...Pence will be gone quick smart so that the whores on the hill can manipulate some schmuck into the VP gig
so if they do get the trumpet, the whores will own the executive..."
Why would the powers that be want Pence gone, Debs? It has nothing to do with Pence's vision or skills. It has everything to
do with how 'ownable' he is, and that guy (as you have observed) is very ownable . The perfect lapdog for the deep state.
Spiro Agnew indeed.
"...IMO, that is a good thing when pols spend their days trying to fuck each other up it diverts them away from their usual
business of trying to fuck us up..."
I'll humbly suggest you have not been watching closely enough. The shackles are being slipped over your ankles while you watch
the juggling monkeys duke it out. The monkeys have little to do with anything - they're the entertainment and distraction. People
fall for it every time. Why would it be different this time around?
I believe TPTSB's appointment of a special investigator serves as a counterweight to recent revelations of a direct Communication
between Seth Rich and Wikileaks.
I.e. it's the age old strategy of obfuscation, smoke and mirrors: when adversaries find and present evidence against you, a
counter-attack of at least the same proportions makes the perfect defense (with lamestream media shills on their side, this is
gonna get ridiculous coverage). In this way they're killing 2 flies with 1 strike - taking the heat off of themselves and transforming
Trump's offensive into a desperate attempt to save face and not get impeached.
Forbidden to make business with Russia? Yes apparently it is. Since the election US media and the ongoing investigation on
Russia have already put out according to themselves clear evidence of Russian influence. Have you missed this? How is this hysteria
a good thing now?
The tangled web of international business connections and deals runs across all so called' national interest' lines and any sanctions
and such for the big boyz. The HSBC conviction and deferred prosecution being a prime example. This is but one small corner that
may be revealed and no doubt Trump has business connections with the more shadowy Russian oligarchs as the casino-resort business
has long ties with organized crime and the Russians of this bent would probably like a piece of that action by investing in a
Trump development.
It is one of my beliefs that a big portion of Trump's political ideology could be summed up as 'What is good for the casino
resorts is good for America.' So a disappearing American middle class is 'not good,' and thus 'America needs to be made great
again.' Three axioms prevail in deciphering today's world: cui bono, follow the money, and don't be distracted by the manufactured
distractions. In this case a lot of roads lead back to the Clintons et al.
I agree with somebody@4 and Julian@10, A special Council Investigation cannot limit its investigation to Trump and Associates,
a proper investigation will go where the evidence leads, since Clinton and the DNC servers are also in the frame and should be
even more investigated by Special Council since it is the DNC and it's MSM supporters complaints which have led the affair thus
far.
Seth Rich, for instance is alleged to have 44,000 emails and 17,000 attachments on his computor, which again have been alleged
to have been shared with Wikileaks through its now deceased Director Gavin MacFadyen. Adding credence to this claim is Wikileaks
20,000 dollar reward for any information on who killed Seth Rich. This is a double edged sword which could blow Clinton the DNC
and all their nefarious machinations out the water.
But this is not a new investigation, its the continuation of the ongoing investigation about so called russian influence -
comey had to go and this new guy will take over. This investigation which have been ongoing past months have nothing to do with
Clinton whatsoever to do with. Is this really news for people?
I'll take the guess that this will initially look to be on the up-and-up, and then turn into a political Kenneth Star type of
affair. It's all ugly. They really are swamp creatures.
Just read An article entitled Trump Escalates Syrian Proxy War over at Consortium News. Could not care less what happens to Trump,
he brought it all on himself. Iran, Russia and China need to get their defenses ready as the guns will be turned in them when
the US has finished tearing itself apart
Trump tweets: "With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a
special councel [sic] appointed!
"This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!"
Zerohedge chimes in: "Of course, he does seem to have a point that after all the revelations of intentional evidence destruction
(remember BleachBit), despite the known existence of a Congressional subpoena, intentional violations of the Federal Records Retention
Act, secret Bill Clinton meetings with the Attorney General on Phoenix tarmacs and the passing out of immunity deals "like they
were candy" by former FBI Director Comey, it does seem curious that no special counsel was ever appointed to look into Hillary's
case. Will Trump now insist that one be appointed?"
Unfortunately, the crimes Trump's committed as POTUS come under the category of Crimes of Empire for which no POTUS has ever
been impeached. One possible outcome from this political war would be the rise of an alternative political party having no connections
with the wreckage of the D or R parties. I propose it be named the 99% Party.
Though the president has complained that Comey failed to investigate leaks of intelligence data from within his administration,
The Washington Post effectively accused the president himself of becoming the leaker in chief by revealing to the Russians
information so secret that only a handful of Americans legally possessed it. That information consisted of the name of a city
in Syria from which spies had reported that the Islamic State group was plotting to plant bombs on commercial airliners.
What is so secret about that? Intelligence data almost always requires reading between the lines. Doing so here reveals
the country from which the intelligence came, as there is only one friendly country that has sufficient intelligence resources
in that city to develop local human spies. That country, which the president did not name but which we know is Israel, at first
threatened to cut off providing intelligence data to the U.S. because of the president's private revelations but later said
that all is forgiven. So, the president told the Russians where to find Israeli spies in Syria.
The fact that these revelations were private is of legal significance. Under federal law, the president can declassify any
secrets, even the most highly sensitive and guarded ones. He can do so by whispering the secret into someone's ear or by formally
removing the secret from its The Freedom Answer Boo... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $3.01 classified status.
But because he did not do the latter, the secret is still a secret - yet The Washington Post has this material and may now
legally reveal it.
All of this demonstrates that rogue intelligence agents can engage in their own form of agitprop - agitation propaganda.
And they can cause political harm with it. Yet the questions of whether Donald Trump revealed top secrets to the Russians and,
if he did so, whether it was intentional or not and whether it was harmful to national security are questions to which we are
entitled to answers. And was Jim Comey fired for getting too close to the truth or not close enough?
who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information? Just Rex Tillerson and McMaster (and the two Russians).
McMaster is in regular communication with Paul Wolfowitz. Isn't it possible that McMaster is the mole, and then he has tried to
hide his tracks by defending Trump publicly?
The 'Russia did it', in conjunction with the 'Trump is in bed with the Russians', narratives, both completely unsubstantiated,
were chosen to be seized on as a red-herring to stick like a burr to, to milk for all they could be milked for, for a variety
of reasons by the PTB.
For example, there is still a handy residual fear of Russia in the States, and Putin has been relentlessly demonized, so
let's make use of it, and Russia effectively opposes 'full spectrum dominance, etc', and the spooks and MIC depend for a living
on a scary big boogieman.
But the main intent was to divert public attention from extremely serious revelations about the Swamp that is the Washington
PsTB.
The leaked extreme pathology on display easily interpreted in the Podesta emails via Wikileaks, along with the Weiner computer
'treasure trove' of emails - and the latter reportedly turned the stomach of an experienced key member of the NYPD, and involved
evidence or indications of many serious crimes, Clintons involved - and then the murder of Seth Rich for having been in effect
a hugely important whistleblower via Wikileaks, this mass of evidence re the seamy sick side of the massive Swamp had to be buried,
silenced.
And notice that Comey was notably silent on much of this, and couldn't manage to find enough stuff on Hillary to merit more
than a mild 'she was careless' with classified material reprimand.
The attention of the public had to be diverted somewhere, so why not towards Russia, and Trump had to be defeated, because
Trump is not a reliable charter member of the Swamp. No doubt he has had some unseemly forays into the swamp. But the swamp dwellers
see him on their very personal private level as a deadly enemy, a terminal threat. Recall Hillary's "we'll hang" prediction.
The Russia did it meme has been a desperate 'endless talking point' attempt to first, cover up and deny and divert attention
from pedogate and other satanic or seriously criminal stuff in Washington and among the elite, and second, to try to take down
Trump. He who may actually try to do the right thing; is not reliably under control by the PTB.
Hard to know what are the implications and will be the outcome of the appointment of the former FBI director Mueller, to investigate
a non event and other related stuff. Sounds like an infinite task. Maybe this new oddyssey will be featured in his obituary notice
some day, overshadowing his hitherto main claim to fame: presiding over the non-investigation of the treasonous 9/11 false flag.
It is to be feared that feeling the heat, the Donald might try to divert attention with some "action d'eclat" involving some invented
enemy's treat. He could very well sting NK or Iran. He could invent some "tonkin incident" in the persian Gulf... who knows?
Correct, and in fact just hours now he attacked pro-Syrian forces in Syria. So Trump attack Syria when he got problems with
neocon, anti-russian groups at home. Meanwhile ISIS cheer, along with EU, Nato and the Media, what a sick mind the western world
have.
Within 24 hours of terrorist supporter McCain coming out publicly about not supporting any impeachment of Trump, Trump bombs Syrian
and Iraqi anti-IS troops in Syria.
36 - "who was in the oval office when Trump supposedly "leaked" the information?"
There were two interpreter-scribes in there, both of whom made a transcript of the conversations. Putin's offer to turn
over his was rebuffed, leading one to believe mischief is afoot on our side.
As to a Deputy-AG appointing a Special Counsel w/o presidential approval, there is a purported "Chinese wall" between the Office
of the A-G and POTUS to allow the A-G to act independently. One can only pray that the present appointee doesn't turn out to be
another Kenneth Starr.
The Dems are foolish retards, totally unredeemable.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | May 18, 2017 2:48:24 PM | 42
I am more optimistic about possibilities of redemption. For example, Enlightenment was a reaction to XVII century in Europe
that was spend on a series of very bloody religious wars, in proportion to population, XVII century was more bloody than XX. So
particular types of myopic and stupidity do not last forever. Second, it is not a particularly "partisan" condition. More like
zeitgeist, I am afraid.
Within 24 hours of terrorist supporter McCain coming out publicly about not supporting any impeachment of Trump, Trump bombs
Syrian and Iraqi anti-IS troops in Syria.
Posted by: terril | May 18, 2017 3:03:45 PM | 45
If only the special counsel would add war crimes to his investigation. If they can drift from real estate deals to veracity
of testimony about sexual contacts, war crimes are a bit more related to "improper foreign contacts". And, well, they are crimes.
What strikes me is how far GOP seems to be totally uninterested in defending Trump and = their party, basically they are making
GOP weaker and weaker. Some GOP seems to hate Trump even more than the Democrats!
Bob Mueller: Super Hero (Oh wow, modern history completely revised!) I awoke to Fake News stories this morning, about the former
FBI director, Robert Swan Mueller III: utterly impeccable, fantastic previous performance, in fact, a paragon of performance virtue!
-- ! (Does have quite the Deep State lineage, that Bob!)
The Nation is saved! Or, maybe not . . . .
To recap old Bob's performances: the FBI never solved the case of missing nuke secrets at Los Alamos, but certainly put poor
Mr. Wen Ho Lee through the ringer; they appear to have never investigated the valid allegations of former translator and whistleblower,
Sibel Edmonds --- who was put under an official gag order for years; multiple contrived "counterterrorist" shams, when poor inner-city
youths in Miami and Chicago (and elsewhere???) were set up --- then busted --- as probable terrorists; further deep penetration
and compromising of the FBI by Chinese intelligence organizations, etc., etc., etc.
OK, under Bob Mueller's watch, the notorious international crime lord, Martha Stewart, was jailed! Bravo, Bobby, and I'm sure
American slept more soundly with Ms. Stewart off the streets!
I recall the FBI, under the directorship of Mueller, as one severely dysfunctional outfit, i.e., business as usual. (Remember
the congressional after-action report on 9/11? Remember how FBI middle managers, Frasca and Maltbie, rejected all terrorist warnings
from field agents Sinder, Cowley and Williams, et al.? Remember how Frasca and Maltbie were then promoted???)
Yes, Bob Mueller does have a history of "public service" --- he was appointed chief of the DoJ's criminal division by President
George H.W. Bush when that BCCI investigation was getting closer and closer to the White House and old Bob made sure that it got
no closer!
And to insure that Treasury was in line during that period, Bush family cousin, John Walker, had been appointed the chief enforcement
officer there --- the same John Walker, later appointed as a judge, who would have the future FBI director, James Comey, clerking
for him.
Yes, Bob is the grandnephew of Richard Bissell, the CIA deputy director of plans, fired by President Kennedy before he was
assassinated in Dallas.
Yes, Bob's wife's family name is Cabell --- and it was deputy director of the CIA, Gen. Charles Cabell, who was also fired
by President Kennedy, and Cabell's brother, Earl Cabell, was indeed the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy had his brains splattered
on a Dallas street!
Bob grew up in a wealthy family, we are told, so he needn't have served in Vietnam in combat. Yes, Bob's family wealth was
on the Truesdale side of the family,that would be the same Truesdales who generations earlier were implicated in the bombing of
competitors' oil refineries for the Rockefeller family, and later ended up with a Rockefeller-previously-owned railroad. Typical
Horatio Alger-type story, no doubt. (I'm not suggesting anyone search into the family background of Bob --- those rich people
are all saints, after all!)
I cannot comment on his military service, although it would be interesting to hear any former Marines' comments who served
under him?
I recall that George W. Bush, who would late appoint Bob as the FBI director, was ahead of me a bit when he entered enlisted
basic training and his name was still a joke at Lackland AFB when I went through there: the politician's son who went through
enlisted basic training, then returned to Houston to miraculously, overnight, become an officer and jet pilot?!?!
Call me a radical progressive or call me a socialist --- but never, ever call me gullible and stupid! (And wasn't that Robert
Swan Mueller III? And wasn't there a chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, around 1962 or early 1963, named Swan,
when they lost millions of dollars there? Always wondered how the CIA paid for those assassinations in '63 and '68?)
The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with
the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors,
the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. This
is how the system has operated - Cheney ran it under Bush, Clinton ran it under Obama, it's all bureaucractic infighting. If you
read about Soviet history you see the same thing:
The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key
administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture,
education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been going on in the U.S. for awhile now.
Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current
situation. Pence, they figure, will be far more amenable to control. Even though Trump has been going along with the standard
Republican domestic agenda, he's just viewed as too unpredictable for their tastes. This is exactly how leadership selection in
the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at
this point.
I'm not concerned about it though, if the grossly corrupt federal government is locked up with this nonsense for the next four
years, that's fine. Perhaps state governments can step up and work together to solve problems while Washington gnaws its own belly,
that's about the best we can hope for.
What seems obvious to me is that the appointment of a special investigation defuses the issue for the moment and lets whatever
findings are allowed to be brought forth to occur at some timely future date as part of some other wag the dog event.
Thanks for that blistering bio. Seems most Deep State players have family ties to the cabal that hired General Butler to oust
FDR only to become the nascent CIA's cadre.
Trump being neutered by Washington and increasingly likely being taken down points out the incredible naievity of the populus
shouts of 'drain the swamp', 'term limits', etc. and the lone hero arriving in town like some stereotypical Western movie plot.
Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally
create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office.
Trump appears to be like someone curled up in a fetal position crying out to an angry mob beating him what else he needs to
do for them to stop.
Filling his admin with goldman sachs scum
Bombing Syria and helping out IS and al Qaeda for the neocons
Considering dual citizen garbage like Lieberman
and almost every other campaign promise he ever made. And while this is happening Trump supporters are still patting themselves
on the back with blather about the power of their 'memes'.
Posted by: pantaraxia | May 18, 2017 8:54:19 AM | 8
(Dutch anti-Trump smears)
The Dutch are just one of many tentacles of the Christian Colonial octopus/ Swamp Alliance. All of Christian Colonialism's
warmongering, banksterised, govt-toppling, movers and shakers (US, France, Germany, UK etc etc) are on board with the Get Trump
conspiracy. One thing they have in common is that they all (including Oz) get their "News" from the Jew-controlled MSM and are
anti-Palestinian and apologists for Jewish Colonialism in Palestine. The worsening facts-on-the-ground in "Israel" speak volumes
about Christian Colonialism's support for the Israel Project.
"Israeli"-dominated News is the de facto bullshit/ talking-point manufacturer & coordinator for The West.
I agree with somebody@4 and Julian@10, A special Council Investigation cannot limit its investigation to Trump and Associates,
a proper investigation will go where the evidence leads ...
Posted by: harrylaw | May 18, 2017 10:46:08 AM | 23
Investigations going where the evidence leads sounds important but is utter B.S. Every fact in the world is connected to every
other fact by some other intervening fact(s). A "proper investigation" begins with a suspicion that a particular act or omission
has been committed and the investigation answers whether that particular act or omission was in fact committed.
Language in the remit that authorizes an open-ended investigation is a mandate to find something to pin on the target of
the investigation, not an authorization for a "proper investigation." E.g., Kenneth Star's investigation began with a remit
to investigate the suicide death of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill
Clinton. But Star ultimately charged Bill Clinton only with perjury about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, something that
had only the most tenuous connection --- many would say no connection --- with his original remit.
Mueller's charge is to find something to pin on Trump, not to conduct a "proper investigation."
2 cents from someone who has done hundreds of investigation.
Trump is NOT a member of the club which is the Republican Hierarchy. Those are the real motherfuckers. They do not want him
to be prez and he is not welcome in their club. Neither is Trump an official errand boy for the Deep State (many among both parties
are official errand boys and girls). Again, Trump is not an official errand boy.
Trump has tried to appease the rotten motherfuckers. He really has. Trump is already ratfucking the middle class and the
poor in accordance with their prescription. Trump will keep on trying to please them (See Joe Lieberhebrewratbastard).
No matter, they strapped Pence to his back, BECAUSE they want a malleable errand boy who will DO Exactly as he is instructed.
They don't want Trump - second guessing them. No hesitation.
The Middle East must fall as quickly as possible in accordance with the Yinon Plan. And America must NOT have a revived middle
class. It cannot be made great again.
/~~~~~~~~~~
Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors, Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
Congressional Research Service
June 20, 2013 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43112.pdf
Congress may also have a legislative role in designing a statutory mechanism for the appointment of "independent counsels"
or "special prosecutors," as it did in title VI of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under the provisions of that law relating
to the appointment of "independent counsels" (called "special prosecutors" until 1983), the Attorney General was directed to petition
a special three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to name an independent counsel upon the receipt of credible allegations
of criminal misconduct by certain high-level personnel in the executive branch of the federal government whose prosecution by
the Administration might give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest. In 1999, Congress allowed the "independent counsel"
provisions of law to expire. Upon the expiration of the law in June of 1999, no new "independent counsels" or "special prosecutors"
may be appointed by a three-judge panel upon the application of the Attorney General.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So Robert S. Mueller is a "special counsel" but not a "special prosecutor" (I don't recall this mentioned here yet -- might
have missed it). This means that it would require an act of congress (and probably 2/3rds of Congress) to appoint a new "special
prosecutor". And so, they say, Trump could theoretically fire Mueller.
Things are not as they seem. IMO this is a carefully scripted plan by the Deep State to push Trump into Total War, not that
he was not inclined to do so anyways. His Russian connections lead to mafia ties so deep he could lose everything under Rico.
He knows this. Once the War begins the internet kill switch is thrown and the lights go out. Martial Law. Like in WWI, if you
criticize the war you go to jail. A Deep State Dream.
I never did believe Trump with his billions would want to be in this for the long haul. He resigns at some point, keeps his
fortune and the guy the Deep State and Dark Money (koch Brothers, etc) wanted all along takes over (Pence).
Trump was a Trojan Horse to get the Koch Brothers control. They probably had something on Trump to force him to run
and avoid Rico charges. He lied his way into office , got some help from Comey and a mole in the DNC who has been taken out (blamed
on Putin) and now will play out the script. Lets face it, we've all been had. Trump had Comey ousted for show and he will live
the good life with a job well done. Deep State controlled MSM will have a new war to cover and maybe even a show of impeachment
hearings before or during the war. Great for ratings and advertisements especially if they can shut down the alternative media
on the internet which Martial Law or new laws being wriitten will allow. MIC and international Banks will be rolling in the
dough. Everyone wins except those caught in the carnage down below (bottom 99%) and of course those nations we obliterate with
Shock & Awe on Steroids (nukes)
They will go on and on and on until they can find something to impeach Trump on. I with agree with comments that now Israel appears
to have pitched in the outlook for Trump does not look good. The flip side of this is how Trump's deplorables will react to the
taking down of their man. The ongoing events have awakened and will awaken significant numbers of previously asleep people. People
who are very angry, many of whom have guns. If these people start rioting the whole edifice will shake and anything could happen.
If they don't riot the anger could find its outlet in mass targetted killings of the 1% by individuals or groups that are very
difficult to track.
Mercouris at The Duran is almost certainly correct that nothing will be found and there might be an attempt to shut down the
investigation, but the Clintonists like their vozhd won't accept the results and this stupidity will continue. Who says Trump
is a bad loser? Clinton and the Clintonists who still can't accept that she lost.
Having never been part of the political system or worked his way up through a party, Trump lacks the army of lackeys who normally
create a massive support structure for a president when he comes into office. Posted by: terril | May 18, 2017 5:37:02 PM
| 59
More precisely, Trump may have as any lackeys, well-wishing hacks (like Bannon), doting family members as he wants, but "institutional
memory" has layers of aristocracy (born to expert meritorious service) and those who earned her spurs with aristocratic mentors
and got accepted. There was a time when Bill Clinton was a literal hillbilly to our aristocrats, and Hillary, a girl from a good
family who unfortunately strayed and married the rascal. But with hard work, quick wit, and good eye for the newest fashion (making
liberalism more centric) he got accepted. The case of Obama is similar.
One can sneer at the aristocracy and "first generation meritocrats", but this is not XVIII-th century and the government is,
by necessity, quite complex, and experts are necessary. If you send a non-expert to a key department, or to Presidential office,
without good vision and good advise, he will get digested or spit out.
To some degree, the bureaucrats are apolitical and can follow the politicians. You want more reasonable penalties in the federal
court? We can do it. You want to push them up to the max for your favorite categories -- we can do it. You want to squeeze financial
wizards who make the economy moving (some people may call it fraud, but isn't it a form of capital formation?), the digestive
juices of the system starts flowing. And so on.
Trump does not have any experts or thinkers of note that do not belong to the "meritocrats", i.e. the Washington establishment.
Bannon is perhaps a thinker, but hardly of note. I even doubt that Trump has any good instincts, except that at occasion he had
the childish gift of noticing that this or that has "no cloths". But the next thing a child does is throwing a tantrum for some
petty reason.
@75 vv 'They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.'
so true. but we'll still be here. our sheer numbers ensure that we will survive. i think it would be good if we worked together
to prevent the reboot of the same old broken system after its blue screen flashes at death, just like a m$ machine. we know now
exactly what will reboot if we don't.
"Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest
clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class."
VietnamVet
I do not know how highly rated the staff was, but it was sufficiently high. If the opponent has fourth-rate staff, it would
be wasteful to use anything better than third-rate. Figuring what gave rise to the deplorable is a wasted effort, sociologist
differ, and in politics the "root causes" matter only a little. And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites
and posturing. Granted, this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best technique
is based on so-called wedge issues. A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center",
mostly clueless undecided voters. Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the adversaries
to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless in your direction. Wash, repeat.
Mueller is only involved in one, the first ""An FBI counter-intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
elections and possible collusion in this effort by the Trump campaign""
By focusing his energy on the outrage and insult of this witchhunt, Trump may have painted himself into a corner from which
all escape routes involve loss of face and a his most loyal base of support ... for example, releasing his tax returns/sources
of income ...
His only apparent silver lining is that Flynn and Rice (although details are unclear) appear to be not-cooperating and declining
to appear ... whether they will actually commit follow through and risk "contempt of congress" charges remains to be seen... but
I suspect there's hidden agenda (like an immunity deal) rather than some principled stand at work.
Wow what a show. Faux populist Obama was also politically weakened by crazy opposition. Faux populist Obama was also forced FORCED!
to do the establishment's bidding.
Could Trump be the Republican Obama? Are we all falling for essentially the same con? Few can wrap their heads around that
possibility. Yet ...
Sanders was a sheepdog.
Hillary's campaign was lackluster.
Comey (who protected Hillary) acted to ensure a Trump victory.
Trump has now bombed Syria twice and will be feted in KSA.
Such investigations NEVER stick to their original, limited tasks but extend further and further.
That doesn't necessarily mean it'll be Trump's dirt that washes up. If Seth Rich is proven to have leaked the emails to Wikileaks,
the Russian hacking narrative evaporates, and the Ukrainian collusion to manipulate the election from the Democrat side
is legitimately within the ambit of the investigation. We may yet see the Democrat Party prosecuted as a continuing criminal enterprise,
and none too soon.
@71 Petri Krohn,
They describe the capabilities of US Internet advertisers, even worse post-net-neutrality, and project it onto Russia.
Their desperation reeks.
Obama was never in the "opposition", Trump is indeed in the opposition but the question is if he have the strength to stand
up to these sick people in deepstate/msm. With attacks on Syria etc it doesnt look good but there is no comparsion to the wimp
Obama.
Just when you thought things couldn't get any crazier in this Looking Glass War, with all the hysteria over Trump's ultimate unpardonable
sin - the revelation of an Israeli secret, this comes out (fwiw):
"Jordan, not Israel, was likely the original source of secret intelligence information given by US President Donald Trump to
the Russians, the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials
The sources said the intelligence that Trump shared with the Russians came mainly from Jordanian spies. Jordan, they said,
has developed human intelligence resources with agents on the ground, including some who have infiltrated militia groups . When
it comes to ISIL, unlike Jordan, Israel relies on its electronic surveillance collection and its intelligence sharing-arrangement
with its Arab partners"
@84 pantaraxia.. i thought jordan was working for isis/israel, err i mean the usa.... i can't tell the difference.. times of israel
- that is a reliable source, if ever there was one, lol...
Pence is up to his eyeballs in this sh*t & is likely to be taken down as well. Wonder if Ryan will still be speaker once this
stuff comes down (assuming it does)...
@ 85 james
re: times of israel - that is a reliable source, if ever there was one, lol...
"the Qatar-based al-Jazeera news network reported Thursday, citing current and former Jordanian intelligence officials" Which
part of this sourcing in the article did you not understand? The more interesting questions are what is the purpose of releasing
this information by a US puppet, who colluded in the release and how it plays into the 'Trump betrayed Israel' hysteria.
I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote.
My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a 'faux populist model of governance'.
Elements of this model are:
1. A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she intends to capture a future
payoff for himself. They signal their willingness via:
> forgiving past abuses ("no-drama Obama"; Trump's not prosecuting Hillary)
> constraining their own power: Obama's bi-partisanship (termed "11-dimensional chess" by critics), Trump's brashness/recklessness
that gives his opponents fodder ("tapes" on Comey, etc.)
2. Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable hands' by TPTB.
3. crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists. I call them "enforcers".
By crazy opposition, I mean
> Obama: 'birthers' and smears like "socialist muslim".
Trump: Russia probe; smears like "the new Hitler"
4. apologists that take as a given that the President wants to fulfill the promises, both spoken and unspoken, that he has
made to the people.
@88 pantaraxia.. i don't know that it matters either way... it is only interesting from the point of view of further obfuscation
being created and moving away for the central fact that trump can share whatever info he wants to share.. now the irony here as
i understand it, is nothing he shared was all that earth shattering - but no matter - witch hunt on trump must continue!
in what's termed the second of a series, someone named jonathan marshall makes the crucial point about the various 'lobbies' in
the usofa ... How China Lobby
Shaped America
In 1949, two members of Congress called for an investigation of the lobby's "brazen power." Rep. Mike Mansfield, a Montana
Democrat who would later become Senate majority leader, accused Nationalist Chinese officials - who had fled the mainland for
Taiwan that year in the wake of the communist revolution - of diverting U.S. aid to fund political propaganda in the United
States.
Ironically, a timely dispensation of $800,000 from Nationalist Chinese officials in Taiwan to their New York office financed
a successful campaign to squelch that proposed investigation.
... they are self-funding operations. once the money starts to flow a portion is set aside for kickbacks, bribes, and efforts
to protect the mainstream funding itself. it is truly a parasitic operation that feeds on the fruits of its effort on others'
behalf, and thus strengthens itself, becoming a stand-alone operation.
there are tens of thousands of people in ac/dc working in these operations, looking out for taiwan's interests, israel's interests,
making sure that russia stays demonized ... all the various corporate issues ... but at base and before all else, looking out
for number one.
a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government in favor of the lucrative process
of policy misdirection itself.
with a gang like that at the core of our government what, as they say, could go wrong?
Y'all may remember that Trump's domestic business dealings had some Mob connections. I think Wm Engdahl, among other, reported
on this. Well, if you google Trump and Russian Mafia you will see an entirely different idea as to what this attack on Trump might
be about. I've not studied it, take no position. If I WERE interested, it's what I'd be looking at.
At this time, it seems to me a better use of one's time to avoid allowing the media to direct your time and attention, and
instead to focus on deepening your knowledge of the international institutions' agenda for bringing about the last few steps to
the NWO.
On 1 January 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - adopted
by world leaders in September 2015 at an historic UN Summit - officially came into force. ... The SDGs, also known as Global
Goals, build on the success of the
"... My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a 'faux populist model of governance'. Elements of this model are ..."
"... A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she intends to capture a future payoff for himself. ..."
"... Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable hands' by TPTB. ..."
"... crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists. I call them "enforcers". ..."
"... A compliant media ..."
"... This is a toxic mix because it sends the message that neither your vote nor your opinion matters so why waste your time seeking out truth? ..."
"... a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government in favor of the lucrative process of policy misdirection itself. ..."
I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote.
My thesis is this: both Obama and Trump are faux populists and are part and parcel of a
'faux populist model of governance'. Elements of this model are :
1. A craven narcisstic egotistic Leader (Obama, Trump) that is a willing tool because he/she
intends to capture a future payoff for himself. They signal their willingness via:
> forgiving past abuses ("no-drama Obama"; Trump's not prosecuting Hillary)
> constraining their own power: Obama's bi-partisanship (termed "11-dimensional chess" by
critics), Trump's brashness/recklessness that gives his opponents fodder ("tapes" on Comey,
etc.)
2. Establishment-friendly VP as insurance. Both Biden and Pence are seen as 'reliable
hands' by TPTB.
3. crazy opposition that is intended to weaken a faux populist leader and energize apologists.
I call them "enforcers". By crazy opposition, I mean
> Obama: 'birthers' and smears like "socialist muslim".
Trump: Russia probe; smears like "the new Hitler"
4. apologists that take as a given that the President wants to fulfill the promises, both
spoken and unspoken, that he has made to the people.
in what's termed the second of a series, someone named Jonathan Marshall makes the crucial point
about the various 'lobbies' in the usofa ...
How China Lobby Shaped America
In 1949, two members of Congress called for an investigation of the lobby's "brazen power."
Rep. Mike Mansfield, a Montana Democrat who would later become Senate majority leader, accused
Nationalist Chinese officials - who had fled the mainland for Taiwan that year in the wake
of the communist revolution - of diverting U.S. aid to fund political propaganda in the United
States.
Ironically, a timely dispensation of $800,000 from Nationalist Chinese officials in Taiwan
to their New York office financed a successful campaign to squelch that proposed investigation.
... they are self-funding operations. once the money starts to flow a portion is set aside
for kickbacks, bribes, and efforts to protect the mainstream funding itself. it is truly a parasitic
operation that feeds on the fruits of its effort on others' behalf, and thus strengthens itself,
becoming a stand-alone operation.
there are tens of thousands of people in ac/dc working in these operations, looking out for
taiwan's interests, israel's interests, making sure that russia stays demonized ... all the various
corporate issues ... but at base and before all else, looking out for number one.
a sort of 5th column of folks working on behalf of 5th columnists, subverting government
in favor of the lucrative process of policy misdirection itself.
with a gang like that at the core of our government what, as they say, could go wrong?
"... One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. ..."
"... Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act! ..."
"... There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964. ..."
"... It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm. ..."
"... Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general. ..."
"... The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism. ..."
"... They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party. ..."
"... But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt. ..."
"... Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)? ..."
"... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous. ..."
One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly
named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic
churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment.
Or whatever. But impeachment.
Every week, I think things can't get any crazier-the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can't get any higher, the
fever has to break-and every week it's worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That
just gives us more reasons to defend him.
I don't even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have
said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it's basically nothing.
I've been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every
single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment-every single thing has
been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.
Remember
Barack Obama's hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, "After my election I have more
flexibility"? [ Obama tells Russia's
Medvedev more flexibility after election , Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today's media would react
if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year's campaign? Can you imagine ? I can't.
We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing-most important of all, halting the demographic transformation
that's tugging us out of the
Anglosphere
into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.
Those big, important things aren't getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in
the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.
Sample, from today's press, concerning
Michael Flynn , the
national security advisor President Trump fired for
supposedly lying to the Vice President
about a phone conversation he'd had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was
just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word "substantive,"
but Trump fired him anyway.
Well, here's Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn's activities:
Flynn's legal troubles come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the
Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf
of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the
more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.
Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the
Lobbying Disclosure Act!
High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus -- This
must not stand!
And then, the whole silly
Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:
Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia's propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow
at the network's annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before
and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.
So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They're covering for him! Let's have a purge of the military! Special
prosecutor!
Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let's have another one!
You could make an argument, I suppose-I don't myself think it's much of an argument, but you could make it-that Russia's
a military threat to Europe.
Once
again , with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia's and a GDP ten times greater.
Europe's two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can't defend
themselves against Russia, there's something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show
me it's in our national interest to fix it, which you can't.
At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement.
A Russian hegemony might at
least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from
Africa and the
Middle East . It doesn't look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.
That aside, American citizens are free to visit Russia and talk to Russians, including Russian government employees, just as free
as we are to talk to Australians, Brazilians, or Cambodians. As the
Lion said on
his blog :
Do liberals who are making a big deal about the Trump-Russia thing really believe that no one involved in a presidential campaign
should have ever talked to anyone from another country? How would an administration ever conduct any foreign policy if no one
in the administration has ever left the United States or ever talked to a foreigner?
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom Flynn had that December phone conversation, is, says the New York Post , "a
suspected Kremlin spy." [ Michael Flynn
won't honor subpoena to provide documents, By Bob Fredericks, May 18, 2017] Is he? Why should I care?
I bet ol' Sergey does all the spying he can. So, I'm sure, do the ambassadors of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Botswana. That's
what ambassadors do. That's what we do in their countries. Does anyone not know this?
"A Kremlin spy"? What is this, 1957 ?
Russia's just a country . And as our own James Kirkpatrick has pointed out
here at VDARE.com , it's a country run by people who hate us-the American people- less than our own elites do.
As James also points out, if it's interference in our elections that bothers you, consider what Mexico's been doing for the last
forty years: encouraging mass immigration of its own underclass into the U.S.A., lobbying through its consulates and Spanish-language
TV channels for voter registration, using Mexican-owned outlets like the New York Times to demonize and discredit national
conservatives.
The founder of Christianity scoffed at those who strain at
a gnat but swallow a camel. In the matter of foreign interference in our elections, the gnat here is Russia; the camel is Mexico.
Our media and opinion elites have swallowed the camel.
Unless, of course, just down the road a few months, there's going to be a hysteria-storm about Mexican interference in our elections.
My advice would be: Don't hold your breath.
All the shouting and swooning is just the rage of a dispossessed class-our political class.
Our political and government class, I think I should say. There are tens of thousands of federal functionaries who have
never stood for election to anything, but whose loyalty is to the political Establishment. Great numbers of these people settled
in to their comfortable seats during the eight years of Barack Obama's administration; so to the degree that they care about party
affiliation, they prefer the Democratic Party.
Washington, D.C. voted 91 percent for Mrs.
Clinton last November.
Obama Holdovers,
Vacant Posts Still Plague Trump - Administration housecleaning is long overdue to get agenda in motion, end damaging leaks,
by Thomas Richard, LifeZette.com, May 18, 2017] Draining the swamp means getting rid of those people. They should be
fired -en masse, in their hundreds and thousands, and marched out the office door by security guards before they can trash files.
Still, a big majority of federal politicians are helping to drive the hysteria; and their rage against Trump is, as they say in
D.C., bipartisan. Senator John McCain
told CNN on Tuesday that President Trump's troubles are,
quote , "of Watergate size and
scale."
There's a grain of truth in that. The
Watergate affair was a
media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment
elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by
Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's
bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
So yes: When the political and media establishment try to drive from office a president they dislike, it is kinda like Watergate.
It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them
last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing
too much outward enthusiasm.
Last August, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, I reproduced a remark Peggy Noonan made in
one of her columns.
Here's the remark again,
quote :
From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from
theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.
Has there been any reflection among GOP leaders in the nine months since, about the meaning of Trump's victory? Not much that
I can see.
Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field
of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us
voted for him in the general.
Does the GOP get this? Have they learned anything from it? Not that I can see.
With some exceptions, of course. GOP elder statesman Pat Buchanan spelled it out in an interview with the Daily Caller
this week:
The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state.
They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy,
the open borders and multiculturalism.
If they can just pull off an impeachment, the Republican party bosses believe, and install some donor-compliant drone in the White
House, then we sixty-three million Trump voters will smack our foreheads with our palms and say: "Jeez, we are so dumb! Why did we
let ourselves get led astray like that? Why didn't we vote for
Marco Rubio or
Jeb Bush in the primaries, as you wise elders wanted us to? We're sorry! We promise to follow your advice in future!"
Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold
swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal
legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported,
comes back in ? Why no request to
Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the
visa lottery and
restrictions on chain migration?
When do we start testing the
constitutionality
of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in
NATO ? Why are we still at war
with North Korea ( which technically we are
, since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)?
I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the
first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But,
says Ann , she's
getting nervous.
After just 100 days in the office Trump already has a special prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency. ..."
"... Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation. ..."
"... Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up. ..."
"... Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation. ..."
"... Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat. ..."
"... Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years. ..."
"... Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich. ..."
"... Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn. ..."
"... One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric. ..."
"... From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November. ..."
"... Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course. ..."
"... "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions. ..."
"... If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here. Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags. This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. ..."
"With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of
The Washington Post .
What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the
prodigal son?
Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to
take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.
Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between
Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.
Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his
way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses.
What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.
Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his
phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey
last week.
Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great
and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take. Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will
find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.
Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove
disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.
After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney
for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the
document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.
Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit
on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the
good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.
Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it
is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President
Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.
Trump set up his own demise -- all the Jews like Rosenstein that he has appointed would really rather
have the rabid evangelical Israel supporter Pence as president.
The appointment of former director Mueller to take charge of an investigation too hot for Rosenstein
or anyone in his department to file a report on, particularly if no prosecution will be recommended,
does not presage this affair will continue interminably. Months of work have already been put
into the matter by the FBI. Mueller may arrive, ask those agents for a summary of what they have
unearthed, say, "I don't see anything here. Do you think further work by you will uncover more?",
and if they respond, "No", Mueller might very well take what he is given, file a report saying
no prosecution is warranted, just as Jim Comey did in the Clinton matter, and go home.
The man is retired with honor. He doesn't need to make a name for himself with this or any
other case. The last thing he wants to find out is that there is evidence that might result in
the impeachment and criminal prosecution of the President of the United States.
Wasnt pat a happy supporter of the special counsel investigating Clinton? Now suddenly he is against
such counsels? How about some priciples Mr buchanan?
And here is a hat tip for you aggrieved folks here. Trump brought this on himself. He could have
avoided it all by simply letting Comey do his job. If there really is nothing in the Russia story,
then Comey would have come up with nothing.
Trump has been used to running a family business all his life and a fake TV show as well where
his and only his word runs. That is not how the government functions and nor should it be. What
happened to the famous negotiator? The one who could make great deals? Who would learn quickly
how to navigate the waters and make things happen. This person seems non existent. Lets see some
of that please.
Wall Street swooned *not* because Trump's "populist" agenda is endangered but rather because Alt-Trump's
bait-and-switch pro-Wall Street agenda is endangered. That Pat Buchanan cannot distinguish these
is stunning to behold.
And if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated in January, there wouldn't be a dozen Congressional
committees pursuing specious investigations, egged on by right wing media? (Even this comment
thread carries one such demand, and she is not in office.)
This is one outcome of a poisoned body politic. Roger Ailes was there at the beginning, and
we are all sickened by his legacy.
Unfortunately, Buchanan seems to have ignored the fact that Rosenstein's decision to appoint a
special prosecutor was sparked by Trump's precipitous and unnecessary decision to dismiss Comey.
It was a foolish decision and now he's paying a price for it.
One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both
houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well
crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric.
U.S. President D.J. Trump is himself 100% responsible for the political and legal debacles where
he is in now and will be in for any foreseeable future!
From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were
against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political
opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college
victory last November.
Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with
one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until
it will be too late to reverse the course.
John Gruskos (8:57 a.m.) is right. Justin Raimondo's column today is a "must read":
"The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks
coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo,
smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the
Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen
intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the
Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia
impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think
of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What
we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely
carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to
criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within
the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out
any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone
who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and
could face legal sanctions.
What goes around, comes around. The Republicans did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Remember,
if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Be careful about the precedents you set.
Has anyone considered that the opposition from career bureaucrats is due to their past experience
as to what works and what doesn't? They can recognize a half-baked plan, concocted by someone
who has only a hazy idea of what goes on (the guy who managed to admit that health care was "complicated"
after touting on the campaign trail that it was easy). Add to it stubborness and unwillingness
to learn, and those bureaucrats may think that they are staring at an accident waiting to happen.
If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment
politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does
not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is
a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here.
Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable
or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations"
of the decision raised red flags.
This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America.
He will
be held to a higher standard until such time as he realizes he cannot run this world's most powerful
country like some sham casino operation he let fall into bankruptcy. And @Cal, this is not a Jewish
conspiracy. If you can't see that Trump is an incompetent idiot narcissist, you can't see anything.
"... Joe Lieberman surfacing from the lowest portal of the swamp, is not good news. The suppliers of the intelligence that Trump told the Ruskies, want to control the US Intelligence Community. ..."
Joe Lieberman surfacing from the lowest portal of the swamp, is not good news. The suppliers of the intelligence that Trump told
the Ruskies, want to control the US Intelligence Community.
How many nuclear weapons do they have and where are they pointed ? Anyone allowed to ask ?
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stands behind memo Trump used to justify sacking Comey but he admits he already knew FBI
boss was being fired
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein briefed House members for the first time since he penned a memo criticizing former
FBI Director James Comey and named a special counsel to investigate Trump campaign Russia ties
He told lawmakers he stands by the memo he wrote slamming Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation
'Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader'
He repeated his statement that he knew President Trump was going to fire Comey before he wrote the letter criticizing the
axed FBI Director
He said Comey's conduct in the Clinton investigation was 'profoundly wrong and unfair' to the DOJ and to Clinton
Discussed the need for 'new leadership' in one of his first meetings with Attorney General Jeff Sessions
'I chose the issues to include in my memorandum'
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein called James Comey a 'role' model, in his first official comments about the firing on Friday,
but he is standing by the memo he wrote that President
Trump used to justify his firing of FBI Director.
'I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it,' Rosenstein told lawmakers in two closed-door meetings Friday.
'It is a candid memorandum about the FBI Director's public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation,' Rosenstein
said, according to a copy of his opening statement,
The
Hill reported.
Although he piled on Comey in the memo and called for new leadership, he stopped short of calling for his firing.
'I thought the July 5 press conference [by Comey] was profoundly wrong and unfair both to the Department of Justice and Secretary
Clinton. It explicitly usurped the role of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Department of Justice;
it violated deeply engrained rules and traditions; and it guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the
election,' Rosenstein said, according to a copy of his opening remarks.
'My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct; the inspector general will render his judgement about the issue in due
course,' Rosenstein said, referencing an internal probe of Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
'Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader,' Rosenstein said.
He went a bit into the dramatic events that led to Comey's ouster, and repeated his statement that he knew Comey was going to
get fired before he wrote it.
'I informed the senior attorney that the president was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the
attorney general summarizing my own concerns and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate,' Rosenstein
said.
Rosenstein praised Comey even as he acknowledged telling Attorney General Jeff Sessions he thought Comey should go.
"I have known Jim Comey since approximately 2002. In 2005, when Mr. Comey was Deputy Attorney General, he participated in selecting
me to serve as a US attorney,' Rosenstein said. 'As a federal prosecutor, he was a role model. His speeches about leadership and
public service inspired me.'
But he said Comey's decision to hold a press conference announcing his decision not to recommend charging Hillary Clinton 'was
profoundly wrong.'
He repeated his statement from Thursday to Senators that he knew Trump was going to fire Comey when he wrote the letter trashing
Comey's handling of the Clinton email inevstigation.
'On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my
personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader,' Rosenstein said.
'I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey's public statements
concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.'
Rosenstein's opening statement to lawmakers
Good afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to discuss my role in the removal of FBI Director James Comey, although I know you understand
that I will not discuss the special counsel's ongoing investigation. Most importantly, I want to emphasize my unshakeable commitment
to protecting the integrity of every federal criminal investigation. There never has been, and never will be, any political interference
in any matter under my supervision in the United States Department of Justice.
Before I discuss the events of the past two weeks, I want to provide some background about my previous relationship with former
Director Comey. I have known Jim Comey since approximately 2002. In 2005, when Mr. Comey was Deputy Attorney General, he participated
in selecting me to serve as a U.S. Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, he was a role model. His speeches about leadership and public
service inspired me.
On July 5, 2016, Director Comey held his press conference concerning the federal grand jury investigation of Secretary Clinton's
emails. At the start of the press conference, the Director stated that he had "not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any
way with the Department of Justice . They do not know what I am about to say."
Director Comey went on to declare that he would publicly disclose "what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to
the Department of Justice." He proceeded to disclose details about the evidence; assert that the American people "deserve" to know
details; declare that no "reasonable" prosecutor would file charges; and criticize Secretary Clinton.
I thought the July 5 press conference was profoundly wrong and unfair both to the Department of Justice and Secretary Clinton.
It explicitly usurped the role of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General and the entire Department of Justice; it violated
deeply engrained rules and traditions; and it guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.
There are lawful and appropriate mechanisms to deal with unusual circumstances in which public confidence in the rule of law may
be jeopardized. Such mechanisms preserve the traditional balance of power between investigators and prosecutors, and protect the
rights of citizens.
Director Comey attended the Maryland U.S. Attorney's Office training seminar on October 27, 2016, and gave a detailed explanation
of his reasons for making public statements about the conclusion of the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed
with his analysis, but I believe that he made his decisions in good faith.
The next day, October 28, Mr. Comey sent his letter to the Congress announcing that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
He subsequently has said that he believed he was obligated to send the letter. I completely disagree. He again usurped the authority
of the Department of Justice, by sending the letter over the objection of the Department of Justice; flouted rules and deeply engrained
traditions; and guaranteed that some people would accuse the FBI of interfering in the election.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, Director Comey testified under oath about his public statements concerning
the Secretary Clinton email investigation. I strongly disagreed with his explanations, particularly his assertion that maintaining
confidentiality about criminal investigations constitutes concealment. Nonetheless, I respected him personally.
Former Department of Justice officials from both political parties have criticized Director Comey's decisions. It was not just
an isolated mistake; the series of public statements about the email investigation, in my opinion, departed from the proper role
of the FBI Director and damaged public confidence in the Bureau and the Department.
In one of my first meetings with then-Senator Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new leadership at the FBI.
Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority of the Department
of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks.
On May 8, I learned that President Trump intended to remove Director Comey and sought my advice and input. Notwithstanding my
personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader.
I wrote a brief memorandum to the Attorney General summarizing my longstanding concerns about Director Comey's public statements
concerning the Secretary Clinton email investigation.
I chose the issues to include in my memorandum.
Before finalizing the memorandum on May 9, I asked a senior career attorney on my staff to review it. That attorney is an ethics
expert who has worked in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General during multiple administrations. He was familiar with the issues.
I informed the senior attorney that the President was going to remove Director Comey, that I was writing a memorandum to the Attorney
General summarizing my own concerns, and that I wanted to confirm that everything in my memorandum was accurate. He concurred with
the points raised in my memorandum. I also asked several other career Department attorneys to review the memorandum and provide edits.
My memorandum is not a legal brief; these are not issues of law.
My memorandum is not a finding of official misconduct; the Inspector General will render his judgment about that issue in
due course.
My memorandum is not a statement of reasons to justify a for-cause termination.
My memorandum is not a survey of FBI morale or performance.
My memorandum is not a press release.
It is a candid internal memorandum about the FBI Director's public statements concerning a high-profile criminal investigation.
I sent my signed memorandum to the Attorney General after noon on Tuesday, May 9. I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it.
Finally, I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election. I am not aware of any such request. Moreover, I consulted my staff and Acting FBI Director Andrew
McCabe, and none of them recalls such a request.
Then he added: 'I chose the issues to include in my memorandum' – essentially taking on those who have argued President Trump
demanded the memo.
The letter Rosenstein penned severely criticizing Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Comey came out
with a public statement in July where he castigated Clinton for her 'extreme carelessness.'
Then, days before the election, he told lawmakers the inquiry was gearing up again to look at Clinton emails that ended up on
disgraced Rep. Anthony Weiner's computer.
'I cannot defend the director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand
his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken,' Rosenstein wrote – in a letter the White House released
immediately after Trump fired Comey.
Senators said Thursday that Rosenstein knew that
President Trump was going to fire Comey before
he wrote a memo raking Comey over the coals for his handling of the
Clinton email scandal.
Rosenstein briefed senators Thursday, just a week after Trump's stunning decision to fire Comey.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told reporters afterward that Rosenstein revealed new information about the letter he penned, which
Trump cited to justify Comey's firing.
'He did acknowledge that he learned Comey would be removed prior to him writing his memo,' McCaskill said.
'He knew that Comey was going to be removed prior to him writing his memo,' the Missouri senator added.
Her account of the closed meeting was backed up by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.).
'Yes,' Durbin said, asked whether Rosenstein knew Comey was getting fired before he wrote it. 'He knew the day before,' he said,
adding that Rosentein learned May 8th, the date he wrote the memo.
How Rosenstein got the post that let him outsource Russia probe
President Trump nominated career Justice Department official Rod Rosenstein to be deputy attorney general in February – but his
fate was immediately tied up in the probe of Russian election interference.
Rosenstein's March confirmation hearing came just five days after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from election
investigations, following revelations of his undisclosed contacts with the Russians.
With Sessions on the sidelines, lawmakers new Rosenstein would have the authority to oversee the FBI's Russia investigation or
outsource it to a special counsel. The career official had a reputation for integrity and bipartisan backing. But Democrats demanded
answers on how he would conduct himself – and grilled him for his views on an independent investigation.
He assured Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy: 'I'm willing to appoint a special counsel, Senator, whenever I determine that it's appropriate
based upon the policies and procedures of the Justice Department.'
Democrats also pressed him on political interference. 'Certainly if the president had a conflict in a particular matter I would
not take any advice from the president,' Rosenstein assured the Judiciary Committee.
Ultimately, he was confirmed by the Senate on a 95 to 6 vote on April 25. Within less than a month, he named former FBI Director
Robert Mueller as a special counsel investigating Russian election interference, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey,
reportedly gave highly classified information to top Russian officials in the Oval Office, and reportedly asked Comey to back off
his investigation of fired security advisor Mike Flynn. The White House denied the reports.
"... The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about. Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday]
that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence
that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was in contact with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000 reward
for information leading to the capture of his murderers. ..."
"... "An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living
in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News. "'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal
investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled
case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ..."
"... Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making
an example of a suspected leaker." It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? ..."
Two stories are now dominating the headlines: one is something the Establishment wants you to pay attention to, and the other
is something they want to bury. First off, to the former:
The Washington Beltway is in an uproar over the latest Deep State attempt to tar the President of the United States as a Russian
agent: they're
claiming Trump gave super-duper Top Secret information –provided, it turns out,
by the Israelis – to the Russians during a meeting with the Kremlin's Foreign Minister and their ambassador at the White House.
There are two problems with this story: if the anonymous former and currently serving "intelligence officials" cited by the
Washington Post were really concerned about the damage done to our "sources and methods," they would never have leaked this story
in the first place. Secondly, everyone in the room at the time, including National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, denies it.
Far from proving Trump is either the Manchurian candidate and/or is playing fast and loose with our national security, it merely
shows – once again – that the "intelligence community" is out to depose him by any means necessary. Add to this Israel's amen corner,
which is now screeching that Trump "betrayed" Israel.
The other story, however, is something our spooks don't want you to even know about.
Fox News reported earlier today [Wednesday] that the private investigator hired by the family of Seth Rich – but paid for by
a third party – is now saying there's solid evidence that Rich – a former DNC employee, embedded in their computer operations – was
in contact with WikiLeaks.
Rich was murdered in the wee hours of July 10, 2016. His wallet, his watch, and valuables were still on him, despite claims
it was a botched robbery. Days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has offered a $20,000
reward for information leading to the capture of his murderers.
Fox News is reporting that Rich's computer
shows "44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between DNC leaders" passed between Rich and WikiLeaks. They cite not only
Rod Wheeler , a former Washington DC homicide
detective hired by the Rich family to solve the case, but also a "federal investigator" who corroborates Wheeler's claims:
"An FBI forensic report of Rich's computer – generated within 96 hours after Rich's murder – showed he made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was
living in London at the time, the federal source told Fox News.
"'I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,' the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
Speaking of WikiLeaks: a largely overlooked
email from John Podesta's leaked account has him saying: "I am definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker." It kind
of makes you think, doesn't it?
I've said from the beginning that 1) There is no convincing evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, or fooled John Podesta
into giving out his email account password, and 2) It was most likely an inside job. While it may be an overstatement to say that
this latest story confirms it, it certainly calls the Russian conspiracy theory into serious question.
Yet both the House and the Senate have launched investigations designed to prove "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin – to say nothing of the FBI probe. Will the same attention be paid to the Rich-MacFayden correspondence?
Of course not.
The Rich family is denying that there's any evidence their son was in contact with WikiLeaks: but their official spokesman – yes,
they have one – is one Brad Bauman , a self-described
" crisis consultant " for the Democrats. Which
is very appropriate, since these new revelations do indeed constitute a crisis for the Democrats, who have based their entire post-election
strategy on a
flimsy
conspiracy theory that has been
debunked
by cyber-security experts (the ones who
aren't in the pay of the
DNC, that is)..
Wheeler says that a local police officer in Washington "looked me straight in the eye" and told him they had been ordered to "stand
down" on Rich's case. As for the "mainstream" media, they don't have to be told to stand down – they're doing it instinctively.
But no worries! Antiwar.com was founded to blast through the "mainstream" media wall of silence. That's our job, and we've
been doing it for over 20 years. But we can't continue to do it without your help. This Russia conspiracy theory is just plain bonkers,
and is clearly the creation of political opportunists and Deep State spooks who have a vested interest in pushing it.
Well, we have a vested interest in the truth. And so do you. That's why supporting Antiwar.com should be near the top of your
agenda right now: because a site like this has never been more necessary.
But it doesn't come free! We depend on you, our readers, to donate the funds we need to continue. So don't let the "mainstream"
media pull the wool over America's eyes – make your tax-deductible donation
today.
Postscript: By the way, the Fox News story on the Seth Rich-Wikileaks connection, by reporter Malia Zimmerman, went through
several interesting iterations since its original publication. See
here .
"... The media says what??? Hillary Clinton complains about the media? Which media says that? Give us ONE single example Hillary! Just one where the media says you can't talk about that. Just pure hypocrisy ..."
"... Superficially, there is a semblance of variance from the political establishment. Macron formed his En Marche (Forward) movement only a year ago. He has never held elected political office. And until three years ago hardly anyone had ever heard of him. ..."
"... Paradoxically, Donald Tusk, the head of the European Council, congratulated the French people for "choosing liberty, equality and fraternity, and saying no to fake news." Paradoxical because everything about Emmanuel Macron's "meteoric rise" through elite banking and his equally stellar crossover to politics smacks of fabrication and fakery. ..."
"... Former banking colleagues recall that he wasn't particularly capable in his four years at Rothschild's while on a multi-million-euro income. But he "mastered the art of networking." In a Financial Times profile published before the election, a senior banker is quoted as saying: "What Mr Macron lacked in technical knowledge and jargon at first, he made up for with contacts in government." Other sources recall that "it was never quite clear who Macron worked for." ..."
"... Macron's En Marche does not have any members in parliament. His government will thus likely be comprised of patronage and technocrats selected from years of networking in the financial and Élysée Palace establishment. ..."
Everything about France's new president Emmanuel Macron suggests a theatrical production of hype
and illusion. He is being "sold" to the masses as an "outsider" and "centrist", a benign liberal.
In reality, enter the economic hitman who will blow French society apart in the service of the
oligarchy.
At age 39, Macron has been described as a "political wonderboy" and France's "youngest leader
since Napoleon Bonaparte." The former Rothschild banker who reportedly once had the nickname "the
Mozart of Finance" is now promising to renew France and bring the nation together, where people will
no longer "vote for extremes."
Fittingly for the Mozart of Finance, the new president used the "grandest of backdrops for entrance
on the world stage," when he made his victory speech on Sunday night in the courtyard of the Louvre,
noted the Financial Times. His dramatic walk to the stage through the world-famous museum courtyard
took a full four minutes. The night lights and shadows played with Macron's unsmiling, stoney face
as he strode purposely forward amid the strains of Beethoven's Ode to Joy. The choice of the European
Union's national anthem, rather than France's, is a harbinger of Macron's political project and the
globalist interests he serves.
The media says what??? Hillary Clinton complains about the media? Which media says that? Give
us ONE single example Hillary! Just one where the media says you can't talk about that. Just pure
hypocrisy
Geographically, the Louvre is situated midway between the traditional political venues of the
Place de la Concorde for the right, and La Bastille for the left. Here was Macron intimating once
again, as he did during his campaign, that he represents neither right or left. He has vowed to overturn
the bipartisan structure of French politics, creating a new "centrist" movement. Just like his other
moniker of being an "outsider," however, this image of Macron is a deftly manicured illusion.
Superficially, there is a semblance of variance from the political establishment. Macron formed
his En Marche (Forward) movement only a year ago. He has never held elected political office. And
until three years ago hardly anyone had ever heard of him. Now he is to become the eighth president
of the French Fifth Republic.
Paradoxically, Donald Tusk, the head of the European Council, congratulated the French
people for "choosing liberty, equality and fraternity, and saying no to fake news." Paradoxical
because everything about Emmanuel Macron's "meteoric rise" through elite banking and his equally
stellar crossover to politics smacks of fabrication and fakery. With his elite education at the Ecole National
Academie (ENA) where future French political leaders are groomed, to his precocious elevation in
investment banking, followed by his seamless entrance into top-flight government politics, Macron
is evidently a person with powerful guiding forces behind him.
Former banking colleagues recall that he wasn't particularly capable in his four years at Rothschild's
while on a multi-million-euro income. But he "mastered the art of networking." In a Financial Times
profile published before the election, a senior banker is quoted as saying: "What Mr Macron lacked
in technical knowledge and jargon at first, he made up for with contacts in government." Other sources
recall that "it was never quite clear who Macron worked for."
As the Financial Times noted: "At the bank, Mr Macron navigated around the numerous conflicts
of interest that arise in close-knit Parisian business circles, making good use of his connections
as an Inspecteur des Finances - an elite corps of the very highest-ranking graduates from ENA."
After quitting private finance, Macron joined the government of Socialist President Francois Hollande,
where he at first served as a "special advisor." In 2014, Hollande appointed him as economy minister
where he drew up a draconian program to undermine French employment rights in favor of corporate
profits. Macron resigned from his ministerial post only last year when he set up his own political
party in anticipation of contesting the presidential election.
Macron's En Marche does not have any members in parliament. His government will thus likely be
comprised of patronage and technocrats selected from years of networking in the financial and Élysée
Palace establishment. What little is known about Macron's policies is his stated commitment to more
stringent economic austerity, promises to slash €60 billion in public spending over the next five
years and axe up to 120,000 state sector jobs. He is also setting to drive through more "business
friendly" changes in labor laws that will allow bosses to more easily hire and fire employees. He
is giving companies license to negotiate increased working hours and lower salaries outside of statutory
law. So, the notion that Macron is some kind of benign "centrist" is an insult to common intelligence.
He is a "centrist" only in the sense of illusory corporate media branding; in objective terms, Macron
is a dedicated economic hitman for global capitalism.
Whatever one might think of his defeated rival Marine Le Pen of the Front National, she certainly
had Macron accurately summed up when she referred to him as the "candidate of finance." Independent
Socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who was narrowly knocked out in the first round of the election on
April 23, predicts that Macron will be a "disaster" for French society, blowing apart economic inequality
and social contracts to turn the country into the kind of poverty-wage slavery seen in the US and
Britain.
There is sound reason why the French and European political establishment exulted in Macron's
victory. He is no outsider, overturning the status quo for a more democratic outcome. He is in fact
a consummate insider who will pursue policies pandering to elite interests, at the expense of the
great majority.
Macron's "centrist [sic] victory brought joy to Europe's political establishment," reported the
New York Times, while the BBC informed of "palpable relief among European leaders." Outgoing President
Francois Hollande – the most unpopular French leader ever – warmly congratulated Macron, as did incumbent
prime minister Bernard Cazeneuve and other senior government figures. Macron had been endorsed by
Hollande's so-called Socialist Party and the center-right Republicans. So much for his vaunted "outsider"
image. Macron was also endorsed prior to the weekend vote by former US President Barack Obama and
European leaders, including Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker.
The irony of such brazen "electoral interference" is of course that this was what such Western
leaders have accused Russia of. Again, it also shows that Macron will be a "centrist" in more ways
than is meant. He will serve as a "dead-center" advocate of the transatlantic politics of Washington-led
neoliberal capitalism and NATO militarism. The French President-elect published a political autobiography
earlier this year entitled 'Revolution'. The only thing "revolutionary" about Macron's victory is
that the political establishment has invented an image for itself that upturns reality.
The intense media marketing of Macron as a "centrist outsider" is a coup against the meaning of
words and plain language. It is also worth noting that over 16 million French voters abstained or
spoiled their votes against the 20 million who opted for Macron. French society, as for other Western
nations, is riven by the ravages of global capitalism. And now here comes the "Mozart of Finance"
to allegedly bring harmony from the appalling discord he and others like him have sown.
"... What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll. ..."
"... Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? ..."
"... workers fail to ..."
"... Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists. ..."
"... serving their own interests; ..."
"... In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that. ..."
"... there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this. ..."
"... 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon: (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions. (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications. ..."
Definitely worth reading and reading again. What popped on first reading is the description
of the rise of income in Poland and the stagnation of income in the U S of A. What pops for me
on seccond reading is these paragraphs about tax evasion and income inequality: >>
One reason nothing happens is a culture of tax evasion. There's a folk belief in American business
that if you pay full taxes, you're not doing your fiduciary duty, and your board will fire you.
Apple now has a quarter trillion dollars offshore that it refuses to put into direct productive
use in the United States. Apple boasts that its products are designed in California-they will
sell you a $300 book called Designed By Apple In California. But they do their damndest to make
sure that California never sees a penny of their overseas profits.
You in the EU are all too familiar with this brand of tax evasion. Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft
have all been under investigation or in court on charges of evading European taxes.
Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital,
doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.
[Tax evasion isn't just a folk belief: It is taught in U.S. law schools and in business schools,
along with union busting.]
What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called
consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible.
A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure
and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer
hands and the waste stream has taken its toll.
Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital,
doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.
The author does not understand that capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole
point. Inequality is a feature, not a bug, and so trying to save capitalism while eliminating
vast wealth inequalities is working at cross-purposes, and only one of those aims can be successful and
guess which one it always is?
"capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point."
Not in Adam Smith's world, nor Henry Ford's. True capitalists prosper by creating wealth which
improves the lives of everyone around them. Crony capitalists, the ones we have now, strip wealth
from others. Witness today's bubble-and-bust cycles rather than the prior widespread economic
growth.
The capitalism you see today is an abomination of the original concept, just as Mnuchin's claim
to support "Glass Steagall" is an abomination. And don't get me started on the "Affordable" Care
Act, or the "Patriot" act which gutted the Constitution
P.S. The original author's article is riddled with glaring factual errors, but he has the big
picture right: it's time to restore Antitrust Law and apply it to the internet monopolists. And
restore privacy rights and and it's a long list. Start fighting now, if you want anything to
happen in your lifetime!
The author's central thesis strikes me as correct: that Europe provides the only hope for applying
any brakes whatsoever to the American tech sector. I hope someone over there is listening, as
prospects here seem utterly hopeless.
Freedom means people should have reasonable alternatives, choices on any product, service or
ideology. Today's internet experience lacks that freedom aspect quite a bit.
Hokum. The "theory" is that it benefits everyone, but the reality is quite different.
Tell
me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans?
Back when we were hanging Wobblies? Back when we had to put nets around our factories to keep
the workers from committing suicide? Please the dictatorship of the proletariat worked out just
fine in Marx's theory, too.
Another one for the gallery of glaring factual errors: "capitalists prosper by creating wealth".
Unless that was an epic typo for something like: " workers fail to prosper while creating
wealth".
As for "the original concept" of "capitalism", in which district of the astral plane did you
find that? Apart from his anthropological sci-fi about the origins of money in "barter", Adam
Smith generally tried to write about the real world. Just like Marx, except that Smith was speaking
for a different class interest, whose "moral philosopher" imagined himself to be. For that reason,
"capital" and "capitalist"(n.) were important concepts for Smith and Marx alike, but "capitalism"
- a sort of hybrid implying the social reality and the ideology cheerleading for it at once without
ever really distinguishing between the two - is an abstraction that neither had much time for,
and one that only really caught on once both were dead.
Wasteman – for a start, unlike todays Cronyists, Adam Smith understood that capitalism would
not function for the benefit of all unless monopolies were restrained by government:
"The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however,
in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and
even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always
the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest
of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to
enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for
their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. (Adam Smith, Wealth
of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)"
Another interesting perspective is from J. K. Galbraith (sorry I lost the source) who pointed
out that in an economy with healthy competition, profit margins are lower, but employment and
wage income are necessarily higher.
And pray tell, who is it who will restrain the monopolists? Our elected officials, who just
so happen to be under the control of those same capitalists? Which is possible due to the vast
wealth inequalities that capitalism generates .
Capitalists, almost without exception, do everything in their power to avoid competition. The
idea is to make a profit and competition is antithetical to that.
Lots of things are good in theory, like three-way relationships. Reality, on the other hand,
feels no obligation to correspond with theory.
Not exactly. Capitalism extends or expands existing inequality. It was the development of agriculture
several thousand years ago that broke the approximate egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Even that had some inequality, but not much. For more information, see the early chapters of
The Great Leveler ,
by Walter Scheidel.
Hence the "vast" part. I'm not so silly as to think that before capitalism there was not wealth
inequality. But not the type where a few hundred people control more wealth than a few billion.
It would seem to me, on just a gut level based on a little reading, that whereas systems like
feudalism were unequal but relatively stable*, i.e. the level of inequality stayed the same generation
to generation, capitalism's dynamics have caused inequality to skyrocket, both nationally and
globally.
*Or at least cyclically stable, as with regular debt jubilees in Sumer.
"Living standards in Poland in 2010 had more than doubled from 1990." This sentence annoyed me to no end. Yes, the reason that is true is because every capitalist country in the world worked to smash
and destroy communism without pause for its entire life and then internal and external oligarchs
snatched up everything.
Living standards increased over that period in Poland but so did inequality and poverty.
So the country got some shiny new consumer goods (which the author seems enamored by) while
the populations poverty rate continues to climb. Thank god for privatization ("Suddenly people had cars, phones, appliances" and suddenly poverty
surged as well), and the end of those no good dirty commies, right?
Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living
standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists.
In any case, despite very good performance of Polish economy, its convergence to West Europe
at least in terms of GDP (PPP) is questionable as the cases of Czech Republic and Slovenia show.
See the article The convergence dream 25 years on in Bruegel
There is a reason why people voted for the populist PiS and ousted the liberals who had made
such a great job at bringing Poland into the EU and its "market society".
A long but brilliant article that everyone should take the time to read! I want all the techies
in my family to read it because it points out some of the uneasiness even techies feel about the
their industry.
My favorite paragraph (although there were many close seconds):
"But real problems are messy. Tech culture prefers to solve harder, more abstract problems
that haven't been sullied by contact with reality. So they worry about how to give Mars an earth-like
climate, rather than how to give Earth an earth-like climate. They debate how to make a morally
benevolent God-like AI, rather than figuring out how to put ethical guard rails around the more
pedestrian AI they are introducing into every area of people's lives."
Yep .
A previous example was given about a hypothetical House vote, where, in yes-districts, voters
are split 51-49 yes (assuming that is so lots of times, congress persons vote 'their conscience')
and voters in no-districts are 90-10 for no. Yes votes win by one.
In that case, the popular vote actually is for No.
And that has nothing to do with slavery.
It's how the math works in a representative voting system.
Before responding to MLTPB, I'd like to voice my opinion that the OP article is thoughtful
and reflects a decent level of awareness of the reality of the world, along with positive solutions
that would be achievable in a polity that had the public good as its aim.
As for MLTPB's opinion on the vote, I beg to differ: it has everything to do with slavery.
That's how the numbers work in our system, which is imperial, not representative. It's a bitch
when instead of Augustus you get Caligula, but it doesn't change the basic reality of how the
system works, and has worked since Ike. In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people
whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power
structure, but nothing more than that.
Here is the reality: the people in any office in our federal government-basically everyone
who lives in or around Washington DC-have the same relationship to American people as they have
to Russian, Chinese, or Indian people: that of serving their own interests; predation,
if you will; animal husbandry, if you prefer. They will act so as to extract the maximum value
consistent with not-killing-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs from every person, wherever they
are located, whatever their religion, whatever their nationality, as long as they are powerless,
which means everyone who is a private citizen, however rich, or a small business; everyone who
is not a Forbes 500 corporation.
The notion that the federal government is somehow tied to "Americans," or even to the geographical
entity now known as the USA, much less to the values expressed in the so-called "founding documents,"
is a child's bedtime story.
It's amusing that it took the election of Trump to bring this realization about; but really,
that is why some of us actually voted for Trump: to rub the idiots' noses in the reality of their
political environment. (Not me, mind you; because I do not bother to vote: when I want something
done, I write a check, like any experienced consumer of government services.)
There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results
from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million. No, it means changing it so there
are 1000 presidents and 100,000 representatives and 1000 supreme courts, and 1000 republics. Those
are the numbers that would achieve representative government the way it was designed to function
by people who knew. Alternatively, you could reduce federal taxation to 1/10th of its current
level, and assign all other taxation to the township, with a population limit of 20,000. Now you
would have something that is no longer imperial.
But since most people since the dawn of history have lived under organizations that are imperial
with perfect happiness, the appropriate course of action is not to struggle in futility for change,
which would almost certainly do more harm than good, and result in an outcome that would just
use up the world's resources more swiftly in the chaos of consumption and war. The optimum course
is to watch reruns of amusing sitcoms and eat good food; to gratify the animal pleasures and such
pleasures of the mind as remain to aging bodies mistreated by pharmaceuticals; and to die as quickly
and painlessly as the authorities permit.
In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters,
occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.
In that case, the popular vote question is not a question anymore (with the current 1 president,
instead of 1,000 setup), as you point out here:
There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president
results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million.
I have mentioned before that Rome had, at one time, 2 or 4 co-emperors. You suggest 1,000 presidents,
as a solution. That's nothing to do with slavery, except in the sense that we're all serfs or
slaves. It about making one's voice heard within a smaller group, having someone representing
you along with fewer constituents.
The inherent problem of having representatives vote, versus direct voting, is still here, as
in the example given above. The math scales up and down.
Nice piece: Two things to note
– The Clintons, Bush & Obama presided over this mess and aided in it's creation but the albatross
of abuse is being hung on Trump.
– He shares an enormous egotistical blind spot common to tech workers. He wants unionization and
strength for tech workers but seems to advocate for a globalized work force. More than anything
else, foreign workers are responsible for wage suppression in the US. Is he saying 'Tech workers
are special and should be pampered but others should work for $1.85 per day"?
– The above points are not germaine to his central theme, which is important and well written.
But it does raise questions about his values.
" Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern
life ."
Good .Opt out of modern life. Now. Get as far away from it as you possibly can. You'll be the
better person for it. There was a time I felt 'modern life' was the place to be .Now the older
me realizes 'modern life' is a sham, an illusion, and a trap.
A very cleverly designed trap, and one in which the cattle to be slaughtered all believe they
are choosing their own destiny even as they are herded inexorably closer to the slaughterhouse.
Amusingly, although my younger naive and idealistic self had a significant part to play in
the great tech revolutions and evolutions through the 90's and early 2000's (for which I will
be eternally regretful and ashamed, given how the creations we labored on have been whored out
by the pimps in the oligarchy and government) I was also incredibly lucky to have grown up on
a farm and learned how to use a hoe, a hand powered washing machine, how to gather eggs and grow
things.
Real things, things that can feed people. But more importantly .how to grow things like spirit
and independence that do not rely on any flow of electrons to come to glorious fruition.
I also so much better understand what that prophet Edward Abbey was trying to warn us about
all those decades ago .
" Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell "
Indeed. The promise of technology has devolved into Clickbait Nation - where millions mindlessly
click on endless deceptive headlines like rats pushing levers in a giant Skinner box.
Is "opting out" really an option? Are we willing to opt out out of modern medicine too?
Whether we like it or not, we aren't opting out of using the internet, so we aren't opting out
of anything this author talked about .
Sooooo ..wouldn't a better idea be to learn as much as we can about this technology and get
involved in its decision making, so that we can control it and make it work for rather than against
us?
I've had that debate before, people typically starting with the 'well, you are posting using
the Internet so you aren't really opting out of anything', but thats a simplistic approach, and
the process of opting out is a matter of degrees – it is never a binary on/off.
One can continue 'opting out' of aspects of society, and technology, to as extreme a position
as you wish .even back to the stone age, should you choose. (sort of the ultimate boycott)
Tradeoffs are inherent to the process, no argument there .just be aware that the experience
of opting out is itself liberating. You realize all these shiny objects, and expensive things,
and
complicated processes that you have been raised to think of as critical necessities that cannot
ever EVER be parted with .may not be so critical as you think.
Sometimes the tradeoffs will be negative, more often – in my experience – (once you have solved
the problems presented by improvising/adapting/overcoming) you will find the 'tradeoffs' are
a net positive.
You are, of course, a creature with free will and free to do what you choose . opt in, opt
out .as you will. :)
Agreed, there are several gradations to this whole opting out thing. I for one am completely
absent from any social media platform and feel no loss whatsoever because of this. It takes a
committed group of independent thinkers to deconstruct and debunk this whole narrative that you're
either "all-in" with these internet platforms or you opt out and life passes you by as you're
consigned to an existence of irrelevance and ignorance about the world around you.
If by social media we are talking facebook, instagram et al, then I have never participated
in any of those. To be sure, this is not meant to sound like I take a dim view on those who do,
the point is the narrative is typically framed, at least in my part of the world, as an all-in/opt-out
binary in which participation in social media platforms is a prime determinant in who "remains
relevant" and who doesn't
I'm not sure what you think you are opting out of. If you are on the internet, then you have
to have a carrier – Verizon, Comcast, etc. Do you think their data collection systems are different
than what Google, Facebook, or any other social media does?
Yea I think the truly open minded probably try many of the internet platforms just to see what
they are like and then delete their accounts (this does not need to entail posting one's entire
private life there needless to say). Not a lot of open mindedness out there really though, it's
all extremes: rigid abstinence from it all, or hopeless addiction to it.
I mean I understand a priori rejection of the majority of what capitalism produces (except
if it's necessary to life then well), but it is a pretty uninformed position from which to criticize
(as is being addicted to it really).
Even if you opt out personally, you're still going to be interacting with a lot of people,
businesses, governments, etc., that are dependent on the Five Horsemen. Pay cash at the local
business, but travel down the supply chain that brought the goods there and you'll run into someone
using cloud storage, social media, consumer surveillance data, etc.
Ordinary folks have really only two ways to do this. One is in their consumer choices. Avoid
or boycott companies that abuse their customers – hit them in their wallets. The other is in their
voting and political participation push privacy rights, antitrust enforcement, etc. higher on
the political agenda.
It's entirely possible to be comfortably social without "social media". Personally, I boycott
Facebook, Twitter, and (as much as possible) Google and Ebay. Google is tough because they have
infiltrated the schools with Google Classroom (which has value, but do we really want an internet
advertising company to be gathering data on our children?). Microsoft is tough because of the
Office monopoly, but just because I have to use it at work doesn't mean I need to pay them any
money anywhere else in my life There are also ways to buy online without using Amazon.
There are other search engines, browsers, email services, etc. besides those operated by the
giants. DuckDuckGo, protonmail, and the Opera browser (with free built-in VPN!) work well for
me.
The problem is, if these other services ever do get popular enough, the tech giants will either
block them by getting their stooges appointed to Federal agencies and regulating them out of existence,
or buy them.
I've been running from ISP acquisitions for years, as the little guys get bought out I have
to find an even littler one. Luckily I've found a local ISP, GWI, that I've used for years now.
They actually came out against the new regulations that would allow them to gather and sell their
customers' data. Such anathema will probably wind up with their CEO publicly flayed for going
against all that is good and holy according to the Five Horsemen.
There are two sides to opting out.
When net neutrality is gone, then capital and market concentration will transform the internet
into what cable TV is now, and nobody will need it much.
Contrariwise the big tech companies are taking over the implementation of major social functions:
– if you can't vote without the internet
– if you can't spend your money without the internet
– if you can't contact your friends without the internet
– if you can't get news without the internet - this has already happened - just look at us all
here.
– if you can't join a political party without liking it on your Facebook page and following it
on Twitter - there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.
As I said somewhere else, all this would amount to an uncontracted and unspecified public/private
partnership (various ones, actually) and all entered into unexamined. Time to examine them while
they're still easy to change.
To assume that workers in ANY Industry (including tech where we know the big players have rigged
the labor market against tech workers) have more power than consumers seems pretty unrealistic
to me. Of course consumer power is one dollar one vote and hardly democratic but at least consumers
do have options and some power. The employee role is a powerless one in the U.S..
We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified.
Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting
our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.
Google would plant a chip in every child if they could. Short of that, they have insinuated
themselves in public schools, hoping that every kid in America will consummate their relationship
with this giant after they graduate from k-12. See this NY Times article from last weekend:
How Google Took Over the Classroom
It's hard to mitigate their reach. In a landmark student privacy law passed in California (with
an
even weaker version passed in my state of Oregon), they built in what I call a Google exemption
clause.
( 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon:
(a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading
software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications
or software; or
(b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section
by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means
any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer
access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries
or educational institutions.
(9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online
services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if
login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access
those general audience sites, services or applications.
The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Child and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy (a group
with which I have worked) just put out a
Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy .
We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified.
Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting
our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.
When I am not accessing knowledge, I would still prefer to remain private.
For example, what videos I access for entertainment should private. It's not knowledge I access,
just something to pass time.
That those activities should b protected as well.
Privacy-protected-society is probably a broader term than knowledge society.
"... I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. ..."
"... This caught my eye earlier. Had to come back to it. Especially after reading Mike Whitney's
latest http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/
. In it, he details how seriously Clapper, Brennan et al. take those "laws and procedures." ..."
"... Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply from
normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped make the bogus
case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq ..."
"... Glad you liked it. Lily Tomlin applies: "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to
keep up." ..."
"... Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American intelligence
agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance in the face of
the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out of silicon valley. ..."
This piece is absolutely fantastic! Not to nit pick, but I do disagree with the author about
the following passage:
Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously.
But there are no such protections for non-Americans outside the United States. The NSA would
have to go to court to spy on me; they can spy on you anytime they feel like it.
We know from the Church and Pike committees that this is patently false, and I highly doubt
that this has changed much since then, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the made-up intel
used to justify the Iraq invasion.
I know I probably sound like a broken record as I often cite the Church and Pike reports in
my NC comments, but they're just so little known and so important that I feel compelled to do
so.
I encourage the entire commenteriat to at least skim some of these documents to get a better
understanding of the kinds of sickening things perpetrated by the intel community in the past
and then ask yourself if the veil of secrecy that surrounds them is to keep secrets from the enemy
or to keep the American public from vomiting.
I found it an odd mix of straight-talk and naivete. The NSA can't spy on Americans without
a warrant? Go ahead, pull the other one. Talking about the "collapse of representative government"
as if we've ever had one. All very cute, and very silly.
His suggestions for putting the brakes on are good, but insufficient. My ideas as to how to
go about, "connecting the tech industry to reality. Bringing its benefits to more people, and
bringing the power to make decisions to more people," is here:
Imagine a political party with no national platform-a party where local rank-and-file members
select candidates from among themselves, and dictate the policies those candidates will support.
[2] Imagine a political party whose candidates are transparent; one that guarantees every member
an equal voice in shaping the actual policy proposals-and the votes-of their representatives.
Imagine a political party whose focus is on empowering the rank-and-file members, instead of
the charismatic con-artists we call politicians. Imagine a political party that runs on direct
democracy, from bottom to top: open, transparent and accountable . we'll need an app maybe
two
The app already exists, actually, and it's called Loomio. Podemos uses it, along with a lot
of other people:
I had the same reaction to that passage, at least initially. However what I think the author
might mean by this is that to have the means to combat this evil 2 things are necessary:
o Laws and/or procedures that place limitations on the actions of these agencies – NSA, CIA,
DHS etc.
o and, much much more important, the means to ensure those laws/procedures are *enforced* as
to both statute and intent.
USians have at least the first part even if the second, enforcement, has rotted to the extent
of being no more than a cruel joke. non-USian have neither.
Note that the lack of enforcement thing extends far beyond the IC agencies into anti-trust,
environmental regulation, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. etc.. Even the ludicrous botch called Dodd-Frank
could work marginally better if there was some attempt to actually enforce it.
That bit about tech workers defying management to protest Trump's travel ban seems demonstrably
untrue, as the companies want that human capital pipeline kept open, and they can simultaneously
wrap themselves in muliti-cultural virtue as they defend their employment practices.
Also, and I know people here will disagree or think it irrelevant, but the "They're not bad
people," thing is wrong; I think people such as Thiel, Kalanick, Zuckerberg, Ellison, add-your-own-candidates,
seem like pretty awful people doing a lot of awful things, whatever their brilliance, business
acumen, and relentlessness.
Finally, while as a union guy I was pleased to see the importance he gave it, the idea of tech
workers unionizing in this country seems like social science fiction, whatever their European
counterparts might hopefully do.
I, too, stumbled / choked when I read those paragraphs. They are provably false in so many
dimensions I hardly know where to begin. It made it hard to read past.
I will try again because so many commenters are so positive. But the author's credibility sinks
when a piece starts with such blindness or misinformation or pandering.
On the one hand, it's probably some pandering, because he knows he is being watched. We all
throw that same bone once in a while. From Vergil, it is called "a sop to Cerberus." On the other
hand, he is correct, too: it is a "lawful evil" because it functions using tax money, which is
money extorted by force with the sanction of law, rather than "chaotic evil," which is money extorted
by force or fraud without that sanction. So in that positive-law-philosophy way of thinking, he
has a point, even if it's a pandering point.
Taking a recent and relevant example, remember the ICA, the "Intelligence Community Assessment"?
Whitney quotes a Fox news article detailing the many ways in which it's production varied sharply
from normal procedures. And of course there was all that "stove-piping" of "intel" that helped
make the bogus case for the 2003 war of aggression against Iraq .
I appreciate the author's point: it would be harder to surveil a particular American than a
European. I'm sure rank & file people by & large respect law and procedure. But don't worry, if
there's a political will to get you, there's a way. Ask Chelsea Manning.
Whitney concludes by quoting an especially apt question posed by Michael Glennon in the May
issue of Harper's: "Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard
against future repression?"
People who think they're immune to said repression, for one. Or who don't know or believe it
happened/is happening at all. IOW political elites and most Americans, that's who. I think there's
a good chance the soft coup will work, and most Americans would even accept a President-General.
So while I see the author's point, I see it this way. They take laws and procedures seriously
like I take traffic laws seriously. Only their solution is to corrupt law enforcement, not follow
the law.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - President
George W. Bush
Mike Whitney's article you linked to was interesting. George Webb's ongoing YouTube series
is going further still, as he is uncovering numerous anomalies with Seth Rich's death and the
circumstances and "investigation". It turns out that nothing in this story is what it seems (the
"school play" scenario).
Disturbingly, there are similarities and patterns that connect up with numerous other patterns
discussed earlier in this 208-day (so far) odyssey, which started with looking at irregularities
around oil pipelines and drugs shipments, and ended up including numerous additional criminal
enterprises, all with direct links to high-up government staff and political staff from both major
parties, with links among key participants going back over decades in some cases.
To return to your observation–knowing what I know now–personal as well as second-hand, I don't
think it's harder to surveil an american than a european. The compromises of law enforcement,
justice and intelligence and rogue contractors have no international boundaries. The way the compromises
are done vary depending on local methods, and the degree of public awareness may vary, but the
actuality and ease–no different overall.
Eight, nine and ten in this household. I don't use any Google-stuff and have hard-deleted my
Facebook account. At least they told me had, I should ask a friend to check to see if I am still
there ;)
But we all know that a Linux user is worth only 3/5 of a regular user, so we are back to 6.
Writing this from a 2003 vintage Pentium 4 machine running Linux Mint 17.
8. Built this thing myself 5 years ago. It's a quad core on an MSI mobo. Or maybe I only count
as a half, since it's a dual boot with Linux Mint 17.3/Win7 Pro.
A history lesson. The PC brought freedom from the IT department, until networking enslaved
us again. The freedom was temporary, we were originally supposed to be serfs of a timeshare system
connected to a mainframe. France was ahead of the US in that, they had MiniTel. But like everything
French is was efficient but static. In Europe, like in the US, the PC initially liberated, and
then with networking, enslaved. Arpanet was the predecessor of the Internet it was a Cold War
system of survivable networking, for some people. The invention of HTTP and the browser at CERN
democratized the Arpanet. But it also greatly enabled State-sponsored snooping.
We are now moving to cloud storage and Chrome-books which will restore the original vision
of a timeshare system connected to a mainframe, but at a higher technical standard. What was envisioned
in 1968 will be achieved, but later than planned, and in a round about way. We are not the polity
we used to be. In 1968 this would have been viewed by the public with suspicion. But after 50
years later the public will view this as progress.
One thing just as dangerous and limiting as the idealized past of the conservative mindset
is the idealized sense of progress of the the liberal mindset.
SV tech owners (think about) . . . the cool toys they'll spend profits on . . . run by chuckle
heads . . . identify with progressive values . . . they want to help . . . run by a feckless leadership
accountable to no one . . .
Can't send them to Mars quick enough, I say.
." Even if you think our intelligence agencies are evil, they're a lawful evil. They have to
follow laws and procedures, and the people in those agencies take them seriously."
The real kneeslapper was. . . American government (also) run by chuckle heads . . . what happens
when these two groups . . . join forces?
Knock me over with a feather, let us know when that happens. How many Friedman units will we have
to wait?
"And outside of Russia and China, Google is the world's search engine."
How can this be? I don't use it except very rarely; my wife does, but complains about it bitterly,
and so do people here at NC, presumably tech-savvy. My wife is using it out of pure habit; what
about the rest of them?
"Given this scary state of the world, with ecological collapse just over the horizon, and a
population sharpening its pitchforks, "
And unfortunately, that's the likeliest solution. (The family blogging "L" on this keyboard doesn't
work right, so make some allowances.)
Despite my nitpicks above, this is a very important speech and a frightening issue. In particular,
I've long been concerned that so much organizing depends on giant corporations like Faceborg and
Twitter. They have no reason to be our friends, and some important reasons, like this speech,
to be our enemies. Do we have a backup if FB and Google decide to censor the Internet for serious?
Excellent post, except for the bit, as some other readers have commented, about American
intelligence agencies being law abiding. Europe, and much of the world, crumbled without resistance
in the face of the tech juggernauts because of the PR fetishization of anything that came out
of silicon valley.
The laxity of lawmakers and regulators was partly because of their unwillingness to be seen
as standing in the way of "progress". A public drunk on the need to be in with the new, "disruptive"
kids on the block who were "changing the world" would have teamed up with the disruptors to run
rough shod over any oversight mechanisms proposed by regulators. Hence the silicon valley PR machine
always prioritises the general public as the first targets of intellectual capture, because an
intellectually captured public loath to give up the benefits and convenience of "progress and
disruption" is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of tech giants in their global war against regulation.
And the insidious nature of the damage of overreach by these tech giants isn't just limited to
online interactions anymore, but the real world is also now experiencing disruption in the true
sense of the word with gig economy companies reshaping the dynamics of entire markets and squeezing
the most vulnerable members of society to the periphery of said markets, if not pushing them out
entirely. In my own city of cape town south africa, a housing crisis is brewing as locals are
being squeezed out of the housing market because landlords profit more from airbnb listings than
making their properties available for long term rentals. Asset prices are being pushed up as "investors"
compete to snap up available inventory to list on airbnb. And city officials seem more interested
in celebrating cape town's status as "one of the top airbnb destinations" than actually protecting
the interests of their own citizens. Intellectual capture, and the need to be "in with the cool
disruptive kids" is infecting even public sector organizations with severe consequences for the
public at large, but the public is blind to this as they've binged on the "disruption, changing
the world" cool-aid
While individuals might derive value from "this stuff", the tech companies providing the stuff
use said value, allied with massive amounts of PR spin to render regulators impotent in providing
safe guards to stop the techies from morphing from value providers into something akin to encroachers
for profit/power/control (e.g. encroaching upon our right to privacy by selling off our data).
Providing value to the public shouldn't be used as a cloak under which the dagger used to erode
our rights is hidden
In the links today, there is a Guardian story on Tesla workers with the quote: "Everything
feels like the future but us."
I'm reminded of another Guardian article about an ideology underpinning the grievances in Notes
From An Emergency. It's imperative to understand the that the system we find ourselves in is a
belief system – an ideology – and the choices to be made in regards to challenging it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in/
An excerpt:
"Accelerationists argue that technology, particularly computer technology, and capitalism, particularly
the most aggressive, global variety, should be massively sped up and intensified – either because
this is the best way forward for humanity, or because there is no alternative. Accelerationists
favour automation. They favour the further merging of the digital and the human. They often favour
the deregulation of business, and drastically scaled-back government. They believe that people
should stop deluding themselves that economic and technological progress can be controlled. They
often believe that social and political upheaval has a value in itself.
Accelerationism, therefore, goes against conservatism, traditional socialism, social democracy,
environmentalism, protectionism, populism, nationalism, localism and all the other ideologies
that have sought to moderate or reverse the already hugely disruptive, seemingly runaway pace
of change in the modern world "
Be sure to catch such quotes as this:
"We all live in an operating system set up by the accelerating triad of war, capitalism and emergent
AI," says Steve Goodman, a British accelerationist
That should remind one of this:
"Musk is persuaded that we're living in a simulation, and he or a fellow true believer has hired
programmers to try to hack it ."
Yes I know, it's ridiculous. And we use them to "protect" us he claims. But about the only
place where "protect" makes any sense in his whole argument is actually Amazon. It is pretty safe
to buy from Amazon (or using Amazon-pay) if you fear a credit card being hacked from on online
purchase. That much has some truth.
But how does using Facebook protect anyone? How does Google protect anyone? Ok Android security
is a different debate, but I really don't understand how issues of "security" etc. applies to
using a Google search as opposed to any other.
The right wing in Britain seems to have come up with an authoritarian solution: "Theresa May
is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government
to decide what is said online."
Lost me right at the opening by bringing up the popular vote and the bemoaning of a "broken"
system. We are a federal republic of states and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Ensuring that
the executive has the support of the populations of some minimal number of states is a good thing
in my view.
that's when I bailed too. What drek. If a reader has half a mind, they slip and fall on a greasy
doo doo in the first 15 seconds? No way can I stand to wade through the rest of what seems like
a tortured screed (although I did speed read it). Turns out, I may agree in a minor way with some
points, but I'll never know. I have time to waste in the real world, and I can't waste it if I'm
reading somebody's internet screed about Donald Trump. God Good almighty. Enough.
Authors watch your words. They matter! LOL. And always remember - sometimes less is more. Not
NC's finest post evah. And post author's shouldn't refer to people's heads on pikes in their hotel
room as being something they wouldn't object to. I mean really. That's not even junior high school
humor. I give this post a 2.3 on a scale of 1-10. 1 is unbearable. 3 is readable. 10 is genius.
The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values
Nope. There are some true progressives in the industry, yes, but they're few and far between.
Understanding the dominant mindset in Silicon Valley is vital to understanding why there hasn't
been pushback on all this. Sure, they like their neoliberal IdPol as it appeals to their meritocracy
worship (hence the protests against the travel ban), but not with any intersectionality, especially
with regards to women (the red pill/MRA mind virus infects a lot of brains in SV). Socio-economics,
though, it's heavy on the libertarianism, albeit with some support for utopian government concepts
like UBI, plus a futurist outlook out of that Neoliberal_rationality/ cult; Yudkowsky and his LessWrong nonsense
have influence over a lot of players, big and small, in the bay area. So what you get is a bunch
of people deluded into thinking they're hyperlogical while giving themselves a free pass on the
begged question of where their "first principles" emerged out of. It's not just their sci-fi bubble
that needs a poppin', it's their Rothbardian/Randite one as well.
+1,000
"The people who run Silicon Valley identify with progressive values"
True! I've seen some smoking weed while talking machine language and screwing half of humanity
The points you raise are accurate. And even long before those things existed, Silicon Valley
arose as conscious, deliberate high-level government strategy (or beyond-government deep state).
The sources of new technology and funding have been deliberately obscured, at least as far
as the general public debate goes. It has nothing to do with "innovation" and "entrepreneurship".
It is amazing to see all countries around the world hop onto the innovation, let's-imitate-Silicon-Valley
bandwagon, with no awareness that SV was no accident of a few smart/lucky individual entrepreneurs.
NOBODY has to join buttBook, review slimy effing GIGGLE, and especially use MICROSWIFT; ALTERNATIVES
are easy and often more effective and especially annoying to the rich slime.
When Balmer was Billy-Boy's Ceo he actually preached that Linux was a nefarious plot to deprive
clowns like him of their well deserved "emoluments". Fortuneately, all he has to do now is sell
beer and hot dogs, and make sure the cheerleaders keep their clothing on. Good job for him.
Decide NOT to be a lemming; instead be a BOLSHIE and hit 'em hard. YOU and the whole internet
will benefit.
I think some of the naivete of this talk is based on a superficial knowledge of American history.
Things like his remark about the Women's DC March – "America is not used to large demonstrations
" Oh really.
The writer, though intelligent, is apparently unaware of massive demos during the Vietnam War,
the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Iraq war marches, the Bonus March etc etc. Perhaps his ignorance
is a function of age, and perhaps the fact he was not born here, vis a vis his name.
I will reply to an almost tangential little something which Maciej Ceglowski wrote near the
beginning of his piece.
" 65.8 million for Clinton
63.0 million for Trump
This was the second time in sixteen years that the candidate with fewer votes won the American
Presidency. There is a bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that
slavery still casts its shadow over American politics."
Really? A bug in the operating system of our democracy? That sounds like something a Clintonite
would say. It sounds like something that many millions of Clintonites DID say, over and over and
over again.
Clinton got more popular votes? She got almost all of them in California. So Mr. Ceglowski
thinks Clinton should be President based on that? That means Mr. Ceglowski wants the entire rest
of America to be California's colonial possession, ruled by a President that California picked.
And don't think we Midwestern Deplorables don't understand exACTly how Ceglowski thinks and what
Ceglowski thinks of us out here in Deploristan.
Some Clinton supporters are smarter than that. Some were not surprised. Michael Moore was not
surprised. He predicted that we Deploristani Midwesterners would make Trump President whether
the digitally beautiful people liked it or not. Did Mr. Ceglowski support Clinton? Did the "tech
workers in short-lived revolt" support Clinton? And did they support NAFTA back in the day? You
thought you would cram Trade Treason Clinton down our throat? Well, we flung Trade Patriot Trump
right back in your face.
"... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
"... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
"... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq
War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger
threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to
start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James "
Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting
Clapper as
a defender
of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting
Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.
"More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly
sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation"
[
Politico ].
"Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [
WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before
the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.
"4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [
The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled
at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt
to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal."
That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw
with Comey).
"Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for
Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be
able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little
more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting
objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect
for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [
Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.
The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians:
sources" [
Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen
no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed
so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at
least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.
UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"
[
The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective.
"The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening
congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election
that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything
else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the
American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional
coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully
submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another
way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody
would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and
most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that
somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr.
Rogers. So who, exactly?
Some general?
Which?
"Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [
FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [
FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine
FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?
Phillip Mirowski challenged the left to directly attack and defeat the neoliberal belief that
markets are information processors that can know more than any person could ever know and solve
problems no computer could ever solve. [Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for 'Life and Debt' conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I
]
Sorry for the long quote - I am loathe to attempt to paraphrase Hayek
"This is particularly true of our theories accounting for the determination of the systems
of relative prices and wages that will form themselves on a wellfunctioning market. Into the
determination of these prices and wages there will enter the effects of particular information
possessed by every one of the participants in the market process – a sum of facts which in
their totality cannot be known to the scientific observer, or to any other single brain. It
is indeed the source of the superiority of the market order, and the reason why, when it is
not suppressed by the powers of government, it regularly displaces other types of order, that
in the resulting allocation of resources more of the knowledge of particular facts will be
utilized which exists only dispersed among uncounted persons, than any one person can possess.
But because we, the observing scientists, can thus never know all the determinants of such
an order, and in consequence also cannot know at which particular structure of prices and wages
demand would everywhere equal supply, we also cannot measure the deviations from that order;
nor can we statistically test our theory that it is the deviations from that "equilibrium"
system of prices and wages which make it impossible to sell some of the products and services
at the prices at which they are offered."
[Extract from Hayek's Nobel Lecture]
This just hints at Hayek's market supercomputer idea - I still haven't found a particular writing
which exposits the idea - so this will have to do.
Sorry - another quote from the Hayek Nobel Lecture [I have no idea how to paraphrase stuff
like this!]:
"There may be few instances in which the superstition that only measurable magnitudes can be
important has done positive harm in the economic field: but the present inflation and employment
problems are a very serious one. Its effect has been that what is probably the true cause of
extensive unemployment has been disregarded by the scientistically minded majority of economists,
because its operation could not be confirmed by directly observable relations between measurable
magnitudes, and that an almost exclusive concentration on quantitatively measurable surface
phenomena has produced a policy which has made matters worse."
I can't follow Hayek and I can't follow Jason Smith. The first quote above sounds like a "faith
based" theory of economics as difficult to characterize as it is to refute. The second quote throws
out Jason Smith's argument with a combination of faith based economics and a rejection of the
basis for Smith's argument - as "scientistically minded."
I prefer the much simplier answer implicit in Veblen and plain in "Industrial Prices and their
Relative Inflexibility." US Senate Document no. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Government Printing
Office, Washington DC. Means, G. C. 1935 - Market? What Market? Can you point to one? [refer to
William Waller: Thorstein Veblen, Business Enterprise, and the Financial Crisis (July 06, 2012)
[https://archive.org/details/WilliamWallerThorsteinVeblenBusinessEnterpriseAndTheFinancialCrisis]
It might be interesting if Jason Smith's information theory approach to the market creature
could prove how the assumed properties of that mythical creature could be used to derive a proof
that the mythical Market creature cannot act as an information processor as Mirowski asserts that
Hayek asserts. So far as I can tell from my very little exposure to Hayek's market creature it
is far too fantastical to characterize with axioms or properties amenable to making reasoned arguments
or proofs as Jason Smith attempts. Worse - though I admit being totally confused by his arguments
- Smith's arguments seem to slice at a strawman creature that bears little likeness to Hayek's
market creature.
The conclusion of this post adds a scary thought: "The understanding of prices and supply and
demand provided by information theory and machine learning algorithms is better equipped to explain
markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of possibilities to a single dimension,
and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational agents and perfect foresight." It
almost sounds as if Jason Smith intends to build a better Market as information processor - maybe
tweak the axioms a little and bring in Shannon. Jason Smith is not our St. George.
But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based
theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics
departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of
our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite.
I had another
topic lined up today, but this (
hat
tip alert reader ChrisAtRU
) is so remarkable - and so necessary to
frame
contextualize immediately - I thought I should bring it your
attention, dear readers. The headline is
"Toward a Marshall Plan for America
," the authors are a gaggle of CAP
luminaries with Neera Tanden leading and Rey Teixeira trailing, and the
"Marshall Plan" indeed includes something called a "Jobs Guarantee." Of
course, I trust Clinton operatives like Tanden, and Third Way types like
Teixeira, about as far as I can throw a concert grand piano. Nevertheless,
one sign of an idea whose time has come is that sleazy opportunists and
has-beens try to get out in front of it to seize credit[1] and stay
relevant. So, modified rapture.
In this brief post, I'm going to look at the political context that drove
CAP - taking Tanden, Teixeira, and the gaggle as a proxy for CAP - to
consider a Jobs Guarantee (JG), briefly describe the nature and purpose of a
JG, and conclude with some thoughts on how Tanden, Teixeira would screw the
JG up, like the good liberals they are.
Political Context for CAP's JG
Let's begin with the photo of Prairie du Chien, WI at the top of CAP's JG
article. Here it is:
I went to Google Maps Street View, found
Stark's Sports Shop
(and Liquor Store), and took a quick look round
town. Things don't look too bad, which is to say things look pretty much
like they do in my own home town, in the fly-over state of Maine; many local
businesses. The street lamps make my back teeth itch a little, because along
with bike paths to attract professionals, they're one of those panaceas to
"bring back downtown," but as it turns out Prairie du Chien has marketed
itself to summer tourists quite successfully as "
the
oldest Euro-American settlement established on the Upper Mississippi River,"
so those lamps are legit! (Of course, Prairie du Chien, like so much of
flyover country,
is fighting an opioid problem
, but that doesn't show up in Street View,
or affect the tourists in any way.)
In 2012, [Lydia Holt] voted for Barack Obama because he promised her
change, but she feels that change hasn't reached her here. So last year
she chose a presidential candidate unlike any she'd ever seen, the
billionaire businessman who promised to help America, and people like
her, win again. Many of her neighbors did, too .
In this corner of middle America, in this one, small slice of the
nation that sent Trump to Washington, they are watching and they are
waiting, their hopes pinned on his promised economic renaissance. And if
four years from now the change he pledged hasn't found them here, the
people of Crawford County said they might change again to someone else.
"[T]hings aren't going the way we want them here," she said, "so we
needed to go in another direction."
And the issues:
[Holt] tugged 13 envelopes from a cabinet above the stove, each one
labeled with a different debt: the house payment, the student loans, the
vacuum cleaner she bought on credit.
Lydia Holt and her husband tuck money into these envelopes with each
paycheck to whittle away at what they owe. They both earn about $10 an
hour and, with two kids, there are usually some they can't fill. She did
the math; at this rate, they'll be paying these same bills for 87 years.
Kramer said she's glad the Affordable Care Act has helped millions get
insurance, but it hasn't helped her he and her husband were stunned to
find premiums over $1,000 a month. Her daughter recently moved into their
house with her five children, so there's no money to spare. They opted to
pay the penalty of $2,000, and pray they don't get sick until Trump, she
hopes, keeps his promise to replace the law with something better.
Among them is a woman who works for $10.50 an hour in a sewing
factory, who still admires Obama, bristles at Trump's bluster, but can't
afford health insurance. And the dairy farmer who thinks Trump is a jerk
- "somebody needs to get some Gorilla Glue and glue his lips shut" - but
has watched his profits plummet and was willing to take the risk.
So that's Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. CAP frames the electoral context
this way:
While the election was decided by a small number of votes overall,
there was a significant shift of votes in counties in critical Electoral
College states, including Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
(I could have told them that.
In fact, I did!
) And the reasons for the shift:
What was going on in these heavily white working-class counties that
might explain support for Trump? Without diminishing the importance of
cultural and racial influences, it is clear to us that lingering [sic]
economic pressures among important voting blocs helped to create a larger
opening for Trump's victory.
We do not yet know the exact reasons for the drop in turnout among
young people and black voters. But with President Obama not on the ticket
to drive voter enthusiasm, it is quite possible that lingering job and
wage pressures in more urban areas with lots of young people, and in
areas with large populations of African-Americans, yielded similar, if
distinct, economic anxiety in ways that may have depressed voter turnout
among base progressives. The combined effect of economic anxiety may have
been to drive white noncollege voters toward Trump and to drive down
voter engagement and participation among base progressives.
Either way, issues related to lost jobs, low wages, high costs, and
diminished mobility played a critical role in setting the stage for a
narrow populist victory for Trump.
(I could have told them that, too.
In fact, I did!
) Note the lingering
"Obama Coalition"
/
identity
politics
brain damage that casually assumes "base progressives" equate
to African-Americans and youth. Nevertheless, mild kudos to CAP for fighting
through to the concept that "economic pressures among important voting blocs
helped to create a larger opening for Trump's victory." The CAP paper then
goes on to recommend a JG as an answer to such "economic pressures."[2]
How would the JG work from the perspective of a working person (not an
owner?) Or from the perspective of the millions of permanently
disemployed?
The MMT Primer
:
If you are involuntarily unemployed today (or are stuck with a
part-time job when you really want to work full time) you only have
three choices:
Employ yourself (create your own business-something that
usually goes up in recessions although most of these businesses
fail)
Convince an employer to hire you, adding to the firm's
workforce
Convince an employer to replace an existing worker, hiring you
The second option requires that the firm's employment is below
optimum-it must not currently have the number of workers desired to
produce the amount of output the firm thinks it can sell. …
If the firm is in equilibrium, then, producing what it believes it
can sell, it will hire you only on the conditions stated in the third
case-to replace an existing worker. Perhaps you promise to work
harder, or better, or at a lower wage. But, obviously, that just
shifts the unemployment to someone else.
It is the "dogs and bones" problem: if you bury 9 bones and send 10
dogs out to go bone-hunting you know at least one dog will come back
"empty mouthed". You can take that dog and teach her lots of new
tricks in bone-finding, but if you bury only 9 bones, again, some
unlucky dog comes back without a bone.
The only solution is to provide a 10
th
bone. That is
what the JG does: it ensures a bone for every dog that wants to hunt.
It expands the options to include:
There is a "residual" employer who will always provide a job to
anyone who shows up ready and willing to work.
It expands choice. If you want to work and exhaust the first 3
alternatives listed above, there is a 4
th
: the JG.
It expands choice without reducing other choices. You can still try
the first 3 alternatives. You can take advantage of all the safety net
alternatives provided. Or you can choose to do nothing. It is up to
you.
If I were one of the millions of people permanently disemployed, I
would welcome that additional choice. It's certainly far more humane than
any policy on offer by either party. And the JG is in the great tradition
of programs the New Deal sponsored, like the CCC, the WPA,
Federal Writers' Project
, and the
Federal Art Project
. So what's not to like? (
Here's
a list
of other JGs). Like the New Deal, but not temporary!
Intuitively: What the JG does is set a baseline[3] for the entire
package offered to workers, and employers have to offer a better package,
or not get the workers they need. When I came up here to Maine I'd quit
my job voluntarily and so wasn't eligible for unemployment. Then the
economy crashed, and I had no work (except for blogging) for two years.
There were no jobs to be had. I would have screamed with joy for a
program even remotely like this, and I don't even have dependents to take
care of. It may be objected that the political process won't deliver an
offer as good as the Primer suggests. Well, don't mourn. Organize. It may
be objected that a reform like the JG merely reinforces the power of the
0.01%. If so, I'm not sure I'm willing to throw the currently disemployed
under the bus because "worse is better," regardless. Anyhow, does
"democratic control over the living wage"
really
sound all that
squillionaire-friendly to you? Aren't they doing everything in their
power to fight anything that sounds like that? The JG sounds like the
slogan Lincoln ran on, to me:
"Vote yourself a farm!"
[3]
So, what does the JG for the economy? MMT was put together by
economists; from an economists perspective, what is it good for? Why did
they do that?
The Primer
once more:
some supporters emphasize that a program with a uniform basic
wage[4] also helps to promote economic and price stability.
The JG/ELR program will act as an automatic stabilizer as
employment in the program grows in recession and shrinks in economic
expansion, counteracting private sector employment fluctuations. The
federal government budget will become more counter-cyclical because
its spending on the ELR program will likewise grow in recession and
fall in expansion.
Furthermore, the uniform basic wage will reduce both inflationary
pressure in a boom and deflationary pressure in a bust. In a boom,
private employers can recruit from the program's pool of workers,
paying a mark-up over the program wage. The pool acts like a "reserve
army" of the employed, dampening wage pressures as private employment
grows. In recession, workers down-sized by private employers can work
at the JG/ELR wage, which puts a floor to how low wages and income can
fall.
Research by Pavlina Tcherneva and Rania Antonopoulos indicates that
when asked, most people want to work. Studying how job guarantees
affect women in poor countries, they find the programs are popular
largely because they recognize-and more fairly distribute and
compensate-all the child- and elder care that is now often performed
by women for free (out of love or duty), off the books, or not at all.
We propose today a new jobs guarantee, and we further expect a
robust[3] agenda to be developed by the commission.
The low wages and low employment rates for those without college
degrees only exist because of a failure of imagination. There is no
shortage of important work that needs to be done in our country. There
are not nearly enough home care workers to aid the aged and disabled.
Many working families with children under the age of 5 need access to
affordable child care. Schools need teachers' aides, and cities need
EMTs. And there is no shortage of people who could do this work. What has
been missing is policy that can mobilize people.
To solve this problem, we propose a large-scale, permanent program of
public employment and infrastructure investment-similar to the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression but modernized
for the 21st century. It will increase employment and wages for those
without a college degree while providing needed services that are
currently out of reach for lower-income households and cash-strapped
state and local governments. Furthermore, some individuals may be hired
into paying public jobs in which their primary duty will be to complete
intensive, full-time training for high-growth, in-demand occupations.
These "public apprenticeships" could include rotations with public and
private entities to gain on-the-ground experience and lead to guaranteed
private-sector employment upon successful completion of training.
Such an expanded public employment program could, for example, have a
target of maintaining the employment rate for prime-age workers without a
bachelor's degree at the 2000 level of 79 percent. Currently, this would
require the creation of 4.4 million jobs. At a living wage-which we can
approximate as $15 per hour plus the cost of contributions to Social
Security and Medicare via payroll taxes-the direct cost of each job would
be approximately $36,000 annually. Thus, a rough estimate of the costs of
this employment program would be about $158 billion in the current year.
This is approximately one-quarter of Trump's proposed tax cut for the
wealthy on an annual basis.
With tis background, let's look at how liberals would screw the JG up.
How a CAP JG Would Go Wrong
Before getting into a little policy detail, I'll examine a few
cultural/framing issues. After all, CAP
does
want the program's
intended recipients to accept it with good grace, no? Let me introduce the
over-riding concern, from Joan C. Williams in
The Financial Times
:
"They don't want compassion. They want respect"
:
Williams warns that Republican errors alone won't give Democrats back
the WWC.
Or any part of the WC; as even CAP recognizes, although WWC
disproportionately voted Trump, and non-WWC disproportionately stayed home.
While [Williams] agrees that the Democrats have mobilised their base
since Trump's election, she has "one simple message" for the party: it
needs to show the WWC respect, "in a tone suitable for grown-ups".
Democrats must say: "We regret that we have disrespected you, we now hear
you." She asks: "Is this so hard? Although the risk is that the response
will be, 'Oh, those poor little white people with their opioid epidemics,
let's open our hearts in compassion to them.' That's going to infuriate
them. They don't want compassion, they want respect."
To show respect, it would really behoove liberals to deep-six the phrase
"economic anxiety," along with "economic frustrations," "economic concerns,"
"economic grievances," and "lingering economic pressures."[4] All these
phrases make successful class warfare a psychological condition, no doubt to
be treated by a professional (who by definition is not anxious, not
frustrated, has no grievances, and certainly no economic pressures, because
of their hourly rate (or possibly their government contract).
To show respect, it would also behoove liberals to deep-six the concept
that markets come first; people who sell their labor power by the hour tend
to be sensitive about such things. Take, for a tiny example, the caption
beneath the image of Prairie du Chein. Let me quote it:
A customer crosses the street while leaving a shop along the main
business district in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, January 2017.
Really? A
customer
? Does the human figure have to be a
customer
? Why?
Along the same lines, drop the "affordable" crap; ObamaCare should have
ruined that branding already; what seems like it's affordable to CAP writers
in the Beltway probably isn't affordable at all to somebody making $10 an
hour. Anyhow, if something like childcare or for that matter #MedicareForAll
ought to be a universal direct material benefit, then deliver it!
To show respect, abandon the "Marshall Plan" framing immediately. Because
it means the "winners" are going to graciously help the "losers," right? And
prudentially, liberals don't really want to get the working class asking
themselves who conducted a war against them, and why, right?
To show respect, make the JG a truly universal benefit, a real guarantee,
and don't turn it into an ObamaCare-like Rube Goldberg device of
means-testing, worthiness detection, gatekeeping, and various complex forms
of insult and degradation, like narrow networks. This passage from CAP has
me concerned:
Such an expanded public employment program could, for example, have
a target
of maintaining the employment rate for prime-age
workers without a bachelor's degree at the 2000 level of 79 percent.
That 'target" language sounds to me very much like the "dogs and bones"
problem. Suppose currently we have 6 bones and 10 dogs. The "target" is 7
bones. Suppose we meet it? There are still 3 dogs without bones! Some
guarantee! The JG should be simple: A job for everyone who wants one. None
of this targeting or slicing and dicing demographics. The JG isn't supposed
to be an employment guarantee for macro-economists (who basically have one
anyone).
To show respect, make the JG set the baseline for wages (and working
conditions). This passage from CAP has me concerned:
Second, because it would employ people to provide services that are
currently needed but unaffordable, it would not compete with existing
private-sector employment.
This language seems a bit slippery to me. If Walmart is paying $10.00 an
hour, is the JG really going to pay $9.50?
Finally, you will notice that the CAP JG is shorn of any macro-economic
implications. Note, for example, that replacing our current cruel system of
regulating the economy by throwing people out of work isn't mentioned. Note
also that CAP also accepts the false notion that Federal taxes pay for
Federal spending. That puts CAP in the austerity box, meaning that the JG
might be cut back just when it is most needed, not least by working people.
Conclusion
I do want to congratulate CAP, and without irony, for this passage:
[The JG] would provide the dignity of work, the value of which is
significant. When useful work is not available, there are large negative
consequences, ranging from depression, to a decline in family stability,
to "deaths of [sic] despair."
It's good to see the Case-Deaton study penetrating the liberal hive mind.
Took long enough. Oh, and this makes the JG a moral issue, too. The pallid
language of "economic anxiety" should be reformulated to reflect this, as
should the program itself.
NOTES
[1] The JG originally comes from the MMT community;
here is a high-level summary
. Oddly, or not, there's no footnote
crediting MMTers. Interestingly, Stephanie Kelton, who hails from the
University of Missouri at Kansas City's MMT-friendly economics department,
before Sanders brought her onto the staff at the Senate Budget committee,
was not able to persuade Sanders of the correctness and/or political utility
of MMT generally or the JG in particular.
[2] I guess
those famous Democrat 2016 post mortems
will
never
be
published, eh? This will have to do for a poor substitute. Or maybe the
Democrats just want us to read
Shattered
.
[3] In my view, "robust" is a bullshit tell. Back when I was a hotshot
consultant, the operational definition of "robust" was "contained in a very
large three-ring binder."
[4] Dear God. Are these people demented? Nobody who is actually under
"economic pressure" would use these words. And so far as I can tell,
"lingering" means permanent.
About Lambert Strether
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic
cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs
that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class.
Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a
Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and
a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative
Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different
flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the
"ism" that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put
common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR
saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or
communism razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are
delivered. To me, the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is
always first with me - is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from
despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent
studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very
least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and
organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics - even the worthy
fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created -
bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news
flow - currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate
Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by
out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press - a
news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as
of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political
economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life
expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful
that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open
the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed;
let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates opportunity,
especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and
opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle.
Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the
horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years,
but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Yes, a great essay. And thank you commentariat.
Of course, there is a potential conflict from those who want a basic
income, but don't want to work. Such a position frames such people
badly, but a basic income remains an essential part of a JG world IMO.
The JG would provide incentive if you didn't lose the safety net and
could add to it by working in a JG program.
Most here in this place accept that a sovereign government can pay for
programs which are not funded by taxes (or debt) and the JG and basic
income concepts could be a way to test this in a controlled way.
The main reason I think that politicians continue to have blinkers (LA
LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU) with respect to MMT is that they are scared
witless of a government with unlimited spending powers. That's why we
can't have nice things.
don't want to work, hmm I don't even know if I could work in a
job without a decent amount of slack (A.D.D. mind may not be
capable of it or something and often not for lack of trying, though
I do a decent amount of unpaid work in my precious leisure time).
Or at least not the full 40 hours, so if the job guarantee bosses
are slave drivers, I don't know, I'd probably be fired from my job
guaranteed job period.
But what if a job was aligned with one's interest? Don't know,
never experienced that.
But all that aside and never even mind unemployment, given how
horrible the job circumstances are that I see many people caught in
(and I definitely don't mean having slack – that's a good thing, I
mean verbal ABUSE, I mean working endless hours of unpaid overtime
etc.), any alternative would seem good.
The "target" language also makes me worry that they're defining optimal
employment by the inflation-obsessed standards of Chicago-school economists,
thus coming up short in the name of protecting the investor class.
Minor quibble: Does Maine constitute flyover country? Usually that term
means the parts of the country that the well-to-do "fly over" from east
coast cities to west coast ones, with perhaps an exception for Chicago. You
wouldn't fly over Maine for any of those routes. Not to mention, Maine is a
popular vacationing/summer home state for rich New Englanders, so it doesn't
exactly have an "other" status for them the way rural Wisconsin would.
I think Maine is legit flyover country as flying over Maine was once
mandatory on the transatlantic route in order to Gander Airport in
Newfoundland. I know, I know, it's a bit of a stretch but I'm trying
here!
As for Maine's other status, you're spot on about "down east"
(coastal) Maine and some of the lakes being popular with the landed
gentry, but the interior of the state is sparsely populated, poor, white,
and marginalized. Many of the paper mills have gone belly-up and the
economy in many places consists of picking potatoes or cutting down
trees.
I used to do a lot of business travel to Nova Scotia. Hard to get
there from the US without flying over Maine. But I think Lambert meant
flyover in the pejorative "why would you live here when you could be an
artisanal pickle maker in Brooklyn" sense.
Matt Bruenig had other issues with the article:
More Job Guarantee Muddle
. While he points out that the jobs
suggested in the article should be permanent rather than temporary jobs,
I go on with my own little sense of discomfort that they all involve
putting the otherwise jobless in charge of caring for the helpless. I
don't find that a good idea. I've spent enough time both working with and
volunteering in human service organizations to have observed that it's
not really appropriate work for a lot of people, even for many
good-hearted volunteers. It really dampens my enthusiasm for a JG that I
have yet to see an argument for it that doesn't invoke child and elderly
care as just great jobs that the jobless can be put to doing.
Just another quibble with this post. I first heard of a job guarantee
and heard arguments for it in the U.S. civilian society from Michael
Harrington in the early 1980s (guaranteed jobs have been a feature of the
state capitalist societies that call themselves socialist throughout the
20th c.), so I don't find it particularly odd when the MMT community
isn't mentioned as originating the idea. In fact, I tend to respond with
"Hey, MMTers, learn some history."
Thanks for this article Lambert. Why should we trust CAP to handle this
when they have done nothing toward this end in their entire history. In
fact, in undeniable fact, if we don't do something about demand in this
country we will have no economy left at all. For these guys to even approach
a JG you know they are panicked. Nobody goes over this fact because it turns
them all into instant hypocrites. I spent yesterday listening to some MMTers
on U-Tube, Wray and some others. They all clearly and succinctly explain the
systemic reasons for JG. Not nonsense. In fact, MMT approaches a JG as the
opposite of nonsense on so many levels. As you have pointed out – these CAP
people are a little late to reality. And their dear leader Obama is first in
line for the blame, followed closely by Bill Clinton and his
balance-the-budget cabal of bankster idiots. And etc. And these JG jobs
could be just the jobs we need to turn global warming around. It could be
the best spent money ever. It is a very straight-forward calculation.
I don't know how you even bother. America is so far away from this
intellectually and culturally, there is no chance. Right now the "jobs
guarantee" is get arrested for something bogus and be sentenced to prison to
do forced labor for outsourcing corporations (yes this is real). Look where
the GOP stands on basic issues which were settled long ago in Europe, they
are in the Stone age. The Dems are right wing everywhere else.
With US institutions usually run horribly how do you expect this to be
well run? Is the VA a shining example? I certainly would not have hope for
this at the federal level.
I feel the same way often but I've got to allow myself some hope once
in a while. This development is at least turn in the right direction for
the moment, nothing else. There's nothing wrong with being
(aprehensively) pleased about that.
I'd like to get a basic unemployment welfare scheme going first. We
don't even have that! We have an "insurance" program which requires
you to first have held a job which paid enough for long enough, and
then get fired, not quit. And it only pays for six months. Again, this
was settled in other rich countries a long time ago.
There is a job guarantee in Castro's Cuba. So wonderful, people are
swimming from Miami to Havana ever day.
Though you have it exactly right in the US the job guarantee is to
be a felon on a privatized prison farm usually called a "plantation". I
am looking forward to my neighbors finally being put to work. At least it
is only building a Presidential Library for Obama, not a pyramid for
Pharaoh.
My prediction: by the time this makes it through Congress, it will be a
guarantee for no more than 15 hours per week at slightly below the minimum
wage and you'll only be able to be in the program for nine months,
total during your lifetime. Or am I being overly cynical?
Maybe we need to update that old saw: "First they ignore you, then they
laugh at you, then they co-opt your idea and strip the soul out of it, then
you kinda win but not really, but hey that's progress, right?"
Even though I'm cynical, I'm with Lambert in being for just about
anything that makes us bottom-20%ers lives better, even if it is highly
flawed. Heck, I'd even be for a BIG on that basis, even if Yves is right
about the negative side-effects of that policy.
If I understood correctly, Norway is running such a program since many
years.
Basically, when you are out of a job, you get unemployment benefits (a low
but decent salary, health care and other modern facilities unheard of is the
US) – which last
forever
.
On the other hand, any public institution can call you in to help a hand:
washing dishes at the school kitchen one day, waiting on the elderly the
other day, helping out in the local library wherever hands are needed but
not available.
So it is not really a JG, but you are guaranteed to help out your local
community, and you are guaranteed a minimal income. That seems close enough
to me.
Thanks, Lambert, for a very interesting post. I combed through CAP's
panel of "experts." I was not impressed.
I'm going to start my own think tank. Gonna call it CRAP: Center for Real
American Progress.
Of course in the north in the winter you could go back to shoveling snow
with snow shovels (no machines allowed) and ban use by public employees of
riding lawnmowers in the summer in favor of powered walk behind mowers. From
what I have read this is what china did on the 3 gorges dam, partly making
the project a jobs project by doing things in a human intensive way. (of
course you could go back to the hand push non powered reel mower but then
you have to worry about folks and heart attacks. (Or use those in their 20s
for this. Growing up in MI and In this is how we mowed the yard. (in the
1950s and 1960) and for snow shoveling, my dad got a snow blower when I went
off to college.
Now if you really want a low productivity way of cutting grass get one of
the hand grass trimmers and set to work cutting it by that, it would employ
a lot of folks and not have the exertion problem of a push mower (Again I
used these in the 1960s in MI before we had the string trimmers and edgers
etc. (also recall the old hand powered lawn edgers.)
It sounds like the CAP JG proposal is "top down" in that the "palette" of
jobs to be funded is decided by the same agency (or an agency at the same
level of government) as the fund disbursement authority, or is specified in
the law itself.
IIRC, the JG concept proposed in the MMT primer would devolve the
decision of "how to usefully employ willing underutilized workers" to local
level. Funding would still be Federal. There would be some kind of "request
for proposals/peer review" process to decide which locally-wanted projects
would receive JG dollars (presumably in order to be a guarantee, enough
projects would be approved for every locality to employ the available
under-utilized willing workforce. If a locality only proposed one project,
that would be funded)
It that right, Lambert? Is "top down" another way that centrists could
screw up a JG? And might the "local devolution" aspect of the NEP/MMT Primer
concept appeal to folks on the right?
Great write up. I obviously have a long-running disagreement on the
policy prescription of JG, but I do find it interesting talking about how
groups like CAP present it outside the specific confines of MMT (and,
apparently, without even tipping the hat to them ?).
One concrete bit of info I would love to know is how they estimate 4.4
million workers for take-up. First, it's a hilarious instance of false
precision. Second, it's remarkably low. $15/hr is approximately the median
wage. Tens of millions of workers would sign up, both from the ranks of the
crap jobs and from the ranks of those out of the labor force.
"... By Jason Smith, a physicist who messes around with economic theory. He graduated from the University
of Texas at Austin with a degree in math and a degree in physics, and received his Ph.D. from the University
of Washington in theoretical physics. Follow him on Twitter: @infotranecon. Originally published at
Evonomics ..."
"... The New Industrial State ..."
"... I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There is
a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like non-zero-sum
settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing way. Understanding
how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been something that I feel like
I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading I put into a lot of conservative
authors on that topic. ..."
Posted on
May 17, 2017 by Yves
Smith By Jason Smith, a physicist who messes around with economic theory. He graduated from
the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in math and a degree in physics, and received his
Ph.D. from the University of Washington in theoretical physics. Follow him on Twitter: @infotranecon.
Originally published at
Evonomics
The inspiration for this piece came from a
Vox podcast with Chris Hayes of MSNBC. One of the topics they discussed was which right-of-center
ideas the left ought to engage. Hayes says:
The entirety of the corpus of [Friedrich] Hayek, [Milton] Friedman, and neoclassical economics.
I think it's an incredibly powerful intellectual tradition and a really important one to understand,
these basic frameworks of neoclassical economics, the sort of ideas about market clearing prices,
about the functioning of supply and demand, about thinking in marginal terms.
I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There
is a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like
non-zero-sum settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing
way. Understanding how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been
something that I feel like I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading
I put into a lot of conservative authors on that topic.
Putting aside the fact that the left has fully understood and engaged with these ideas, deeply
and over decades (it may be dense writing, but it's not exactly quantum field theory), I can hear
some of you asking: Do I have to?
The answer is: No.
Why? Because you can get the same understanding while also understanding where these ideas fall
apart ‒ that is to say understanding the limited
scope of market-clearing prices and supply and demand – using information theory.
Prices and Hayek
Friedrich Hayek did have some insight into prices having something to do with information, but
he got the details wrong and vastly understated the complexity of the system. He saw market prices
aggregating information from events: a blueberry crop failure, a population boom, or speculation
on crop yields. Price changes purportedly communicated knowledge about the state of the world.
However, Hayek was writing in a time before information theory. (Hayek's The Use of Knowledge
in Society was written in 1945, a just few years before Claude Shannon's A Mathematical Theory
of Communication in 1948.) Hayek thought a large amount of knowledge about biological or ecological
systems, population, and social systems could be communicated by a single number: a price. Can you
imagine the number of variables you'd need to describe crop failures, population booms, and market
bubbles? Thousands? Millions? How many variables of information do you get from the price of blueberries?
One. Hayek dreams of compressing a complex multidimensional space of possibilities that includes
the state of the world and the states of mind of thousands or millions of agents into a single dimension
(i.e. price), inevitably losing a great deal of information in the process.
... ... ...
The market as an algorithm
The picture above is of a functioning market as an algorithm matching distributions by raising
and lowering a price until it reaches a stable price. In fact, this picture is of a specific machine
learning algorithm called
Generative
Adversarial Networks (GAN, described in this
Medium article or in the original paper
) that has emerged recently. Of course, the idea of the market as an algorithm to solve a problem
is not new. For example
one of the best blog posts of all time (in my opinion) talks about linear programming as an algorithm,
giving an argument for why planned economies will likely fail, but the same argument implies we
cannot check the optimality of the market allocation of resources, therefore claims of markets
as optimal are entirely faith-based. The Medium article uses a good analogy using a painting, a forger,
and a detective, but I will recast it in terms of the information theory description.
Instead of the complex multidimensional distributions, here we have blueberry buyers and blueberry
sellers. The "supply" ( B from above) is the generator G , the demand A is the
"real data" R (the information the deep learning algorithm is trying to learn). Instead of
the random initial input I - coin tosses or dice throws - we have the complex, irrational,
entrepreneurial, animal spirits of people. We also have the random effects of weather on blueberry
production. The detector D (which is coincidentally the terminology Fieltiz and Borchardt
used) is the price p . When the detector can't tell the difference between the distribution
of demand for blueberries and the distribution of the supply of blueberries (i.e. when the price
reaches a relatively stable value because the distributions are the same), we've reached our solution
(a market equilibrium).
Note that the problem the GAN algorithm tackles can be represented by the two-player
minimax game from game theory.
The thing is that with the wrong settings, algorithms fail and you get garbage. I know this from
experience in my regular job researching machine learning, sparse reconstruction, and signal processing
algorithms. Therefore depending on the input data (especially data resulting from human behavior),
we shouldn't expect to get good results all of the time. These failures are exactly the failure of
information to flow from the real data to the generator through the detector – the failure of information
from the demand to reach the supply via the price mechanism.
When asked by Quora what the recent and upcoming breakthroughs in deep learning are, Yann LeCun,
director of AI research at Facebook and a professor at NYU, said:
The most important one, in my opinion, is adversarial training (also called GAN for Generative
Adversarial Networks). This is an idea that was originally proposed by Ian Goodfellow when he
was a student with Yoshua Bengio at the University of Montreal (he since moved to Google Brain
and recently to OpenAI).
This, and the variations that are now being proposed is the most interesting idea in the last
10 years in ML, in my opinion.
Research into these deep learning algorithms and information theory may provide insight into economic
systems.
An Interpretation of Economics for the Left
So again, Hayek had a fine intuition: prices and information have some relationship. But he didn't
have the conceptual or mathematical tools of information theory to understand the mechanisms of that
relationship - tools that emerged with Shannon's key paper in 1948, and that continue to be elaborated
to this day to produce algorithms like generative adversarial networks.
The understanding of prices and supply and demand provided by information theory and machine learning
algorithms is better equipped to explain markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of
possibilities to a single dimension, and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational
agents and perfect foresight. Ideas that were posited as articles of faith or created through incomplete
arguments by Hayek are not even close to the whole story, and leave you with no knowledge of the
ways the price mechanism, marginalism, or supply and demand can go wrong. Those arguments assume
and (hence) conclude market optimality. Leaving out the failure modes effectively declares many social
concerns of the left moot by fiat. The potential and actual failures of markets are a major concern
of the left, and are frequently part of discussions of inequality and social justice.
The left doesn't need to follow Chris Hayes' advice and engage with Hayek, Friedman, and neoclassical
economics. The left instead needs to engage with a real world vision of economics that recognizes
the limited scope of ideal markets and begins with imperfection as the more useful default scenario.
Understanding economics in terms of information flow is one way of doing that.
Is this just my lack of formal education or is this article very complicated? Honestly I did
not understand it at all. Is there any way to explain this different? ( a link to a different
way of describing informationtheory / free market theory)
Thanks Julia
To put it in more layman-friendly terms: price settings are based on information the suppliers
gather regarding the market, both demand side and supply side (sales forecasts, commodity pricing,
consumer confidence number, focus group information, etc). Demanders do the same. However, they
can never have absolute, complete information for either side. So prices, and idea of what prices
should be, in a free market never represent a true optimal price, but rather a best guess.
This pokes a few holes in neoclassical economic assumptions:
– Most obviously, prices cannot be optimal in a free market.
– Supply and demand changes cannot account entirely for changes in price, as refinements to the
information flow can affect them as well.
– Information asymmetry corrupts prices, and can be used to exploit consumers.
– Information is dependent on a large enough sample size, so neoclassical economics is useless
in markets with limited transactions. An easy example of this are those kind of items on shows
like Antique Roadshow, where there's so few of the items out there that the expert says, "This
is a guess, but really it could go for almost any amount at auction."
So the Left can use this to argue for non-market price controls (to account for the lack of
free market price optimization) and for forcing corporations to have better fiscal transparency
and more strict anti-trust laws (to increase information flow and to prevent information asymmetry).
Local prices for gasoline look a lot more like looting and chaos to me than any kind of correspondence
to "markets." Yesterday at the RaceTrac at the end of my street, "regular" dropped four cents
from morning to evening, reflecting the pricing at the two other "service stations" at the intersection.
A month or so ago (I got tired of keeping a little record of the changes) the price jumped 25
cents overnight. None of these moves seemed to correspond with the stuff I was reading about in
the market conditions around the planet and just in the US - supply and demand? More like the
Useless Looters at BP and Shell and others just spin an arrow on a kid's game board to pick the
day's price point (that sick phrase), or somebody in the C-Suite decided the "Bottom Line" needed
a goose to pump the bonus generator up a bit.
The fraud is everywhere, the looting and scamming too. Seems to me that searching for some
"touchstone" to make sense of It All is an exercise in futility.
Gasoline runs into a different limitation with free market economics, which is that consumers
need to be able to freely enter and leave the market in question in order for the free market
to function (which is why privatized healthcare doesn't work). Outside of a few urban areas with
robust public transportation, most Americans are immediately dependent on gasoline in order to
survive. Even those who do have access to a Metro are still dependent on the shipping that uses
gasoline. So they can raise prices with a greater confidence that the number of consumers will
not drop off as significantly as with other industries.
"This pokes a few holes in neoclassical economic assumptions:"
In neoclassical economics, these "holes" are pretty much understood as the prerequisites for
"perfect competition", as opposed to imperfect competition or monopolies.
When politics is mixed with economics, these are ignored, as they are in the interest of the
ruling class.
PKMKII said it very well, and here's another way to look at it: Centrally-planned economies
(say, some Politburo minister in the former Soviet Union) fail because a central bureaucrat cannot
possibly guess the demand and distribution for all products (say, metal bathtubs) across an economy
in a given year. He guesses, poorly, and either the shortages or the oversupply make our history
books.
Market economics makes a better guess, because pricing gives a dynamic estimate of what the
supply and demand really are. That this estimate is generally *better* has been (mis)represented
as that this estimate is somehow PERFECT - the best estimate that can possibly exist! As the article
describes, this assessment (that only a market economy can generate maximal wealth and optimal
wealth distributions) is FALSE.
The economics underlying communist central planning failed because they couldn't provide the
optimization that comes from valid pricing function. With Shannon's information theory and advanced
analytics, it is possible to create a more optimal economy than our current, simplistic market/pricing
function provides.
Ever since Samuelson's Economics in 1948, we've worshipped a market god based on scanty math.
The first step in moving beyond Samuelson is recognizing that progress is indeed still possible,
and then making the choice and determining the steps to pursue it.
Not just communist central planning. John Kenneth Galbraith's The New Industrial State
makes a special space in society for industries in The Planning Sector. These were the very
large businesses that worked with huge capital bases, long lead times, populations comparable
to small nations. Planning, both input and output, was key to these businesses because there was
too much at stake to risk losing it to the whims of any market. Communist societies were extreme
examples, as they were betting the entire national economy, but the parallels with huge "private"
firms were quite exact.
The Planning Sector businesses failed when they had to slough off all the activities that were
too hard to plan; then they morphed into the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector.
I don't think it is a lack of formal education. It is simply written in a way that is not easy
to understand. I have my master's in engineering, and I'm still not sure exactly what this passage
is trying to say:
"If you randomly generated thousands of messages from the distribution of possible messages, the
distribution of generated messages would be an approximation to the actual distribution of messages.
If you sent these messages over your noisy communication channel that met the requirement for
faithful transmission, it would reproduce an informationally equivalent distribution of messages
on the other end."
From that point on I simply skimmed it and, if I'm not mistaken, the author also assigns positions
to Hayek that seem to be a little more extreme than the positions he actually held.
If you randomly generated thousands of messages from the distribution of possible messages,
the distribution of generated messages would be an approximation to the actual distribution
of messages.
You can only get to the true distribution assuming an infinite number of samples, everything
else is asymptotic approximation to the true posterior distribution. This is true for any mathematical
function approximated numerically were closed solutions are not possible to find (ie. not integrable).
But this is relevant to the second phrase because:
If you sent these messages over your noisy communication channel that met the requirement
for faithful transmission, it would reproduce an informationally equivalent distribution of
messages on the other end.
A noisy communication channel introduces random bits of information which are not part of the
original distribution, but because that noise is random, you would get a message that is an approximation
of the true distribution of the original message being transmitted (is informationally equivalent)
as the noise is distributed 'randomly' .
However, this is only true when the number of information bits approach infinity (for large
numbers), BE WARE! Indeed that randomness can be very skewed for small samples. this is relevant
and interesting because complex systems were you have a large number of variables are not easy
to converge with, even when you are aware of the whole system variables (is a mathematically intractable
problem).
You can think as market pricing (in an ideal world free of politics and power games, which
is not) as a convergence to a complex multidimensional problem, and even though we know that we
are NOT aware of all the variables at play for a given product, hence this supposedly God like
attributes of market price discovery are unwarranted.
"Because the information flow from A can never be greater than A's total information, and
will mostly be less than that total, the observed prices in a real economy will most likely fall
below the ideal market prices."
Surely not. Post-industrial economies feature an asymmetry: individual consumers, catered to
predominantly by large nationwide publicly-traded suppliers.
Because of the superior knowledge possessed by suppliers, further leveraged by advertising
and publicity which exploits human psychological foibles such as peer pressure and herding, prices
in the economy are almost certainly too high versus the ideal of complete information flow (while
the price of labor is almost certainly too low).
Nowhere are prices higher than in the nonnegotiable, monopoly services of government. Not only
does it charge astronomical property taxes which mean that there's really no such thing as secure
property title without income, but also it compels hapless working schmoes to "invest" 15.3% of
their income for their entire working lives at approximately zero return.
With respect, it is not empirically incorrect that immigration lowers wages. The historical
experience is quite clear, that when governments force population growth, whether through increased
immigration or via incentives to increase the local fertility rate, wages for the many fall and
profits for the few increase.
Sure more workers means more competition for jobs, but can also result in an increase in the
number of jobs – BUT ONLY OVER TIME AND ONLY IF NEEDED INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AND THERE IS ENOUGH
MARGINAL CAPACITY TO INVEST AND TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES ARE NOT ENTERING THE AREA OF DIMINISHING
RETURNS. Which is not guaranteed, especially if the immigration level is massive and constantly
increasing.
The United States from around 1929 to 1970 had very low immigration, and, starting from a low
level, wages soared. Starting in 1970, the borders to the overpopulated third world have been
progressively opened, and wages have started to diverge from productivity and are now starting
to decline in absolute terms. Other nations that recently increased the rate of immigration and
have seen significant falls in wages are: South Africa, the Ivory Coast, England, Australia, and
Singapore – and even some provinces of India, where immigration from Bangladesh has been used
to make certain that wages stay near subsistence. Yes immigration was not the only thing going
on there, but when rapid forced increases in the supply of labor are always followed by falls
in wages, well, the empirical evidence is hardly to be dismissed out of hand.
Remember, no society in all of history has run out of workers. When the headlines say that
immigrants are needed to end a labor 'shortage' what is really meant is a 'shortage' of workers
who have no option but to accept low wages. However, the only reason that workers can get high
wages is that there is a 'shortage' of workers forced to take low wages. It is thus essentially
tautological that when immigration is said to eliminate a labor shortage, it is lowering wages,
because a labor 'shortage' is in fact what high wages are based on.
They're arguing that you can't empirically say that immigration decreases wages, because
there are simply too many variables in an economy to be able to say definitively if it's a cause
or a correlation, i.e. does the immigration decrease wages, or does another socio-economic factor
simultaneously decrease wages and cause an influx of immigrants? This is why economics is treated
as a soft science, as you can't remove variables in a lab setting the way you can with other sciences.
"BUT ONLY OVER TIME AND ONLY IF NEEDED INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AND THERE IS ENOUGH MARGINAL CAPACITY
TO INVEST AND TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCES ARE NOT ENTERING THE AREA OF DIMINISHING RETURNS."
Nope. Once immigrants arrive, demand increases instantly, even before they get a job.
Wow. Just wow. A complete, through, and total BS assertion of some kind of economic theory.
I am simply stunned at his verbal density of discourse, blithe refusal to explain, and simply
name dropping facts, ideas, and concepts that are absolutely not related except in being part
of the English language.
I know this is close to an ad hominum attack; I haven't given any specific rebuttal. But I
don't have the tools at my disposal right now to avenge what I see as an assault on my analytic
abilities.
If not a specific rebuttal, what *kinds* of things in the article do you disagree with? Perhaps
this posting is just a step to some greater knowing. Neoclassical Economics has been taught as
"factual and beyond dispute" my whole career - I'm sure that Alchemy and Leechbooks were taught
similarly in earlier ages. How might you suggest that we move forward to something better?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that
just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain
"Wow. Just wow. A complete, through, and total BS assertion of some kind of economic theory.
I am simply stunned at his verbal density of discourse, blithe refusal to explain, and simply
name dropping facts, ideas, and concepts that are absolutely not related except in being part
of the English language."
Yeah that is a pretty good summation of my experience wrt Austrians over almost 2 decades in
a nutter shell[ ] kudos.
Now if only the neoclassicals would abandon the individual and consider vectors in distribution
and how groups affect information.
disheveled .. throws toys out of play pen and hurrumphs away . victoriously .
In my limited experience the prices we accept are more to do with contentment than information.
We are aware that we can never have perfect information; bounded rationality being our situation*.
So as buyers, we end up going with contentment or at least convenience; price too high, content
to leave it on the shelf. Price too low and the reaction might be the same because it is too good
to be true, or of suspect quality. You can have a bargain staring you in the face and, but you
are content because of lack of interest or knowledge.
Good luck to those who try to quantify contentment!
.And then there is the tyranny of choice; not content!
Pip Pip!
* When it comes to the prices people are prepared to pay for products such as cosmetics and
super-cars the rule seems to be unbounded irrationality, but hopefully contentment is achieved
anyway.
when it comes to the political application of this 'theoretical' argument I think it will be
easily dismissed as more leftist academic pedantry, 'immanentizing the eschaton'- all the comments
reflecting the advantages of imperfect information evidence.
This is a wonderful, cogent explanation of a very mathematically complex subject, which is
Information Theory, that has been used to make profound contributions well beyond telephonic communication
for which Claude Shannon developed it, when he discovered it trying to code the English language,
and which he failed to do.
R.A. Fisher was also brilliant. His work has had implications in probability, and statistics,
economics, and perhaps most profoundly in genetics.
The neoclassical analysis also doesn't account for single supplier, multiple demand market
situations. If blueberries both have the consumer market, but also an industrial market (dye purpose,
maybe), then the blueberry supplier has to balance both of those demands, which may end up favoring
one or the other, or some state that isn't ideal for either demand market. The universal example
is the private property of the business itself. The owner isn't just in the market of whatever
service or widget they make, but also in the commercial real estate market. This is especially
problematic with housing, as high rents + vacancies create the impression of scarcity and value
to prospective buyers.
Good work. Now add the delays in information transfer, and fear and greed buying motivations
based on multiple information streams, coupled with information conflicts (injected noise), and
you are getting closer to the real world.
Information conflicts are the differing explanations of the Trump/Corey affair. There is much
noise in the information stream.
Stable prices mean a balance of crop failures and crop booms (supply), population declines
and population booms (demand), speculation and risk-aversion (demand)
This is a good example because it's easy to understand appealing, I fear, to our neoclassical
prejudices.
It's a bad example because it doesn't seem very multidimensional; appealing to our neoclassical
prejudices it collapses easily into "How many blueberry buyers?" and "How many blueberries?"
Trying to imagine something more multidimensional there might be a preference for big blueberries
because they're big there might be a preference for small blueberries because people think that
they're wild, so they must be tastier. If the markets were segregated, there could be a market-clearing
price for big blueberries, and another for small blueberries. But the markets probably aren't
segregated, and the prices would play back and forth against each other.
Maybe good too in dealing with prices of different goods, not just The Price. Neoclassical prices
are meant to be the information that tells me whether to buy dish soap or a new overcoat instead.
Stable prices mean a balance of crop failures and crop booms (supply), population declines
and population booms (demand), speculation and risk-aversion (demand)
There are no stable prices. With this analysis, the steps to include feedback is clear, and
if the feedback is non-linear, non-linear feedback is a characteristic of chaotic systems.
Temporary stability only in a non-linear system, with tipping points etc.
Chris Hayes is an idiot. What kind of person can repeatedly visit the post-industrial wasteland
of the rust belt for town halls with Bernie Sanders and then say "what we need more of is the
philosophy of free-markets"?
But even with that being said, Hayes somehow is still by far the most worthwhile personality
on MSNBC.
I think the tradition of economic thinking has been really influential. I think it's actually
a thing that people on the left really should do - take the time to understand all of that. There
is a tremendous amount of incredible insight into some of the things we're talking about, like
non-zero-sum settings, and the way in which human exchange can be generative in this sort of amazing
way. Understanding how capitalism works has been really, really important for me, and has been
something that I feel like I'm a better thinker and an analyst because of the time and reading
I put into a lot of conservative authors on that topic.
While I agree with much of the argument Hayes is making – know thy enemy, etc. – he gets one
huge thing wrong here that is very troubling: equating capitalism with markets. "Understanding
how capitalism works has been really, really important for me " I'm amazed at how often this trips
up otherwise smart people. There is no capitalism in mainstream neoclassical economics (no government
either, and you can't have capitalism without government). And get any business person talking
freely and they will tell you that everyone in business hates super-competitive markets of the
kind fetishized by economists, and that profitability is all about finding niches and other ways
to avoid competition.
I think it's important to recognize where information theory and the principle of maximum entropy
does succeed in economics and that is as a method of doing statistical inference in economics.
For those interested, I would recommend looking at the increasing amount of information theoretic
research coming out of the Economics Department at the New School for Social Research and UMKC.
You can find many good working papers by myself, Duncan Foley, Paulo dos Santos, Gregor Semieniuk,
and others on the NSSR Repec page
https://ideas.repec.org/s/new/wpaper.html
.
At Bell Labs, plaques and a statue of Shannon occupy places of honor, in more prominent places
than the tributes to other prominent people (including 8 Nobel Prize winners in science).
Here's a presentation by Prof. Christopher Sims of Princeton, at Bell Labs. "Information Theory
in Economics" https://youtu.be/a8jt_TmwQ-U
– critique of the optimizing rational behavior models, noting people are bandwidth limited
("Rational Inattention"). Non-gaussian! Brings up example of monopolist of with no high capacity
limit vs. customers.
"... But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite. ..."
Phillip Mirowski challenged the left to directly attack and defeat the neoliberal belief that
markets are information processors that can know more than any person could ever know and solve
problems no computer could ever solve.
Sorry for the long quote - I am loathe to attempt to paraphrase Hayek
"This is particularly true of our theories accounting for the determination of the systems of
relative prices and wages that will form themselves on a well functioning market. Into the determination
of these prices and wages there will enter the effects of particular information possessed by
every one of the participants in the market process – a sum of facts which in their totality cannot
be known to the scientific observer, or to any other single brain.
It is indeed the source of
the superiority of the market order, and the reason why, when it is not suppressed by the powers
of government, it regularly displaces other types of order, that in the resulting allocation of
resources more of the knowledge of particular facts will be utilized which exists only dispersed
among uncounted persons, than any one person can possess.
But because we, the observing scientists,
can thus never know all the determinants of such an order, and in consequence also cannot know
at which particular structure of prices and wages demand would everywhere equal supply, we also
cannot measure the deviations from that order; nor can we statistically test our theory that it
is the deviations from that "equilibrium" system of prices and wages which make it impossible
to sell some of the products and services at the prices at which they are offered." [Extract from Hayek's Nobel Lecture]
This just hints at Hayek's market supercomputer idea -- I still haven't found a particular writing
which exposits the idea -- so this will have to do.
Sorry - another quote from the Hayek Nobel Lecture [I have no idea how to paraphrase stuff
like this!]:
"There may be few instances in which the superstition that only measurable magnitudes can be important
has done positive harm in the economic field: but the present inflation and employment problems
are a very serious one. Its effect has been that what is probably the true cause of extensive
unemployment has been disregarded by the scientistically minded majority of economists, because
its operation could not be confirmed by directly observable relations between measurable magnitudes,
and that an almost exclusive concentration on quantitatively measurable surface phenomena has
produced a policy which has made matters worse."
I can't follow Hayek and I can't follow Jason Smith. The first quote above sounds like a "faith
based" theory of economics as difficult to characterize as it is to refute. The second quote throws
out Jason Smith's argument with a combination of faith based economics and a rejection of the
basis for Smith's argument - as "scientistically minded."
I prefer the much simpler answer implicit in Veblen and plain in "Industrial Prices and their
Relative Inflexibility." US Senate Document no. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Government Printing
Office, Washington DC. Means, G. C. 1935 - Market? What Market? Can you point to one? [refer to
William Waller: Thorstein Veblen, Business Enterprise, and the Financial Crisis (July 06, 2012)
It might be interesting if Jason Smith's information theory approach to the market creature
could prove how the assumed properties of that mythical creature could be used to derive a proof
that the mythical Market creature cannot act as an information processor as Mirowski asserts that
Hayek asserts.
So far as I can tell from my very little exposure to Hayek's market creature it
is far too fantastical to characterize with axioms or properties amenable to making reasoned arguments
or proofs as Jason Smith attempts. Worse - though I admit being totally confused by his arguments
- Smith's arguments seem to slice at a strawman creature that bears little likeness to Hayek's
market creature.
The conclusion of this post adds a scary thought: "The understanding of prices and supply and
demand provided by information theory and machine learning algorithms is better equipped to explain
markets than arguments reducing complex distributions of possibilities to a single dimension,
and hence, necessarily, requiring assumptions like rational agents and perfect foresight." It
almost sounds as if Jason Smith intends to build a better Market as information processor
religion -- maybe
tweak the axioms a little and bring in Shannon. Jason Smith is not our St. George.
But making the observation that there are no markets as defined makes little dint on a faith-based
theory like neoliberalism, especially a theory whose Church encompasses most university economics
departments, most "working" economists, numerous well-funded think tanks, and owns much/most of
our political elite and so effectively promotes the short-term interests of our Power Elite.
The Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as
special counsel on Wednesday to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump's
campaign and Russian officials, dramatically raising the legal and political stakes in an
affair that has threatened to engulf Mr. Trump's four-month-old presidency.
The decision by the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came after a cascade of
damaging developments for Mr. Trump in recent days, including his abrupt dismissal of the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the subsequent disclosure that Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey
to drop the investigation of his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.
Mr. Rosenstein had been under escalating pressure from Democrats, and even some
Republicans, to appoint a special counsel after he wrote a memo that the White House
initially cited as the rationale for Mr. Comey's dismissal.
By appointing Mr. Mueller, a former federal prosecutor with an unblemished reputation, Mr.
Rosenstein could alleviate uncertainty about the government's ability to investigate the
questions surrounding the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Mr. Rosenstein said in a statement that he concluded that "it is in the public interest
for me to exercise my authorities and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for
this matter."
"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is
warranted," Mr. Rosenstein added. "I have made no such determination."
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who preceded James Comey in that role from 2001 to 2013 and served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
In a seismic event, the United States Department of Justice just announced a special prosecutor will lead the investigation into
Russian interference in the 2016 election, which includes a probe of whether associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russian
officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who preceded James Comey in that
role from 2001 to 2013 and served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The move follows months of damaging revelations, salacious leaks, and generalized uncertainty surrounding the investigation, which
gradually lost the public's faith as a result. After all, Rosenstein made the selection because the attorney general, Jeff Sessions,
was forced to recuse himself after it emerged that he misled a Senate committee about whether he was in contact with Russian officials
during the campaign.
The Washington Post reported that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on two separate occasions, something Sessions
did not include in his testimony. (Lying under oath to a Senate committee constitutes perjury, but Sessions was confirmed as AG and
has never been substantially accused.) The former Alabama senator was also a prominent Trump supporter during the campaign -- he
was the first senator to endorse him. So, beyond the recusal, the Justice Department already lacked the necessary appearance of independence
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. On Tuesday, the
New York Times reported that a memo written by James Comey states that
President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn.
Now, this was all about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. He had attended
an RT � the Russian television network � dinner in Moscow, he apparently
held some discussions there, he was paid for attending that dinner. He also
did some lobbying on behalf of Turkey and was paid for that, and the
investigation also has to do with whether Flynn has something to do with the
alleged interference of the Russians in the American elections. And this is
a big breach of etiquette for a president to More than etiquette, I
suppose � protocol, even the law � to tell an FBI director not to
investigate something. I guess that's illegal. Trump, of course, and the
White House denies this.
But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is
a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media
and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our
adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an
antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of
that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if
Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do
about all of this.
Now joining us to talk about the Comey affair, the Trump affair, and just
what is the issues in terms of the US-Russia relationship, is Robert
English. Robert is a professor of international relations at the University
of Southern California. He specializes in Russian and post-Soviet politics,
US-Russian relations, and national security policy. He formerly worked for
the US Department of Defense and the Committee for National Security, and
has published widely in both academic and policy journals. Thanks very much
for joining us, Robert.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Happy to be here.
PAUL JAY: Okay, so every day another storm, another drama. First of all,
what do you make of Maybe the most interesting thing in all of this Comey
thing today isn't Trump asking him to stop the investigation; that's not a
great shocker. The more interesting thing is somebody at the FBI who has
access to the Comey memo reads it to a journalist at the New York Times.
There's a lot of people out to get Trump here.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah, you're pointing to this larger problem, which is
this chaos, this infighting, and not just in a sort of careerist
bureaucratic way, but a kind of serious pitched battle between different
factions � in this case, between those in the Trump administration who seem
to want a fresh start with Russia, to try to begin cooperation on things
like Syria, terrorism, and so forth, and those dead set against it, who are
now using leaks and so forth to In part, to fight their battles. And so
the bureaucratic, the nasty, the backstabbing, the leaking, is one area of
issues, but you're pointing to this larger fundamental. Can we get along
with Russia? Is it worth trying to reset relations? And even if he's not the
best executor so far � and he's not � is Trump's basic idea of "We can get
along with Russia, let's give it a try" a good one? And I happen to think it
is; it's just being carried out awfully clumsily.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think one needs to separate the intent of Trump for
wanting better relation with Russia, which one can analyze, and the policy
itself. The policy of having a détente, although why there even needs to be
a détente is kind of a question mark But why is so much of the American
foreign policy establishment, the political class, the military leadership,
the vast majority of that whole stratum wants to maintain a very
antagonistic position towards Russia, and why?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, four or five reasons that all come together,
pushing in this Russophobic direction. We've always had sort of
unreconstructed Cold Warriors, people who never were easy with the new
Russia, right? Zbigniew Brzezinski and people of that ilk, who wanted to
just push Russia in a corner, take advantage of its weakness, never give it
a chance. Then you have people in the military-industrial complex, for lack
of a better term, whose vested interests lie in a continued rivalry, and
continued arms-racing, and continued threat inflation. You have other people
who normally would be liberal progressive, but they're so angry at Hillary
Clinton's loss, they're so uncomprehending of how someone they see as vulgar
and unqualified as Trump could get elected, that they're naturally unwilling
to let go of this "the Russians hacked our election, the Russians got Trump
elected" theme, and therefore, Russia is even bigger enemy than they would
be otherwise. These and other strains all come together in a strange way.
Some of this is the hard right, all right? Some of it is from the left, some
is from the center. And across the board, we have ignorance. Ignorance of
Russia.
PAUL JAY: Now, in an article you wrote recently, you went through some of
the history, and we're going to do another segment that digs into this
history more in depth, but when you look at the history of the '90s, and
Yeltsin, and the whole role of the United States in helping bring down the
Soviet Union, the whole point of bringing down the Soviet Union, and
standing Yeltsin up, and interfering in Russian elections to make sure
Yeltsin wins, and so on, was to open Russia for privatization for American
oligarchs. I don't think the idea was to do it for Russian oligarchs, but
that's how it turned out. Is that part of what is making this section of the
American oligarchs so angry about it all?
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, when people look at Russia today, they try to
explain it in terms of one evil man, Putin, and that sort of conceals an
assumption that if we could just get rid of Putin, everything would be
better, and that Putin is the way he is � anti-American � because he's from
the KGB. You don't need to go back to his youth or his time in intelligence
to understand why he's very skeptical, why we have bad relations with Putin
and all those around him. You don't have to go back to the '50s or '40s. You
can go back just to the '90s, when we interfered in Russia, when we foisted
dysfunctional economic policies on them, when we meddled in their elections
repeatedly, and basically for an entire decade, we were handmaidens to a
catastrophe � economic, political, social � that sowed the seeds of this
resentment that continues to this day. It's a-
PAUL JAY: Yeah, you mention in your article that the consequences of the
'90s depression in Russia far surpassed anything in the '07-'08 recession in
the United States.
ROBERT ENGLISH: They far surpassed that. They even far surpassed anything
in our own Great Depression of the early 1930s, of '29, '30, '31 � you know,
the Great Depression, under Hoover and then Roosevelt. At that time, our
economy contracted by about a quarter, and the slump lasted about three
years before growth resumed. Russia's economy contracted almost by half, and
the slump lasted an entire decade, and it resulted not just in widespread
poverty, but millions of excess deaths, of suicides, of people dying of
despair, of heart disease, of treatable illnesses caused by the strains, the
This deep, unbelievable misery of that decade. It's no wonder that there
is deep resentment towards the US, and this underlies a lot of the Putin
elites' attitudes towards us. It's not something pathological, Putin being a
bad guy. If you got rid of Putin tomorrow, the next guy who came along, the
person most Russians would probably elect in democratic elections, wouldn't
be so different. It wouldn't be another Yeltsin or pro-Western liberal,
believe me.
PAUL JAY: Well, even if everything they say about Putin is true, and I
doubt and Quite sure not everything is true. If he is such a dictator,
United States foreign policy has never had any trouble with dictators, as
long as they're our dictators, so the thing drips with hypocrisy.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Hypocrisy and double standards all around are what
Russians see, okay? I mean, where do you begin? Look at the recent The
vote, the referendum in Crimea to secede from Ukraine, and of course, then
Russia annexed it into Russian territory, and we find that outrageous, a
violation of international law, and the Russians say, "Yeah, and what did
you engineer in Kosovo? You yanked Kosovo out of Serbia, you caused Kosovo
to secede from Serbia with no referendum, no international law. How is that
different? Right? When it's your client state it's okay, but when it's ours,
it's not?" And of course the list is a long one; we could spend all
afternoon going through them. So the first thing we need to do is stop the
sanctimony, and deal with Russia as an equal great power.
But, you know, can I say one more thing about the '90s that connect it
with what's going on today? In 1991, we had George Herbert Walker Bush in
the White House. It was still the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was still in power
for the rest of the year, and a warning came from our ambassador in Moscow,
Jack Matlock, which was passed on to the White House. He had inside
information from sources, from confidential sources, that a coup attempt was
being planned. And, by the way, of course it happened in August of that
year. That information came from our Ambassador Matlock, from his sources in
Moscow, to the White House. George Bush had been instructed that this was
highly sensitive, do not reveal the source of the information, keep it
confidential. Bush fouled up, and within hours, he got on the phone to
Moscow, a line that was open, monitored by the KGB, trying to reach
Gorbachev, and he revealed the information, and he revealed the source,
which went straight to the KGB. This was an unbelievable breach of
confidentiality, dangerous, potentially deadly results, and the greatest
irony is that George Herbert Walker Bush had been Director of the CIA
before.
Now, why am I telling this story? Obviously, my first point is,
presidents have fouled up, and have declassified unwittingly, or sometimes
for political purposes, highly sensitive information all the time. I'm not
excusing what Trump did � it looks like he was very sloppy � but the first
thing to note is it's not unusual, this happens a lot. The second thing, and
let's talk about this, is sharing information intelligence with the
Russians. Guys, we've been doing this for nearly 20 years. After 9/11, the
Russians offered us valuable intelligence on the Taliban, on Afghanistan, to
help us fight back against bin Laden, and we've been exchanging intelligence
on terrorists ever since. A lot of people wish we'd exchange more
information; we might have prevented the Boston bombing. So this hysteria
about sharing intelligence with our adversary, no, we are cooperating with
Russia because we have a common enemy.
PAUL JAY: Now, I said in the beginning that I thought we should separate
Trump's intent from a policy, which seems more rational, not to treat Russia
as such an adversary, and try to work both in Syria and other places,
negotiate more things out. But when you do look at the side of intent, I
don't think you can negate or forget about the kind of historic ties that
Trump has with Russian oligarchs. Some people suggest Russian Mafia.
Tillerson's energy play, they would love sanctions lifted on Russia, and I'm
not suggesting they shouldn't be lifted, but the motive here is they want to
do a massive play in the energy sector. So it's not I don't think we
should forget about what drives Trump and his circle around him, which is
they have a very big fossil fuel agenda and a money-making agenda. On the
other hand, that doesn't mean the policy towards Russia isn't rational. I
mean, what do you I don't know if you agree or not.
ROBERT ENGLISH: You know, yeah, you're right, those are important points,
and whether you agree or not with people ranging from Ron Wyden to Lindsey
Graham, they're all saying "follow the money," and in this case, I think
they're right. All these probes, and all these suspicions that the Trump
team colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election, that they
were cooperating, even coordinating with the Russians on the hacking, and
then the release, I don't believe it. It could be true � you know, I don't
have access to the evidence � but to me, it seems much more likely that what
will turn up instead are financial crimes or malfeasance. People taking
speaker's fees, people consulting with oligarchs, people aiding You know,
helping with the elections with shady people, and depositing the money in
the Cayman Islands or in Cypriot banks, not declaring income. I think that's
what we're likely to find; I think that's probably what Flynn is guilty of.
But the more serious charge of collusion with an adversary, even of treason
to undermine our election, I doubt it very much. You're right to look at the
energy business money, and sort of big-business oligarchic efforts to just
get rich together.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, because this is so much tied up with partisan politics.
The Democratic Party leadership, you know, Schumer types, they just want to
wound Trump any way they can, and this is a good way to cut some knives
there, to get their knives out. But the real story is the financial
shenanigans, and maybe Flynn was on to that. I'm not Excuse me, not Flynn,
Comey. Maybe Comey was on to that, and maybe that's where this thing will
lead. That's where Trump needs to fear, not the Flynn stuff.
ROBERT ENGLISH: I think you're probably right, and again, I can only
infer what might be going on, what evidence there might be, based on the
subpoenas that are going out, but what we've heard says yeah, financial
records, all these documents, evidence of I mean, let's go back to this
issue that was the scandal of the week about five scandals ago, which means
five days ago, and that was that The reason that Flynn was fired, you'll
recall that after the election but before the inauguration, he met with the
Russian ambassador, and they discussed all kinds of policy issues, including
the possibility of moving towards removing the sanctions. When he got back
to the White House, apparently he told Pence that they talked about other
things, but he didn't admit that the sanctions subject had come up.
Therefore, he lied; therefore, he was fired. And Sally Yates, right, the
From the Attorney General's office, has made an important point that she
briefed the White House on this, she warned that Flynn had been compromised,
because the Russians had something on him now.
Okay, technically they did, but come on, guys, hold on a second. Trump
was about to be inaugurated, right? It wasn't as if he somehow � Flynn �
could undermine a policy of Obama's when there were about five minutes left
in the Obama administration. Secondly, the Russians and the Trump
administration wanted openly � it was no secret � to move towards a removal
of sanctions if they could find cooperation on Ukraine, cooperation on
terror in the Middle East. There's no secret here. Therefore, what did the
Russians have on Flynn that they could have blackmailed him with? How was he
compromised? Yeah, because they'd caught him in a fib, but big deal. You see
how these things are being exaggerated. No doubt Flynn broke the rules, he
told a lie, but it's not a lie It's not the kind of information in the
Russians' possession that's the equivalent of catching him in bed with
another woman, or [inaudible 00:16:53].
PAUL JAY: And you have to even believe that he did tell the lie, because
we're being told he didn't tell Pence. We don't know if he's falling on his
sword to some extent here in order to protect Pence. I mean, who knows the
truth of any of that? And the rest of what he did, as far as we know, with
the Russians is all public. There's a video of him speaking at an RT
interview in Moscow that took place at the same time as this dinner that he
was paid to attend on the 10th anniversary of RT, where he sits near Putin.
There's nothing secret about any of this; this stuff's been out on YouTube
for, like, ages.
ROBERT ENGLISH: So what you have here when you add them up is a sequence
of events or small misdeeds: telling a fib about this here, Trump leaking
classified information there. None of them are of the magnitude that they're
being portrayed with in the media, but when you string them together, it
sounds like a hysterical series of
PAUL JAY: So I can understand the Democratic Party, but in terms of what
people call the permanent state, the deep state, they're very engaged in
this. The leaks from the FBI We still don't, I don't think, unless I
missed something, this thing where he Trump talks to the Russian
ambassador and the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, and gives this Reveals this
intelligence. Well, how do we know that? I mean, who's in that room that
leaked that? Or, apparently, after it took place in Washington, some White
House staffers phone the NSA and the CIA Well, you think they've got to
call the heads of these organizations at this kind of level of information.
So who's leaking that stuff? The state apparatus � CIA, FBI, maybe NSA �
they're really antagonistic to this Trump administration. What is that
about?
ROBERT ENGLISH: Again, that's where we started, with not only the battle
over "Should we try to improve relations with Russia, or are they
incorrigible foes?" That's one thing, but now this sort of bureaucratic
infighting, the use of leaks, of innuendo. And again, Trump gives them the
fuel to do so with these continual misdeeds and misstatements. That's
another whole arena of battle, and it's not healthy, right, to have And
it's his fault too. He went to war with the intelligence community on day
one. But this is so dysfunctional. It's causing us much more harm than the
Russians ever could, and
PAUL JAY: We're going to keep this conversation going in a future
segment. I do want to add Anyone who watches The Real News knows this
already. I mean, I think the Trump/Pence administration is going to prove to
be more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney. I think it's extremely dangerous
what they have in mind in terms of foreign policy. But all that being said,
let's concentrate on the real stuff. Trump's in Saudi Arabia, and they're
planning some bad stuff in the Middle East, and targeting of Iran, and back
here, we're focusing on really what should be a sideline soap opera.
ROBERT ENGLISH: Yeah. The series, the daily scandals that we're talking
about � the Comey letter today, the leak to the Russians yesterday, on and
on � are kind of distracting us from the bigger picture. Not only the
question of, you know, what are our common interests, if any, with Russia,
and can we seriously work towards them, but also, what are we going to do in
the Middle East, and what are we doing in East Asia? These pivotal foreign
policy strategic issues aren't getting much attention because of the daily
soap opera. You're absolutely right.
Let me just add at the end here � I know we're running out of time � I've
noted the accidental clumsy careless leak that could've had tragic
consequences of the first Bush president. We might also note that the second
Bush presidency, that administration leaked like a sieve from, you know,
exaggerated false intelligence on Iraq to the identity of Valerie Plame, a
CIA operative, when it suited their purposes. And the Obama administration
wasn't a lot better. People like McCain and others were furious at some of
the leaks, whether it was the Stuxnet cyber war tactic that was used against
Iran, to a whole series of other military facts that were leaked selectively
by the Obama administration to serve their purposes. Let's just remember
this context. Mistaken leaks, strategic leaks, dishonest leaks go on all the
time in Washington, and against that backdrop, let's not fall off the cliff
here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians,
about our common enemy, the Islamic State in Syria.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, and thank you for
joining us on The Real News Network.
Anonymous
,
May 17, 2017 at 2:09 am
Some issues that are not mentioned. First, the 100 billion dollar a year
cost of sanctions which gives Putin and the oligarchs incentive to do a lot
of things. Second, the track record of journalists, human rights advocates
and attorneys being killed in Russia. Third, the funds paid to Trump from
oligarchs via over priced real estate deals.
Guess they all fall into the "strategic issues aren't getting much
attention".
If the Putin administration or oligarchs are found to have acted illegally
in the US it will be a different discussion.
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all. ..."
"... A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of newspapers
to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers, tv, web, the
chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron. ..."
"... The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate this
time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed and
hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be. ..."
"... Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change thingy
works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%. ..."
"... Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue austerity/financialization/war
policy as per usual. ..."
"... "However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo agenda
of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States." ..."
"... Macron but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, ..."
"... Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing the Host"
Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector (FIRE), extractive
transnational corporations, and their media propagandists. ..."
"... Relevant to my # 39.... http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-gets-three-major-networks-to-broadcast-image-of-empty-podium-for-30-minutes/
No one else got this obscene spectacle. So much for the Kremlin influencing foreign "democracies". ..."
"... Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently you
have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time. ..."
"... As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models at
a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There seems to
be little doubt about this. ..."
"... I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and right
- vastly different from earlier times. ..."
"... What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like Michea,
"integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites. And "peasants"
buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West. ..."
"... That link again: Emmanuel Clinton and the revolt of the elites Let them eat overpriced croissants. Nailed it. ..."
"... France just "elected" Western Europe's version of HRC. The Banksters are dancing in the streets, and France will STILL be the
U$A's bitch. ..."
"... Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on what has
been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and have been a
mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming parliament. Episode
2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election. ..."
"... The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon, who
had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes is still
a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian regime" etc.
..."
"... He was not elected by the people but through the electoral system. So the people didnt really took the opposite route of the
media. ..."
"... Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron. ..."
"... This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones will
fly and the transportation system will shut down. ..."
"... (Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ... ..."
"... Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly.
And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt
could teach the French Swamp a thing or two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own
ne$t$). ..."
"... The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth. ..."
"... I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't be fooled
(again). ..."
"... More on the creation of Macron and the puppeteers behind him. It is a tangled web: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196289.html
..."
"... Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness. Because
both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie the seeds of conflict.
Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German relations. Frustrated Macron
will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way. ..."
"... is micron really petain in drag? ..."
"... Here's another excellent Monthly Review essay, this time by Henry A. Giroux: Trump's America: Rethinking 1984 and Brave New
World , https://monthlyreview.org/2017/05/01/trumps-america/ ..."
What this Macron victory proves is that the French lean more Left to Centre, therefore the key was to support and promote a non-interventionist
candidate on the Left opposed to Neoliberalism, like Melenchon instead of a radically rightist Le Pen who scared off half of France.
Let's just say that a country that has multiple parties on the Left is NEVER going to vote in a radical rightist populist,
never. So the strategy to be free of Neoliberalism in a country that leans Left is to always throw all the support behind a leftist
party that opposes Neoliberalism.
Supporting Le Pen only to get a change in French foreign policy was doomed from the start.
And here's another thing: a party that opposes Neoliberalism and has a non-interventionist foreign policy, should try to be
more flexible on domestic issues not socialist to an extreme to grab the attention of wider public while playing down slightly
their foreign policy UNTIL victory is achieved. This is how you wean the dumb masses. Once in power then it can go all the way
to reverse interventionist foreign policy and weed out Neoliberal/Neocon agendas.
Hollande's repeated invitations of Marine Le Pen to the Elysée presidential palace during his presidency played the same role
as Macron's appeal to the FN in the name of national unity last night: to show that the PS and Macron view the FN as legitimate
political partners.
Like Hollande, Macron appears to be cultivating the FN as a political base for his deeply unpopular program. He has pledged
to use the PS' anti-democratic labor law to tear up contracts and social spending by decree, escalate defense spending, and
reestablish the draft in preparation for an era of major wars.
Mélenchon appealed last night for voters to give UF a strong delegation in the National Assembly in the June legislative
elections, which would strengthen his bid to become Macron's prime minister.
... the trots at wsws.org see a push by unsubmissive france into the vacuum created by micron as 'treasonous' ... of course.
but something might come of it ... Mélenchon hit some of the same points that le pen hit and may garner support from her stalwarts
on those points. he might make something of it. might temper the unmitigated disaster of micron and the franco-american-german
eu-financial axis.
Monday the French will awaken and find they live on an Animal Farm where the local French pigs suppress the people for the benefit
of the wild boars of savage globalism.
In truth the French deserve this fate as they chose the American "dream of comfort and conformity" that Alexis de Tocqueville
described as democratic tyranny that "reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which
the government is the shepherd". He attributed the rise of such "democratic despotism, to a benign form of social control by a
centralized bureaucratic state supported by a weakened and isolated citizenry."
A French comedian recently pointed out that washing machines have more programs than Macron! Unfortunately, as Asselineau points
out, Macron was brilliantly marketed to the French public as one would advertise a new detergent designed to clean up a mess!
The Marketing was led by Jacque Attali the Grand Vizier of the French establishment and Macron's mentor. Apparently, Attali's
team published 17,000 articles promoting Macron in the last year. Attali also coordinated the combined assault on the other candidates
by the media, banks and corporations that will now benefit from Macron's election.
Asselineau also suggests that the French read de Gaulle's memoirs, especially chapter 1 and 2. The 2015 book Soumission by
Houellebecq plays off de Gaulle's warning.
The situation is grave and the French have been played by the best propaganda campaign since Hitler. Bernays, the author of
the book "propaganda" and the inspiration for Hitler and modern marketing would be impressed...
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted a far-right
leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one. As if Le Pen would do more for the French working class than Trump has
done for the American working class. As if Le Pen would really pursue the kind of anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchical policies
that Trump pretended to favour. As if putting the boot into muslims wasn't Le Pen's first, second and third priority.
I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected. As if the French people desperately wanted
a far-right leader, but somehow never got the chance to vote for one.
Very good observation.
As if Trump was installed and in general presidents are installed by the virtue of an "invisible hand" that manipulates the
markets and currencies. That may (and did) happen in some small satellite 'allied" NATO countries and with the help of intelligence
community steering the mindset, but not on the level of an obscure conspiracy group sitting in a dark room observing the world
and manipulating it from afar.
People do vote here in Europe and they get what the current state of mind is.
Le Pen is out and for good as her win would be definitely the end of EU and a beginning of a very dark period for France through
which UK is tunneling now.
Sad story is that today's general understanding of politics and a will to take a lead, we all are forced to choose between
two varieties of stupidity and crookedness as the case was in USA. Here were two ideologies confronted and a really bad and evil
one lost for good. Do not mention Russia, please, as we are all tired of hearing how Putin is evil and whatnot.
My position is that Russia and Europe share the continent and one can hitchhike from Amsterdam to Moscow. One cannot hitchhike
from New York to Amsterdam, right? I somehow cannot foresee that far-right is in Russian interest at all.
So, I am actually happy for Trump, as he will put USA in its place by not knowing what is he doing or not doing what he doesn't
know.
Naive and wishful thinking would be - is USA finally leaving the Europe for good, keeping UK under its skirts as a staging
lapdance island outpost?
Born
3 February 1967
Quimper, Finistère, France
Died
5 May 2017 (aged 50)
Plouisy, Côtes d'Armor, France
Occupation
Politician
Socialist Party
Corinne Erhel (3 February 1967 – 5 May 2017) was a French politician. She served as a member of the National Assembly from 2007
to 2017, representing the Côtes-d'Armor department.
What clarity I see with most of this thread's posters. Its amazing anyone would put their faith in Le Pen - for a thousand different
reasons but especially after Trump's showing. It scares me how some people are so latched onto this very narrow, far right 'critique'
of globalism and see it as the world's salvation. How easily this faith can be manipulated too. Reminds me of those who were so
energetic about (and facilitated) Mussolini's rise to power.
Not to say the EU stooge is much/any better but its nice to see a more nuanced view here for once.
#8 sigil wrote: "I love how people here use the term 'installed' as if Macron wasn't elected."
A third of French voters voted Le Pen. In a civilized country with a free press you would then expect roughly a third of
newspapers to be in favor of Le Pen, two thirds in favor of Macron. But coverage in favor of Macron was close to 100%. Newspapers,
tv, web, the chancellors of the main universities, the french medical association, you name it: they told you to vote Macron.
I'd like to draw an analogy: Imagine that, at the next presidential elections, newspapers attack the Democratic candidate for
hiring his own wife, but stay mum when documents appear on the net which show corruption by Trump. That all newspapers, all tv
stations, all web sites are in favor of Trump, and - apart from some of the seedier blogs on the web - none in favor of the Democratic
candidate. That the Association of American Universities, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences
all ask you to vote Trump. That you get a letter jointly signed by the president of the National Council of Churches, the president
of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, and the Chief Rabbi, asking you to vote Trump. Would you call this free and fair elections?
I wouldn't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source.
At any rate, I think you're going to be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is,
he kept quiet, like May did. But he is really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But
lapdog he certainly isn't.
Re 17: The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won. I wish he hadn't, but he did. Enough voters chose him regardless
of what they were told. In France, the voters were exposed to a similar barrage and chose to vote against the far-right candidate
this time. Perhaps that's partly because Trump and the Brexiteers gave them a taste of what to expect; an indication of how half-arsed
and hypocritical the far-right populists can turn out to be.
In all these cases, voters exercised their choices. As did the doctor's associations and university administrators, when choosing
who to endorse. No one was 'installed'. Endorsements aren't a violation of democracy, they're an aspect of it - as is the freedom
to take endorsements seriously or not.
Well it looks like to me that France just elected obomber 2.0. Please let me know in a few years how that hope and change
thingy works in France. It didn't work in Amerika for us the 99% but was great for the 1%.
Both Merkel and Marcon are a couple of M&Ms in the hands of the central bankers and their controllers who call all the shots for
both of these puppets. Politics beyond the local level are manufactured to appear democratic in origin while serving a plutocracy
that controls all eventualities by commanding the life blood of human economics, the Ownership over the creation of all money
and credit. So y'all can relax now until the German and British election cycle gets y'all wound up again over this dog and pony
show as an illusion meant as a distracting deception for the rank and file of humanity.
Macron is the new and improved Obama marketing product/politician. Find a young person without defined policies, brand them
in opposition to something "bad", throw the full support of media and elites behind them, and install them in office to continue
austerity/financialization/war policy as per usual.
It's a brilliant scheme when you consider Macron's "platform" is essentially continuing the failed austerity policies of Hollande,
who is currently approved of by 4% of the French electorate.
The key test will be the parliamentary elections coming up. Can Melenchon put together any support? Can there be a left/right
anti-EU, anti-austerity alliance wide enough to keep the Macron globalists and the traditional right of Fillon from continuing
the downward slide of France?
@8 sigil... installed... yeah, i think that's a good word for what it is... groomed by bankers (rothchild and etc) and coddled
24/7 in the msm which acts as the main propaganda lever in these so called democracy shams.. it has everything to do with plutocracy,
kleptocracy and nothing to do with democracy.. democracy is used as the front, and nothing more.. sorry - someone had to say it...
funny thing - i don't recall using the word installed, but i think it is a good word for where we are at presently.. certain 'regimes'
will be supported more then others, lol...
A paragraph from that link, that mirrors my personal thoughts..
"However, even if Marine Le Pen had won in the final round, the establishment would force her to follow the status quo
agenda of the plutocracy, exactly as happened with Donald Trump in the United States."
Although I've followed this recent French election, I confess to being somewhat ignorant of Macron beyond the basics. Le Pen I
do know more about.
My very ignorant guess is that French voters looked across the Channel and the Pond and saw the clusterfecks in the UK and
the USA and figured an Obama 2.0 might be the better "choice" under the circumstances. As I said, don't know much about Macron
but doesn't seem to be as odious and horrid as Clinton, which is why we're stuck with Trump. IMO (and I was very much open-minded
about Trump once he won) Trump is an unmitigated disaster. I believe Le Pen would've been the same or similar for France (and
elsewhere).
Well the Bankers run the world, do they not? Unsure how to unravel that knot.
Macron will continue to convert France into what Charles Hugh Smith calls a plantation economy:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr17/corp-plantation4-17.html
This echoes the work of David Korten in his book "When Corporations Rule the World" and Michael Hudson in his book "Killing
the Host" Macron's Tomorrowland world favors only the political class, rentiers of the Financial, Insurance and real estate sector
(FIRE), extractive transnational corporations, and their media propagandists.
Macron is a cardboard construct created much like Napoléon (Tolstoy wrote in "war and Peace" if Napoléon Bonaparte did not
exist he would have to be created).
Tocqueville provided a strategy for the people to create a civil society that suppresses the psychopaths that wish to contol
all aspects of society. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" is mostly about the civil contract among workers and the bosses
and he lays out the three rules of contacts between nations which is actually opposite of the globalists.
I do not think you will be happy in the globalist world order that Macron supports.
Here Madonna supporting Macron. May be considered trivial, just one dopey star shootin' off random perso messages.
I don't think so. Look at these kids, asked to perform and complying clumsily ....for one pres. cand. far away, why? Why? This
is not just random flickr. photos looking for +++ points from aunties.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
The truth is, the MSM only opposed Mr. Trump mildly, at best. Through most of Mr. Trump's run for the White House, his coverage
was " wall to wall ". Up to, and including, coverage of a empty podium, while one Bernie Sanders was giving a major live speech
at the same time.
ALL MSM is corporate, and they got just who they wanted, a pro-corporate hack that will do their bidding.
Looks like the French don't read MoA. Maybe if they did things would be different. Instead, something like 65% were bamboozled
by the goddam press and the elites. Isn't it awful when people's right to choose is denied them by these behemoths?
Maybe Trump's performance in his early days had some effect. Maybe his anti-globalist rhetoric that turned out to be pro-.01%
in actual fact gave the French pause. Maybe the French like their world beating health system and standard of living. One of the
reasons for the formation of the EU was to keep the French and Germans from going at it hammer and tongs every few years like
they had since forever and so far it's worked. Could it be that they like the option of traveling freely within the union while
enjoying the benefits they as if they were home? Benefits that certainly didn't come from living in an inward looking country
contemplating its navel.
Now the same folks who waxed ecstatic over Trump's unlikely win have to eat some crow. The snowball effect they so confidently
predicted sweeping European elections has failed to materialize. Who knew people could be so stupid to pass up salvation when
proffered on a silver platter. First the Dutch, and now the French. When will people learn?
Maybe the French are better at reading history books than the Americans.
This could explain why they didn't fall for Le Pen's lies - right-wingers like her always pretend to care for the 'common man
(& woman)', but quickly turn out to be even more corporate-friendly/ pro-capital than their predecessors. If people are upset,
well just offer them some patsy to blame, and laugh while the poor fight each other whites vs. blacks, Christians vs. Muslims
or whatever division comes in handy.
T.'s 'about-face' is by no means surprising; it's standard procedure and was expected by many.
I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means.
The term doesn't make any sense to me, since an '-ism' usually denotes discrimination and classification of humans along certain
lines - but everybody's from the same globe, afaik...(except Elvis, of course)
According to Wikipedia the Gauls were worse at making good hard soap than the Celts and all the various Teutonic tribes ...or
so the olive oil-scraping Romans said. I guess that little bit of knowledge explains a lot of "smelly" jokes and jibes against
southern Europe in general; they really were.
Soap won't work on politicians but soap-making lye should. They say it's all very "green" but you need ash for the lye. Burn
half of them? :P (what's a "shop"?).
France could get very interesting at any point in time without warning, probably more so than any other European nation and
it has been that way for at least a year and a half already. Getting this poodle elected could be a big tactical error on the
part of the powers that be.
I don't trust elections any more than I trust polls, there is no reason to, but it gave "us"/humanity Brexit, so there's that.
Can't tell if b's Merkel-Micron pic is PhotoShopped but Pat Lang is on board with the concept (and context?) with this mid-campaign
cite...
Le Pen quipped during the campaign that France would have a woman president no matter who won because the actual president
would either be She or Angela Merkel.
Jim Stone contends that the election in France was stolen: jist = massive numbers of Le Pen's ballots were torn thus rendering
them uncounted; Macron received half a million extra ballots; the media broadcast the scam that Macron was way ahead in all the
polls; all media support was for Macron; reporting on Macron's dirty underwear was banned.
I get it, Sigil the lefty is happy. I'll go home now. Everything is going to be just fine in France. The French screwed themselves
over, that's all their is to it. You guys had great chance to shake society to it's core but you blew it!!
Bright? Quiet? Plese, this guy IS the establishment itself, he was pushed forward from nowhere by the media, apparently
you have sucked up all their propaganda for him, similar to dupes that loved Obama when he was elected the first time.
Any election system that uses anything other than strategic hedge simple score voting is nothing other than a placebo democracy.
Party-free proportional elections can be achieved with simple score used with the parabolic proportional curve method. Without
such simple methods, we only have simulated / fake democracy that just doesn't work.
sigil @ 20 said "The US media etc was overwhelmingly anti-Trump and yet he won."
Sigil, if you hadn't noticed, Trump came out of the media-entertainment complex...pretty much born of it. That's what you are
asking of Le Pen, to replace her 20 odd years of full tilt political life with self promotion for the sake of ratings.
If he wasn't POTUS, a chump like you would be watching Trunp TV™
Smuks @44--"I'd still appreciate if someone could explain to me what 'globalism' means."
The linked article by Joseph Nye is basically correct and provides a basis for discussion. The concept was also known as Internationalism;
its advocates Internationalists; its antagonists Nationalists or Protectionists. After WW1 the debate over joining The League
of Nations sparked a debate between advocates and antagonists within the Outlaw US Empire that affects us today given the smearing
Pacifists got--Isolationists/Isolationism--as if there were no nuances or grey areas.
@40 peter
I'll hazard a guess that you're not Greek then. Point re: a unified Europe via a tight Franco-German bond is well taken, but at
what cost...? When do Eurocrats and ECBankers come up for re-election...? Hmm, we'll just have to settle for watching another
puppet show I guess.
I wouldnt talk of the far right on series of losses in NL or FR either...the right is on an absolute roll, trending in only
one direction. Seems the French jihadist economy is somewhat of a problem, they're importing more than they're exporting these
days...but shhh...we're not allowed to talk about it.
France took the same old bullet to dodge a bullet, and it will be this way until what remains of the twisted left is reformed
into something backable.
@Brooklyn Bridge 27, 29
Your method doesn't work on Google.
Go to https://unshorten.it/ and paste the short URL into the box there.
Tap on 'Unshorten it' at the end of the box.
Scroll down to the blue 'goto' button at the bottom of the page.
Right click on it and copy the link therein, which is the expanded URL.
They receive a large amount of internet traffic and have the potential ability to fingerprint users and subvert privacy protections.
AFAIK they don't do anything malicious, but I don't know they don't.
So was that picture photoshopped, b? I couldn't be bothered looking up the source. At any rate, I think you're going to
be proved wrong rapidly. Macron's a bright guy, and ran a very good campaign. That is, he kept quiet, like May did. But he is
really pushy, and evidently competent. I don't know whether that means good or bad. But lapdog he certainly isn't.
"He is really pushy, and evidently competent."
Guess you missed reading some of his background. Worked as a Rothschild banker. Had no idea what is EBITDA? Oh my. Read the
link and understand the Whys behind the photo image b posted. Macron was groomed
created out of thin air
[Yet] it wasn't just a Rothschild sponsor who took the young Macron under his wing
What Mr Macron lacked in technical knowledge and jargon at first, he made up for with contacts in government, says Sophie
Javary, head of BNP Paribas' corporate finance in Europe, who was asked by Mr Henrot to coach Mr Macron in the first year.
This is straight up bizarre. It appears Macron was so important to banking interests the had to form a consortium of firms
to all pitch in to help him out. Yet it gets stranger still.
On the Atos deal, Mr Macron "had a fairly junior role at the time - he would be asked to redo the financial models on Excel,
the basics," recalled an adviser. But a few days after the deal was announced, Mr Macron was made a partner. A few months later,
he stunned colleagues and rivals by winning a role in Nestlé's purchase of Pfizer's infant food operations.
As someone who spent ten years on Wall Street, I can tell you with certainty that you don't go from updating excel models
at a junior level to partner overnight. Someone extraordinarily powerful was pulling all sorts of strings for this guy. There
seems to be little doubt about this.
Further hints that Macron is a total manufactured elitist creation can be seen with the following.
At the bank, Mr Macron mastered the art of networking and navigated around the numerous conflicts of interest that arise
in close-knit Parisian business circles, making good use of his connections as an Inspecteur des Finances - an elite corps
of the very highest-ranking graduates from ENA.
In 2010, he advised, for free, the staff of Le Monde when the newspaper was put up for sale. Journalists at the daily
started doubting his loyalty when they happened upon him in conversation with Mr Minc, who was representing a bidding consortium
that the staff opposed. They did not know that it was Mr Minc, a fellow Inspecteur des Finances, who had helped the young Mr
Macron secure his interview at Rothschild.
A media executive who was part of the same consortium recalled: "It wasn't clear who Emmanuel worked for. He was around,
trading intelligence, friends with everyone. It was smart, because he got to know everybody in the media world."
Indeed, who does he work for? I'm sure the French people would like to know.[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sure he ran a very good campaign. It was so arranged for him – all that $$$$loot and more.
I just read Escobar's piece on the election. He makes some good points about today's post-Orwellian meanings of left and
right - vastly different from earlier times. I'm pretty sure he would agree with the word "installed" - in fact he alludes
to much of the process. I love his writing for its sheer élan, but I have to quote the concluding paragraph:
What French voters have – sort of – endorsed is the unity of neoliberal economy and cultural liberalism. Call it, like
Michea, "integrated liberalism." Or, with all the Orwellian overtones, "post-democratic capitalism."A true revolt of the elites.
And "peasants" buy it willingly. Let them eat overpriced croissants. Once again, France is leading the West.
Thanks, though I'm not much enlightened I'm afraid. Where would you place e.g. the Neocons? Nationalists to the bone, with
global aspirations. 'Internationalism' is a very progressive concept, and mostly associated with the UN, e.g. some form of global
democracy...would you say the same for 'globalism'?
I think that globalism has a negative connotations mostly because of jobs outsourcing overseas. All those telemarketing and
customer service call centers moved to India or Philippines, textile and manufacturing jobs to China and Bangladesh etc - OTOH
we do not mind having cheap Chinese stuff to buy in dollar stores, but it is somewhat irritating when a guy from Mumbai is calling
you to switch to another local phone or cable provider.
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen. Terms like 'manufactured' and
'installed' when referring to candidates have their role in drawing attention to elite machinations, but they shouldn't overshadow
the banal fact that the voters really aren't ready to hand power to Le Pen. Most voters don't spend their days picking apart the
tangled threads of Rothschild/NATO/AIPAC/CIA conspiracies, after all. Most voters still think that the euroliberal project can
work, or at any rate, they think the right-wing populists have little to offer beyond thinly-disguised racism. Considering Trump
and the Brexiteers, what other conclusion should they draw?
Excerpt: "From de Gaulle in 1958 to Hollande in 2017, and for all members of the French establishment, the operational principle
of the French towards Africa has been: "invade, intimidate, manipulate, install, antagonize, ingratiate, indemnify, expropriate."
Nothing in this election will change that – only Africans can."
Re 63
It's a good article, but I can't see any implication that he believes the voters preferred Le Pen.
...
Posted by: sigil | May 8, 2017 11:38:51 PM | 69
Me either, and he wasn't. He was attempting to hilight the components of the bamboozlement which the United Swamp inflicted
on French voters. Imo, the Swamp's winning hand was pinning the (fearsome) Far Right label to Le Pen's forehead.
It's ludicrous when seen in the light of her policy platform but it seems to have worked. The following is the nuts & bolts
condensed from an article by James Petras to which I posted a link on the last April Open Thread. There's nothing right-wing in
it...
1. Remove France from NATO's integrated command.
2. End NATO's commitment to US directed global wars.
3. Reject the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations.
4. Convoke a national referendum over the EU - to decide French submission.
5. End sanctions against Russia.
6. Increase trade with Rusia.
7. End France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
8. Adopt Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
9. Raise taxes on banks and financial transactions
10. Penalise capital flight in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men.
11. Keep the 35 hour work-week.
12. Provid tax-free overtime pay.
13. Direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
14. Increase public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
15 Protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
16. Support abortion rights and gay rights.
17. Oppose the death penalty.
18. Cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers.
19. Fight against sexism.
20. Fight for equal pay for women.
What makes it interesting is that it seems that the deluge of MSM hokum successfully discouraged the ppl who voted for Micron
from examining and/or evaluating it.
Somehow Macron is the smallest detail of what is going on. The old two major parties have imploded and the survivors are trying
to fight for life by joining the new big centrist Macron-EU lobby movement. Everyday is about a new betrayal, a new U-turn on
what has been signed or promessed by this or that party-member (Valls is the funniest to follow). The French politicians are and
have been a mafia, Corsican type, ever since the 30s (or maybe before already?). Macron won't have much support in the coming
parliament. Episode 2 is 18th June, results of the 2nd round of parliamentary election.
If a clarification happens as to who the people should oppose, anti-EU parties will have to unite and take the fight to Brussels
(which as always, includes sorting out the extreme-right xenophobes and anti-women rights), as Varoufakis already understood.
People here really don't understand how Le Pen functions. The way the MSM is dealing with her (differs from how it was played
with the father, this was Mitterrand's business) is that she is everywhere, in a positive light, on a daily basis, and suddenly
when an election happens, after she has been put up as credible etc they turn against her fascism at the last minute.
The reason she is used first is to make her bigger against the other candidates. It worked this time against Mélenchon,
who had initially better chances than her to win, and who might even have won against Macron (25 % abstention + 10 % blank votes
is still a big reserve for anyone). But the Mélenchon was hailed "same as Le Pen", "friend of Putin and Castro", "supporting Syrian
regime" etc.
As to the 'programme' of Le Pen. She changed her tone when Philippot, a former help of Chevènement (socialist anti-EU, has
quit the party but still very close to Hollande and Royal !) started to write her speeches. Through time, she simply borrowed
stuff from the leftist unions (CGT), from Mélenchon, so far thay everyone notice the "social left" overtones of her platform.
But when asked precisely, there is nothing behind it but catching new voters. The basis of her voters, those of her father,
are just very normal rightist liberal, with an open racist flavour, and the new mottoes are just to catch more people. Asked about
all the 'borrowings' made by the FN to the extreme-left Mélenchon said that reading a FN tract nowadays looked like it was a CGT
one, but that this did not cover that the fact they were just stealing it without any intention behind it.
The FN is ruling is a number of municipalities, they have 2 MP in the French parliament and 22 in the EUropean parliament.
Please let me know of any 'social left' measure they would have suggested or agreed for?
Under Mitterrand, the Socialists used the FN as the perfect tool to reduce the weight of the right party. After him, the MSM
understood it was the perfect tool to kill the marxists. ALL the media have kept saying "Mélenchon = Le Pen" in the latest months,
especially after Mélenchon had a surge in the voting intentions. The guy is not perfect and would probably not do a good president,
but his charism and pedagogical capacity made him get back some of the working class voters that had stopped voting for the Communists
to vote for Le Pen (after the Communists were involved too often in compromising deals with the very corrupt Socialist Party)
and he also managed to get some youth interested in politics again with his web platform and local organisations.
The illuminists are informing their serfs and their enemies that they are in complete control and that this populist revolt
stops now. It is in your face like Kushner's 666 fifth avenue building. The velvet glove is being removed from the steel fist.
Actually none of the above won 37% of the voters and Macron came in at 24% which is slightly above Le Pen at 21%. The rest
voted against Le Pen by voting for Macron.
This is one hell of a way to run an election and a country. The political divisions are terminal as in the US. The difference,
is that the French allow their leaders to run things until they get few up and than throw a tantrum. In this case the cobblestones
will fly and the transportation system will shut down.
Even the National police (CRS) assassins will not be able to hold the line. There must be a better way to elect leaders who
will add to the wealth of nations rather than the "Masters of the Universe".
It's fascinating. Everybody has his or her very personal idea of what 'globalism' means - yours is the third answer I get on
this forum, and the three are completely different!
What you refer to is 'globalization', which is a natural/ logical process in capitalist economy.
I thus get the impression that 'globalism' doesn't mean anything at all - which means it's a very bad idea to use it in any
debate. Or, you have to define very precisely how you use it before doing so.
@Hoarse 72
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.)
@Julian 66: Yeah, sure. And even better, the spiders from Mars didn't win either. lol
Globalism does have different meanings ... and uses. It can mean globalism by culture as in travel, communications, foods,
celebrations, etc. It can also mean government level actions pushed by TPTBs like trade deals, border arrangements, regional combinations
(EU, NAFTA), economic/currency deals, supranational organizations (WTO, GATT, EU). The fun is when you complain about the latter,
you are smeared as being a xenophobe and against the former. Voluntary organization from below is one thing, forced from above
is a different matter.
Maybe you should learn a bit more about European politics rather than believe in fairytales.
It's strange how some people are disappointed by empty talk over and over, yet all it takes is some politician declaring herself
'anti-establishment' and they'll believe every word she says. That way, of course they're f*ckd time and again... Sad! ;-)
(Look at Ukraine for a perfect example - they believed the nationalists' lies just like you do.) ...
@smuks | May 9, 2017 7:18:36 AM | 78
Can't argue with your first sentence, but you should have quit while you were ahead. Conflating the violent Putch in Ukraine
with the stance of a France-for-the-French Nationalist is inane, to put it mildly. And as an Aussie, I can assure you that our
Neolib, Turnbull, Totalitarian Capitalist, pro-middleman-itis, industry-destroying Govt could teach the French Swamp a thing or
two about 'honeyed lies' and shameless betrayal by politicians - (whilst feathering their own ne$t$).
The selection, crowning of Macron represents the ultimate effort within the 5th Republic to elect a 'prez' who promises, can,
will be, effective. In what direction is not specified .mystery
Sarkozy was elected as a 'Républicain' (UMP then), an outsider nonetheless, a foreignor almost, a hyperactive, charismatic,
posturing dude who agitated ppl from the right, provided a flattering mirror for many, and displayed an aura of determined,
willful, 'renewal' while being 'conservative.' His wife Cecilia played a big part - another story.
Sark subsequently alienated swatches of the F who were becoming more impoverished, he almost destroyed the judiciary/ police/
repressive etc. organs in F (as he despised them personally) except prisons, that didn't go down well. Sure the 'Left' - aka local
plutocrats belonging to the Le Zuper Klub des Zocialistes trying to get a bigger slice of the economic pie.. facing their
now better entrenched competitors, went into valiant, sputtering, oppo.
Sark was the destruction of Lybia. Hollande was elected as a return to a 'normal' presidency, a-hmm reasonable, understanding,
benevolent, a tad leftist stance. Hollande instored by decree the El Khomri law, as an ex., measures that Sark did not dare attempt.
Hollande was militarily all over, not reported - see war in Mali for ex.
Macron embodies the 'not-left-not-right', the death to the creaky 'establishment' parties; a pragmatic 'renewal', a young brilliant
guy, very French, very heart-felt, etc. Leading to a sort of 'technocratic, unity government' hmmm.
The photoshopped image is funny. Good one. Hummvee, a.k.a. appeal to the reptilian brain. Does anyone know? I heard that Merkel
has a PhD in physics (PhD in alemania is like a masters degree in amerika). So the imagery is maybe not so far from truth.
What you describe is usually called 'globalization', which of course has cultural, economic, political etc. facets. Politics
is always 'forced from above' to some degree, whether on a local, national or global level.
@Hoarse 80
While there was no coup in France, the nationalist ideologies are the same: Pretending to further the 'people's interests'
to garner support, but in reality doing the oligarchs' bidding.
I most certainly don't support neoliberals like Turnbull, Macron or whoever, but with the nationalists you'd get 'the same
but more so', plus heightened conflicts between various groups in society, a.k.a. divide and rule. Look at history, and don't
be fooled (again).
Germans will be disappointed by Macron's election. The force that is driving two countries apart are far bigger than thousands
of macrons.
Here are two fascinating very recent headlines:
Juxtapose one against the other - and it's pretty clear that German strength is a mirror reflection of French weakness.
Because both countries share the same currency, the only way for France to recover is for Germany to become sick. Therein lie
the seeds of conflict. Far from invigorated partnership, one should expect gradual, yet unrelenting unraveling of Franco-German
relations. Frustrated Macron will prove Germany's worst nightmare. It simply can't be any other way.
It looks as though the south koreans will be much happier with
their new president
than the french will be with theirs. In france the next dates of note are 11 and 18 june, aren't they? all this talk of germany
... de gaulle's speech was on the 18th of june, wasn't it? is micron really petain in drag?
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This is Part 3 of a four-part article, published in the March/April 2017 special "Costs of Empire" issue of Dollars & Sense magazine. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are available here. here , and here , respectively. Cross posted from Triple Crisis ..."
America is getting richer every year. The American worker is not.
Far from it: On average, workers born in 1942 earned as much or more over their careers than
workers born in any year since, according to new research - and workers on the job today shouldn't
expect to catch up with their predecessors in their remaining years of employment .
While economists have been concerned about recent data on earnings, the new paper suggests
that ordinary Americans have been dealing with serious economic problems for much longer than
may be widely recognized.
The new paper includes some "astonishing numbers," said Gary Burtless, an economist at the
nonpartisan Brookings Institution who was not involved in the research. "The stagnation of living
standards began so much earlier than people think," he said
For instance, the typical 27-year-old man's annual earnings in 2013 were 31 percent less than
those of a typical 27-year-old man in 1969. The data suggest that today's young men are unlikely
to make up for that decline by earning more in the future.
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies
and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. This is Part 3 of a four-part article, published
in the March/April
2017 special "Costs of Empire" issue of Dollars & Sense magazine. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are available
here.
here , and
here , respectively. Cross posted from
Triple Crisis
A recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute, "Poorer than Their Parents? Flat or falling
incomes in advanced economies" (July 2016) shows how the past decade has brought significantly worse
economic outcomes for many people in the developed world.
Falling Incomes
In 25 advanced economies, 65-70% of households (540-580 million people) "were in segments of the
income distribution whose real incomes were flat or had fallen" between 2005 and 2014. By contrast,
between 1993 and 2005, "less than 2 percent, or fewer than ten million people, experienced this phenomenon."
In Italy, a whopping 97% of the population had stagnant or declining market incomes between 2005
and 2014. The equivalent figures were 81% for the United States and 70% for the United Kingdom.
The worst affected were "young people with low educational attainment and women, single mothers
in particular." Today's younger generation in the advanced countries is "literally at risk of ending
up poorer than their parents," and in any case already faces much more insecure working conditions.
Shifting Income Shares
The McKinsey report noted that "from 1970 to 2014, with the exception of a spike during the 1973–74
oil crisis, the average wage share fell by 5 percentage points in the six countries studied in depth"
(United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden); in the "most extreme
case, the United Kingdom, by 13 percentage points."
These declines occurred "despite rising productivity, suggesting a disconnect between productivity
and incomes." Productivity gains were either grabbed by employers or passed on in the form of lower
prices to maintain competitiveness.
Declining wage shares are widely seen as results of globalization and technological changes, but
state policies and institutional relations in the labor market matter. According to the McKinsey
report. "Swedish labor policies such as contracts that protect both wage rates and hours worked"
resulted in ordinary workers receiving a larger share of income.
Countries that have encouraged the growth of part-time and temporary contracts experienced bigger
declines in wage shares. According to European Union data, more than 40% of EU workers between 15
and 25 years have insecure and low-paying contracts. The proportion is more than half for the 18
countries in the Eurozone, 58% in France, and 65% in Spain.
The other side of the coin is the rising profit shares in many of these rich countries. In the
United States, for example, "after-tax profits of U.S. firms measured as a share of the national
income even exceeded the 10.1 percent level last reached in 1929."
Policy Matters
Government tax and transfer policies can change the final disposable income of households. Across
the 25 countries studied in the McKinsey report, only 20-25% of the population experienced flat or
falling disposable incomes. In the United States, government taxes and transfers turned a "decline
in market incomes for 81 percent of all income segments into an increase in disposable income for
nearly all households."
Government policies to intervene in labor markets also make a difference. In Sweden, the government
"intervened to preserve jobs, market incomes fell or were flat for only 20 percent, while disposable
income advanced for almost everyone."
In most of the countries examined in the study, government policies were not sufficient to prevent
stagnant or declining incomes for a significant proportion of the population.
Effects on Attitudes
The deteriorating material reality is reflected in popular perceptions. A 2015 survey of British,
French, and U.S. citizens confirmed this, as approximately 40% "felt that their economic positions
had deteriorated."
The people who felt worse-off, and those who did not expect the situation to improve for the next
generation, "expressed negative opinions about trade and immigration."
More than half of this group agreed with the statement, "The influx of foreign goods and services
is leading to domestic job losses." They were twice as likely as other respondents to agree with
the statement, "Legal immigrants are ruining the culture and cohesiveness in our society."
The survey also found that "those who were not advancing and not hopeful about the future" were,
in France, more likely to support political parties such as the far-right Front National and, in
Britain, to support Brexit.
Effects on Politics
Decades of neoliberal economic policies have hollowed out communities in depressed areas and eliminated
any attractive employment opportunities for youth. Ironically, in the United States this favored
the political rise of Donald Trump, who is himself emblematic of the plutocracy.
Similar tendencies are also clearly evident in Europe. Rising anti-EU sentiment has been wrongly
attributed only to policies allowing in more migrants. The hostile response to immigration is part
of a broader dissatisfaction related to the design and operation of the EU. For years now, it has
been clear that the EU has failed as an economic project. This stems from the very design of the
economic integration-flawed, for example, in the enforcement of monetary integration without banking
union or a fiscal federation that would have helped deal with imbalances between EU countries-as
well as from the particular neoliberal economic policies that it has forced its members to pursue.
This has been especially evident in the adoption of austerity policies across the member countries,
remarkably even among those that do not have large current-account or fiscal deficits. As a result,
growth in the EU has been sclerotic at best since 2004, and even the so-called "recovery" after 2012
has been barely noticeable. Even this lacklustre performance has been highly differentiated, with
Germany emerging as the clear winner from the formation of the Eurozone. Even large economies like
France, Italy, and Spain experienced deteriorating per capita incomes relative to Germany from 2009
onwards. This, combined with fears of German domination, probably added to the resentment of the
EU that is now being expressed in both right-wing and left-wing movements across Europe.
The union's misguided emphasis on neoliberal policies and fiscal austerity packages has also contributed
to the persistence of high rates of unemployment, which are higher than they were more than a decade
ago. The "new normal" therefore shows little improvement from the period just after the Great Recession-the
capitalist world economy may no longer be teetering on the edge of a cliff, but that is because it
has instead sunk into a mire.
It is sad but not entirely surprising that the globalization of the workforce has not created
a greater sense of international solidarity, but rather undermined it. Quite obviously, progressive
solutions cannot be found within the existing dominant economic paradigm. But reversions to past
ideals of socialism may not be all that effective either. Rather, this new situation requires new
and more relevant economic models of socialism to be developed, if they are to capture the popular
imagination.
Such models must transcend the traditional socialist paradigm's emphasis on centralized government
control over an undifferentiated mass of workers. They must incorporate more explicit emphasis on
the rights and concerns of women, ethnic minorities, tribal communities, and other marginalised groups,
as well as recognition of ecological constraints and the social necessity to respect nature. The
fundamental premises of the socialist project, however, remain as valid as ever: The unequal, exploitative
and oppressive nature of capitalism; the capacity of human beings to change society and thereby alter
their own futures; and the necessity of collective organisation to do so.
NOTE: Parts of this article appeared in "The Creation of the New Imperialism: The Institutional
Architecture," Monthly Review , July 2015.
While incomes in the developed world are flat, the outcomes globalization has imposed
on labour in the developing world are even more dire. Lets face it, the global south is
effectively a labour reserve pool that is used by trans-national corporations as a de facto
income growth suppresant in the global north. This dynamic is particurlarly pernicious for
global south workers because they enter labour markets at or near subsistence level wages,
with upward income mobility nearly impossible as ill informed developing country governments,
in their naive quest to create investor friendly environments, bargain away any protections
that could ensure said upward income mobility. Furthermore, these trans-national corporations
are running a globalized exploitation racket where developing nations are pitted against
one another in a race to see who can enslave their labour force more fervently in service
of global capital. This of course has the effect of, at best, depressing incomes in developed
economies, and at worst, completely eliminating large swathes of jobs in many developed
economy sectors
I'd offer that the corporate entities that pretty much rule us are more completely described
as post- and supra-national than simply transnational. Creatures birthed like Aliens that
ate their way out of the mothers that spawned them. Given life by legalisms born out of
nation-states and other grafters of "franchise" and "legitimacy," now ingesting and digesting
their parents and lesser siblings.
Also, that there's just too many people living off a declining carrying capacity of the
planet. And what is with the notion that we all have some kind or reasonable expectation
to be "richer" than our parents? Is that not part of the algo-rhythms that are killing us
mopes, wracked with dreams of sugarplum carboconsumption and hyped with fevered visions
of "innovation" and "progress" based on "disruption" and monetization? And thus willing
(on the part of those who are aware of the vague shape of the Bezzle and hope to gain from
it, against the well-being of our fellows) or are so oppressed and oblivious and Bernays-ized
not to see it at all.
Immunity, impunity, invulnerability, the hallmarks of the looters. "Upward income mobility"
except for the very few that by birth or other lucky happenstance can manipulate their way
into the self-feeding gyre of wealth accumulation and attendant power, is an awful example
of unobtainium dangled at the end of the carrot-stick
The article points to the elephant in the room when it closes with "as well as recognition
of ecological constraints and the social necessity to respect nature."
One can suggest that TPTB may recognize that climate change/ecological damage is quite
real and continuing apace.
They know they have a "denominator/divisor" problem with respect to a growing world wide
population and resource allocation.
TPTB are hoovering up all they can for their future use.
Austerity policies and encouragement of subsistence level wages delay the ecological
day of reckoning as WW consumption is lower as a consequence.
as Wolfgang Schäuble and many others have said, We can't all trade our way out of this
mess. If we carry that insight one step further it becomes, We can't all manufacture our
way out of this mess. The problem with trying to invent an inclusive economy is that we
don't know how to do so without industry and industry will soon end life on this planet.
If the oceans collapse, it's over. So instead of using a mild form of identity politics
and a new social contract for sharing the gains of capitalism/socialism we will have to
confine ourselves to making and using/recycling what we need and nothing more. No surplus.
No trade. No finance based on debt servicing. And in an overpopulated world that means no
labor policies as we once knew them. For lack of imagination we are looking at a New Communism.
What else?
From Yves: "On average, workers born in 1942 earned as much or more over their careers
than workers born in any year since, according to new research"
1942 makes Schumpeter come to mind. His book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is the
most celebrated Marxism's bashing to date. Schumpeter's reading of Marx or Marxism does
not qualify as unfair; his was a non-reading activity. Here is an excerpt from Schumpeter,
the visionary (my emphasis added)
"For the RELATIVE SHARE OF WAGES AND SALARIES IN TOTAL INCOME varies but little from year
to year and is remarkably constant over time-it certainly does not reveal any tendency to
fall"
"creative destruction" has seemed mostly about breaking then remaking a social order
that serves the "masters of mankind" not to mention, spinning the fodder that rationalizes
an endless war racket, by their sycophantic apologists
"David" makes David Harvey come to mind "Neo-liberalism and the restoration of class
power"
The new paper includes some "astonishing numbers," said Gary Burtless, an economist
at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution who was not involved in the research. "The stagnation
of living standards began so much earlier than people think,"
Who are these "people" to whom he refers? Some of us have known that since waaaaay before
these numbers came out.
I wonder whether living standards have suffered much more than is typically documented.
The stuff that we're forced to buy - housing, medical care, education - are all way up and,
I suspect, make up a much larger share of the inflation-measuring typical basket of household
goods.
And other items take a big and probably under-measured chunk of income as well. I've
lost track of how many cellphones I've had to buy over the past 10 years, even though I
hate them and try to keep my consumption of these toxic little marvels to a minimum (unfortunately,
I'm required to have a smartphone for work).
On the flip side, from an owners perspective, I was able to hire 36 people in 1983 on
a given business gross income and today I struggle to employ 2 on that same gross.
"... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
"... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
"... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
"... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
"... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
"... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
"... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
"... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
"... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
"... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
"... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
"... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
"... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
"... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
"... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
"... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
"... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
"... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
"... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
Posted on May 9, 2017 by
Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of
FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further
doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.
Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation,
but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties
riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation
of being a straight shooter.
And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger;
it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox
led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the
coverup is worse than the crime".
To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some
key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to
at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement
supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal.
Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.
More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging
too hard into Trump-Russia connections .
We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney
general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights
to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless
move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.
In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public
trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years
of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I
encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham,
a South Carolina Republican.
Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and
associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed
William Sessions.
Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The
move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically
compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems
been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."
Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning"
action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".
The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much
noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having
peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer
of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.
Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports
Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section,
some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here
are the two key remarks:
I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt
"intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton
(which was not his job) render him unfit for office.
Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause
Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually
the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors.
So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they
are.
What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly
on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the
announcement to clearly outline the stakes.
"Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.
Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That
would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.
FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year
term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously.
Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director
or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.
I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will
be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't
care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.
Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs
message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down
@Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation.
They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought
or any consideration of consequences.
You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because
of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.
"Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"
"We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"
Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.
Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what
you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and
if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.
Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just
business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa
who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know
how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."
Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:
Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite.
And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the
divide.
I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion
of the voting population that is.)
The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think
this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact,
lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.
So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps,
really.
And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:
All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the
wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy
to drive ad rates.
"Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."
How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about
Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.
Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA
of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have
a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..
You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will
his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.
Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal
support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats.
Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still
hate them.
Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed,
could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than
they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave
Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.
The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary
(Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre
reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.
They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago.
In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since
they don't seem to be happening anyway.
Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the
NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.
Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside
of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more
protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.
Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen
charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self
on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people
who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont
cross
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against
people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who
don't fall in line.
"Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'
It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.
I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade
from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.
People are tapped out mentally with political talk.
People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail,
Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury
1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.
I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate
missing the 2 minute hate.
I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people
who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to
string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political
capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.
I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They
are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton
and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.
It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate
that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.
I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation
pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..
The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical
and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.
If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents,
quite unintentionally.
I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence
the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.
If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying
out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness.
I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues
with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.
I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity
that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way
to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately
it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )
Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are
some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?
You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already
famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage
during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican
and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.
And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated
a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before
you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.
All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also
has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X
has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people
what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.
We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:
1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine.
Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that.
And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed
(but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).
2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral
3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey
4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and
Reagan did far more serious meddling)
5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development.
One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class.
There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money
in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies,
owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of
cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible
too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.
So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been
looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.
Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure
there were not US citizens.
We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.
Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's
office/studio unit.
Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.
They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching.
And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.
Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant
reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.
Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless
but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.
Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new
Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist
factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan
re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.
"... The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done? ..."
i can never understand why politics has to be so complex, but it is.. it could be a lot more
simple.. so for those who want to understand why things happen, they have to go beyond the
surface..
this comey guy was dishonest.. why have someone like that around?
mccain - he has been a warmonger for forever.. why is he and so many others still around?
they sure aren't serving the public's need.. unfortunately trump isn't serving the publics
needs either..
i agree with @4 ftb.. now, just cause someone says trump is done, doesn't mean he stops
doing the crazy shit he is going continue to do.. but so far, none of it amounts to a hill of
beans.. i can't see him doing anything relevant at this point other then bringing more
trouble to the usa.. if he would step down prematurely, it wouldn't surprise me. he is out of
his league and needs to stick to twitter..
The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about
to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very
presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and
Trump get a few things done?
In the last weeks there has been a meeting between Tillerson and Putin, Lavrov and Trump
will be meeting soon. Comey in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation has now been sacked.
In Syria, US has hardly moved towards Raqqa, agreed to the Russian de-escalation zones which
free up Syrian forces for a drive on Deir Ezzor and possibly Raqqa. The other thing that has
appeared in the news in the last couple of weeks is that the Trump white house has not
approved any pentagon requests to run their so called freedom of navigation exercises against
China.
Nice observation. Personally, I still hold off any judgment on who Trump is - there simply
isn't enough roller-coaster motion yet to judge where the trend lines belong.
A lot of the things I see him get blamed for are actually only theater, including Korea -
or else relatively minor actions that satisfy subordinate departments (such as the US Navy),
and that appear to make waves but that don't actually capsize the big picture. It's an
uncomfortable brinkmanship to watch if you believe it's real, but I'm not sure that Trump
believes it's anything more than pre-negotiation sand in the eyes.
And a lot of other things that actually do happen domestically are part of the Republican
and classical conservative agenda anyway. No organized force in the US exists anymore to
combat these things, certainly not the sold-out Democrats and their long co-opted unions.
Meanwhile, as you note, the realities on the geopolitical ground globally proceed in a
direction favorable to peace.
Tillerson may be the one to watch to see where the Trump roller coaster is heading? Trump
distracts attention allowing Tillerson to get on with what they want to do?
very said day indeed
indeed
for usa usa and when israel is mighty oded yinon.
comey was the last man standing a modern day kevin costner elliot ness in a sea of nazi and
evil doing al capones and ali akhbar oceans 11ish
we champions of anti semitismus and lgbt plus minus barbera lerner spector multiculralism
frankfurt school must fight for are man
and woman and all the gender fluids in between.
so what if comey has a 5 million dollar home in the hamptons.
so what if he has a dossier for safe keeping and insurance .
so what if hsbc invested in him and andrew mcabe making them future proof.
we in the upper golan israeli oil and gas have too support and protect are assets if they be
in the fbi or in the al nusra syriana.
mcabe will do a great job smashing more phones hammer tongs and bleachbit. stabilising this
situation be assured mcabae will not rest until the ratlines drugs,arms slave and live organ
trades are back up to peak bush obarmee levels.
Fear and anger dominate the emotions of the French, and today's presidential election will not
only signify the predominance of one candidate over the other. It will also illustrate the predominance
of one emotion over the other.
Support for Macron is primarily motivated by fear of Marine Le Pen. Le Pen's support derives
from the anger against "the [neoliberal] system" personified by Macron.
According to the findings of an extensive study published in today's Monde newspaper, almost 70%
of French people are today in the grip of fear and 67% of anger at the political system!
Only 34% profess hope and only 26% enthusiasm when it comes to the French political system.
It is not fear, as is widely but falsely believed, according to researchers, but anger that impels
people towards "extremes", towards "populism", the fashionable term for antisystemic currents. This
is what experts have concluded.
Fear, they note, reinforces calculations of danger and makes people less adventurous in
their quest for solutions, and so more conservative.
I think Sutton starts with Trotzky. But what he says is that Wall Street is agnostic, all they
care about is making money. I think that there is no doubt about that.
If Marine Le Pen's victory should mean capital leaves France and comes to the US they might
vote Le Pen.
Very grievous consequences, especially with regard to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin's
annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-1941 because of
his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations. During these years repressions were
instituted against certain parts of our military cadres beginning literally at the company
- and battalion-commander levels and extending to higher military centers. During this time,
the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and in the Far East was almost
completely liquidated.
The policy of large-scale repression against military cadres led also to undermined
military discipline, because for several years officers of all ranks and even soldiers in Party
and Komsomol cells were taught to "unmask" their superiors as hidden enemies.
(Movement in the hall.)
It is natural that this caused a negative influence on the state of military discipline
in the initial stage of the war.
And, as you know, we had before the war excellent military cadres which were unquestionably
loyal to the Party and to the Fatherland.
There is more in his speech on Soviet lack of preparedness.
Khrushchev lied : the evidence that every "revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) "crimes"
in Nikita Khrushchev's infamous "secret speech" to the 20th party congress of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is provably false
from p85
As Kozhinov points out, Khrushchev's accusations here can be turned
■round on his own thesis. Historians do not blame President Roosevelt
for (ailing to foresee the atlsck on Pearl Harbor. Therefore to blame Sta-
lin for not foreseeing the precise time and place of the Nazi attack is to
Ul prey to the "cult of personality", to believe Stalin was supposed to
bre superhuman abilities and inexplicably failed to use them."<>
The Soviets could not declare a mobilization because that was universally
understood as a declaration of war. It was precisely such a mobilization
that had set off the First World War. It would have given Hitler the op-
poctunity to declare war, leaving the USSR vulnerable to a separate deal
between Hitler and the Allies. And in a plan for "Operation 'Ost'" drawn
up in 1940 German General>Major Marks make the regret^l remark that
The Russians will not do us the favor of attacking us [fixst]."ii7
Ihe Soviets could not rely upon British warnings* for the British clearly
wanted to set Hider against the Soviet Union and weaken both, if not use
die opportunity to make peace with Hitler against the Soviets, as many in
the British establishment wanted.
Marshal K.A. Meretskov, no admirer of Stalin, believed the situation im-
mediately preceding the war was very complex, impossible to predict. His
memoirs were published after Khrushchev's ouster, in 1968. Zhukov,
who had been demoted in disgrace after the war by Stalin and had helped
Khnishchev attack Stalin in 1957, thought the Soviet Union under Stalin
had done everything it could to prepare for the war.
Prior to the health reform law, consumers who have or who previously had medical issues
- even if it were years earlier and completely resolved - could be denied coverage or charged
much more in premiums. Obamacare remedies that by requiring insurers to cover everyone and
charge them the same amount, regardless of their health history. Also, it mandates all policies
cover 10 essential health benefits, including prescription drugs, hospitalization and doctors'
visits , so the sick could be assured their treatments are covered.
"The rules under Obamacare were comprehensive," said Karen Pollitz, senior fellow at
the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
This expansive coverage, however, comes with a high price tag. It bumps up the cost of
premiums for everyone. That's why the conservative Freedom Caucus set its sights on getting
rid of these popular provisions.
Related: Key GOP lawmakers flip on health care after Trump meeting
Under the most recent version of the GOP repeal bill, states would be allowed to opt out
of requiring insurers to cover everyone at the same price and to offer all 10 essential
health benefits in all policies. This would likely lead insurers to jack up rates for those
with pre-existing conditions who didn't maintain continuous coverage and to offer skimpy
plans that don't pay for the treatments the sick need.
---
1. Is it still a plan if it doesn't offer 'doctors visits?'
That is scary. And I have to ask, is it me not reading it correctly, or is it on the
writer?
2. It bumps up the cost of premiums for everyone those popular provisions.
Probably the situation is more complex. Intuitively, more costly for everyone is not
often associated with being popular.
3. jack up rates for those with pre-existing conditions who didn't maintain continuous
coverage.
Those with pre-existing conditions are today covered for those who are not paying a penalty.
They are in 'continuous' coverage, are they not? And the risk is jacked up rates – that
is, a money issue.
The difference between Medicare for All, and Free Medicare for All is also a money issue.
This is a gift to the corporate democrats as it provides cover for and shifts blame to the
GOP in regards to a system that was well on its way to painfully dying. The people that keep
focus on single payer will be blamed even more as well for worsening the situation. A lot more
revisionism is coming our way as the terrible reality that was Obama will be made out to look
like Trump is the root cause of what is going on. As stated earlier, if Trump wanted to destroy
the Dems all he'd have to do is let ACA be run by the Dems and let that run it's natural course,
now the GOP own it. As shown by the first commenter. Political Kabuki.
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country here)-first voters. ..."
"... Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage. ..."
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to
vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the
crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they
are to believe the lies.
Started watching
500
Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from
it... had to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right
before bed (unless one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people
should be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal
thugs is what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment
in time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as
most other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try
something new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes
is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of
how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that
I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of
country here)-first voters.
Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional
electoral system, a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition
candidate to gain enough popular votes to win.
Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor
are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready
to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage.
@"somebody" In the depths of the Depression, Comrade Vissarionovich sought loans from Wall
Street to industrialize Soviet industry. Wall Street was happy to oblige: the rest of the
world was on its knees. Stalin knew what was coming; he had read Mein Kampf; he had fought the
Whites. No doubt Wall Street thought they could usurp the Bolshevik revolution. They were
wrong.
"... By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics, University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at Inter Press Service ..."
Yves here. Even though much of the material in this post will be familiar to
regular readers, some points are worth emphasizing. One defense regularly made
of globalization is that even though it has lowered income of less-skilled
workers in advanced economies (and even those of some skilled workers),
laborers in emerging economies have gained. This picture is simplistic. As
Joseph Stiglitz pointed out years ago, and the picture hasn't changed much,
China has captured all of the income gains by emerging economies. Poverty in
developing economies ex China hasn't budged. And the authors stress that
inequality has exploded in China.
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General
for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics,
University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions
in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at
Inter
Press Service
Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades, but
recognition of the role of economic liberalization and globalization in
exacerbating inequality has never been so widespread. The guardians of global
capitalism are nervous, yet little has been done to check, let alone reverse
the underlying forces.
Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has described severe income inequality as the
biggest risk facing the world. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has observed, "We have
too large a disparity in the world; we need more inclusiveness If we continue
to have un-inclusive growth and we continue with the unemployment situation,
particularly youth unemployment, our global society is not sustainable."
Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director, told political and business
leaders at the WEF, "in far too many countries the benefits of growth are being
enjoyed by far too few people. This is not a recipe for stability and
sustainability." Similarly, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has warned that
failure to tackle inequality risked causing social unrest. "It's going to erupt
to a great extent because of these inequalities."
In the same vein, the influential US Council of Foreign Relations' journal,
Foreign Affairs
, carried an article cautioning, "Inequality is indeed
increasing almost everywhere in the post-industrial capitalist world . if left
unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order
and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."
Much Ado About Nothing?
Increasingly, the main benefits of economic growth are being captured by a
tiny elite. Despite global economic stagnation for almost a decade, the number
of billionaires in the world has increased to a record 2,199. The richest one
per cent of the world's population now has as much wealth as the rest of the
world combined. The world's eight richest people have as much wealth as the
poorer half.
In India, the number of billionaires has increased at least tenfold in the
past decade. India now has 111 billionaires, third in the world by country. The
largest number of the world's abject poor also live in the same country - over
425 million, a third of the world's poor, and well over a third of the
country's population.
Africa had a resource boom for a decade until 2014, but most people there
still struggle daily for food, clean water and health care. Meanwhile, the
number of people living in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, has
grown substantially to at least 330 million from 280 million in 1990!
In Europe, poor people bore the brunt of draconian austerity policies while
bank bailouts mainly benefited the moneyed. 122.3 million people, or 24.4 per
cent of the population in the EU-28, are at risk of poverty. Between 2009 and
2013, the number of Europeans without enough money to heat their homes or cope
with unforeseen expenses, i.e., living with "severe material deprivation," rose
by 7.5 million to 50 million people, while the continent is home to 342
billionaires!
In the United States, the income share of the top one per cent is at its
highest level since the eve of the Great Depression, almost nine decades ago.
The top 0.01 per cent, or 14,000 American families, own 22.2 per cent of its
wealth, while the bottom 90 per cent, over 133 million families, own a meagre
four per cent of the nation's wealth. The top five per cent of households
increased their share of US wealth, especially after the 2008 financial crisis.
Meanwhile, the richest one per cent tripled their share of US income within a
generation.
This unprecedented wealth concentration and the corresponding deprivation of
others have generated backlashes, arguably contributing to the victory of
Donald Trump in the US presidential election, the Brexit referendum, the
strength of Marine Le Pen in France, the Alternative for Germany, and the
ascendance of the Hindutva right in secular India.
"Communist" China and Inequality
Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as
inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country. China
has supplied cheaper consumer goods to the world, checking inflation and
improving living standards for many. Part of its huge trade surplus - due to
relatively low, albeit recently rising wages - has been recycled in financial
markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand credit at low interest rates
there.
Thus, cheap consumer products and cheap credit have enabled the slowly
shrinking "middle class" in the West to mitigate the downward pressure on their
living standards despite stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal
and household debt.
China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has sharply
increased income inequality in the world's largest country for more than three
decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of the world," no longer New
York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33 more than in the US!
Since the 1980s, income inequality in China has risen faster than most!
China now has one of the world's highest levels of income inequality, rising
mainly in the last three decades. The richest one per cent of households own a
third of the country's wealth, while the poorest quarter own only one per cent.
China's Gini coefficient for income rose to 0.49 in 2012 from 0.3 over three
decades before when it was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.
Another survey put China's income Gini at 0.61 in 2010, greatly exceeding the
US's 0.45!
Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality
is a rather
misleading, or rather, abbreviated, subhead. On suspects it should be
Global Elite Alarmed that Growing Inequality may not be Sustainable
.
Is there any evidence anywhere that Global Elites would want voluntarily to
reduce inequality?
The reality is the global elite are alarmed that inequality isn't high
enough, and fear having to give up a single dollar to the poors. There is no
measuring stick big enough to measure the elite's greed.
Apple workers in China are so abused and underpaid, I am waiting for a
factory rampage. When your sweat is stolen by Tim Cook colluding with the
criminal leaders of China to steal all your effort for themselves, that
would drive anyone nuts. Buying an Apple product means thousands of Chinese
slaves are tortured.
Proof: 1% in US keep on arguing how they only collect 20% of income
but pay 40% of taxes.
They don't seem to realize that if their income had stayed at 30x the
lowest paid instead of 300x, the lower paid would actually be paying more
taxes.
Second, the rich typically have low incomes relative to assets so if
taxes included assets, it would be interesting to see how that proportion
would change.
Furthermore, why should someone get waterfront property just because
of their birthright and have the audacity to tell the younger ones to
pick themselves up by their bootstraps? If society does not fix the
problem, Mother Nature will.
Chinese labor get's shot if they were to try and organize a fight
for better working conditions. The elite here and there conspire with
each other to profit from it.
Here is proof:
Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown
rapidly as inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly
communist-ruled country. China has supplied
cheaper consumer
goods to the world, checking inflation and improving living standards
for many
. Part of its huge trade surplus - due to
relatively low
, albeit recently rising wages - has been
recycled in financial markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand
credit at low interest rates there.
Thus,
cheap consumer products and cheap credit
have enabled the slowly shrinking "middle class" in the West to
mitigate the downward pressure on their living standards despite
stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal and household
debt.
China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has
sharply increased income inequality in the world's largest country for
more than three decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of
the world," no longer New York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33
more than in the US!
There are suicide prevention nets in the stairwells and around the
building where Apple products are made. And they make really shitty
money, compared to what they put out.
Apple has what, a fifth of a trillion stashed "offshore". Where did
it come from? Right out of the sweat of those workers.
There is a fundamental difference between our politicians and
Chinese politicians.
In our system, narcissists are elected and are then surrounded by
psychopaths, in China it's a total brawl all the way to the top, so
they skip the narcissist step.
One way that inequality can be mitigated is by increasing government
spending to create jobs and improve infrastructure but forecasts of the
benefits can be manipulated to defeat such proposals by usually showing that
less than a dollar of GDP growth is returned for each dollar of spending.
Economists at North Carolina Sate U. have recently created an agnostic model
stripped of partisan bias of how government spending benefits GDP and they show
about $1.30 of GDP growth for each dollar spent. Let me quote (the original
paper is paywalled):
" most widely used model for predicting how U.S. government spending affects
gross domestic product (GDP) can be rigged using theoretical assumptions to
control forecasts of how government spending will stimulate the economy Based
on their observations, the researchers then developed an agnostic model, which
was designed to avoid those tweaks that predispose the results to support a
particular argument We found that the agnostic model predicts roughly $1.30 in
near-term GDP growth for each $1 in spending."
I think most of us realize the details of how to decrease inequality -
just as most of us thinking people realize that inequality increases
unemployment which increases inequality - so your comment falls upon those
who are tired with the oblivious who seem ignorant that the problem is not
with the HOW, it is with that bloody revolution which has yet to come!
Yeah, I've always wondered what factors, besides sheer greed, elite
inbreeding and stupidity, are responsible for the wide range of national GINI
rankings.
According to the CIA anyway, among the most equal are affluent Germany
(27.0) France (30.1) and Sweden (24.0), but also not-rich Albania (29.0)
Romania (27.3) and, most equal, Slovenia at 23.7.
The European Union as a whole is rated GINA 30.1. The handful of
non-European countries that crack the more equal list, strangely are, in
ascending order Kazakstan (28.9) Pakistan (29.6) South Korea (30.2) and
Australia (30.3).
Geographically, there is a swath of more-equal economies stretching from
Western Europe to North Africa, South-west Asia (middle east) through India,
Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Japan. This tends towards the idea that
old-world, culturally cohesive societies have an interest in maintaining
economies that promote inclusion and common interest. The Muslim barbarians and
European socialists are less prone to exploiting their neighbors or throwing
them overboard than we are, although Washington is working hard to remedy this
situation.
Canada and Australia have wisely plotted a course closer to their European
forbears than their American cousins.
Southern Africa, Latin America starting at the Rio Grande, China, Russia
(bordering much more equal Kazakhstan?) and of course the USA are the
heartlands of inequality. The common thread here, I presume, is their colonial
heritage.
There may be something to the argument about homogeneous societies having a
cultural advantage and all that, but England (32.4) and France, hardly
exemplars of racial tranquility, or Australia, India and Canada seem to say
otherwise.
The interesting thing seen easily on the map is that low income "developing"
countries, with exceptions like Hong Kong (53.7) have a large preponderance of
high GINI scores.
Middle-income China, Russia and Brazil, are joined by the always exceptional
United States as continental empires with extreme inequality.
I'm not sure Canada can survive without socialism.
If we use current economic productivity and efficiency models, it would
seem that North-South activity would make more sense than East-West. So from
my perspective, if we want Canada to work, we have to share and accept
higher costs and less material wealth to reach that goal.
The other issue we are facing capital from China let's say there are 10
million Chinese (we only have something like 12m households) who want to get
their money out and a few million Canadians who want to get rich selling
their house, you can imagine what kind of havoc the zirp/bailout/EZ money
policies have unleashed on small attractive countries like Canada.
And our leaders are still denying the impact of foreign capital on our
real estate market. Because these are the people who live in the overvalued
urban areas and quite happy to see their home values soar.
IMO, protectionism will need to rear its ugly head.
Remember, please, GINI scores do not accurately represent growing
inequality within countries, they just supposedly represent inequality
BETWEEN countries.
>>>"Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as
inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country."
Participated in what?
We're the bottom of the barrel. They're the cream on top. But the vessel is
being overpressurized, accidentally on purpose. How much more can we take
before the Great Blowout?
Surprisingly, but not to me, is that New York State holds the worst GINA
rank at 49.9, a fact due not solely to the density of high income jerk-offs
like Trump who claim residence there, but to the density of truly impoverished
people that still remain in the five boroughs of NYC and the abandoned former
industrial cities of upstate New York.
Although they report a very high 21% "poverty" rate, NYC's Commission on
Equal Opportunity reports in 2012 that 40% of New York City families subsisted
on less than $34,000 annually. Anyone familiar with the absurd official poverty
thresholds, or the punishing cost of living in NYC for working people, well, do
your own math.
Suffice it to say, national GINI rankings tell only part of the story.
There is a whole other realm of study in qualifying GINI effects by state,
county, zip code or tract level.
Bernie did best in the most egalitarian states interesting. Rich people
vote more and if you are rich in an unequal state Bernie must sound like
Satan.
I guess you meant
more rich people vote
, but there're
hidden truths in
rich people vote more
which are worth
unpacking.
– In the US system, money talks. Rich people donate to support their
future benefactors, which buys MSM speech and advertising that sways
gullible votes to their side.
– Elected representatives are often in it to get rich, and are
certainly bought and paid for. So rich people get the votes on the
legislation that matters to them. The rest get representatives who simply
don't deliver on the policies and promises that they ran on. Obama.
I was also thinking that broad data like the above hide the obvious
solution. But I don't know how working from localities upward from towns to
counties to cities to states would technically work to redistribute income.
I know how they redistribute state tax money for the state's dept of
education – they pool the money and distribute it per pupil evenly across
all districts. The poorest districts getting the most help. So
redistribution of income via taxes would have to come from the tax
authority, i.e. the state. But that leaves local resources and solutions
unused. As unused as they are disenfranchised from neoliberal globalization.
It is just those very local communities that could be enlisted and employed
to clean up the environment and do it sustainably. The state could subsidize
cleanup. Organic farming. Artisans of all sorts. The fact that there is such
inequality, and the fact that we are awash in garbage, pollution, and
climate change seem to go hand in glove; and the mess is totally reversible.
But start at the local level.
Fresh water and arable land are becoming scarce and climate change
will only exacerbate the trend. People could be put to useful, gratifying
work using that suburban farmer's idea. Those large subsurban yards
covered in meticulous lawns could be put to use feeding the world.
Thanks for your great remarks and comments - should be highly informative
to many.
Also important to note - given the incredibly shrinking middle class in
America (which might not always appear that way in the purposely faulty
numerical data presented - or misrepresented) - that it is always worse than
it appears since such data derives from the Census Bureau, which tracks ONLY
wages, not income streams from capital gains (such as bonds and stocks,
etc.). This (purposely) skews the size of the middle class much larger than
it actually is - and it has been dramatically shrinking in America - as
those rich and super-rich show up listed as in the middle class,
economically.
Also, important to keep in mind that much supposed "data" comes from the
National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), which has as an
emeritus
,
one Martin Feldstein from Harvard. Said Feldstein was a director at HCA when
they were hit with the largest out-of-court penalty settlement for their
Medicare/Medicaid fraud back in the 1990s. Said Feldstein was a director at
Eli Lilly when they were hit with the then-largest criminal penalty for
fraudulent marketing of their drugs. Said Feldstein was a director at
AIG/Financial Products when they had to be bailed out by the US government
for partaking in the largest insurance swindle in US history, so EVERYTHING
coming out of the NBER should be considered suspect, given the character of
its crew!
I wonder about Gini scores for the UK. A lot of residential central London
is now owned by extremely rich people like Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs.
My suspicion is that they are excluded from the figures. Their impact on the
local economy by pricing just about everyone else out of this market is,
however, non-trivial.
Yes, this site has carried some excellent articles in the past about this
subject, GINI essentially tracks the supposed inequality among countries,
not WITHIN the individual countries (or at least it fails to do so).
Something with is as appropriate to the UK as it is to America, a quote
from an outstanding book,
Glass House
, by Brian Alexander:
"Corporate elites said they needed free-trade agreements, so they got
them. Manufacturers said they needed tax breaks and public money incentives
in order to keep their plants operating in the USA, so they got them. Banks
and financiers needed looser regulations, so they got them. Employers said
they needed weaker unions – or no unions at all – so they got them. Private
equity firms said they needed carried interest and secrecy, so they got
them. What did Lancaster and a hundred other town like it get? Job losses,
slashed wages, poor civic leadership, social dysfunction, drugs."
To alter James Carville's noted quote, "It's capitalism, stupid." Or at
least the way it is configured so that short term profit for the ownership
class takes precedence over the immoral destruction of societies and mother
earth.
Rampant inequality, joblessness, homelessness is not a shameful aspect of
unfortunate excesses of few or tragic side effect of modern mass capitalism but
in fact it is its best feature, in fact absolutely necessary even critical to
the success of this unbelievable confidence scheme callled capitalist
socioeconomics enhanced by debt based monetary system and fiat currency.
And we all believe in that sham. We all believe in the value system and
valuation of our commodified social life by somehow divine authority of few
puny lowlifes in the ruling elite who are laughing at us all the way to the
empty bank they own and we are indebted to.
As long as we believe that we work for money, a useless symbol of our total
dependence, not for food, sustenance and shelter, as long as we believe we need
money that cannot be eaten or utilized as a material for building shelter but
can best be used as an emergency bathroom tissue substitute, we are lost
begging for mercy enslaving ourselves to strangers for nothing but an illusion
that breaths and promotes rampant inequality.
I know it sounds shocking but give it a thought if you can.
Here I found unique and controversial take on origins of money that touches
upon similar theme of money itself as a propaganda tool of social control.
"Even if everyone worked their butt off or got multiple PhDs, we'd
still need workers to clean radiation messes, toilet bowls or change
diapers."
Is there some law that says that PhD's can't clean radiation messes,
toilet bowls or change diapers? Shouldn't everyone be responsible for
"survival work"? Why should it just be some class of "workers" that need
to do those jobs? Why are some people considered so much better than
others that they are exempt from "survival work"? What if everyone put
some of their work time every day doing this "survival work" before they
did their "careers"?
Unfortunately, this is just another example of how the neoliberal
ideology has infiltrated everyone's thinking, even those who are
diametrically opposed to neoliberalism on some level and why it is going
to be so hard to get rid of ..
My late father, who looked for employment during the Great
Depression, would say "You needed a college degree to pump gas for
Standard Oil".
He had a cynical view of college degrees, asserting that if degrees
were necessary for jobs, the future employers should help with the
training expense.
The "must get an expensive college degree" assertion is losing its
effectiveness on the stressed American population, where we approach
nominal full employment at poor wages.
I suspect the education that is most needed in the USA is critical
thinking that serves to question the wisdom of our government and the
MSM in the propaganda they promote..
My dad did have a college degree, but his experience in his
father's store helped him get a job as a butcher for Safeway
during the Great Depression.
As I remember the story, many were vying for the Safeway
butcher job, but he outlined how his prior experience would
"help them sell more meat".
All one has to do is look at the projections from the labor
department for STEM job growth over the next 10 years (about
100K/year) and compare that to the similarly sized H1-B visa
count that tech firms want per year to see that a STEM college
education is not the safe haven in the job market that the MSM
promotes.
International companies cast a world wide net for educated
talent, and are probably unconcerned how much a prospective
employee's degree cost to acquire.
And these corporations also want to lower their US taxes,
which indirectly cuts public education funding.
We don't actually need PhD outside physical sciences.
It is a qualification ONLY in the Thesis subject matter.
We also don't need so many Lawyers and should turn of the
production line (maybe that is what inflates GDP in UK and
US .lawyers billing rates ?)
Excellent point, but that is the purpose of Identity Politics, to
erase the concept of "the worker" from our minds and thoughts,
practiced by both the r-cons of the bankster party and the faux crats
of the bankster party.
The r-cons' identity politics is that the "media" (still haven't
found them in Amerika) are "liberal" (still have found that, either)
and the r-cons are besieged by these outfits.
The faux crats wish to focus on every possible sub-grouping of
humans, to the exclusion of wage earners.
Worked for decades, but I suspect it may possibly and finally be
beginning to fall apart . . .
"Do we really need the education we are getting for most of the jobs
out there?"
The future belongs to those capable of handling it – the others will
be cast to the wayside. Do you really want to condemn most people to
being part of the wayside? Why do you think education is becoming so
expensive?
We do indeed all need more education, but not of the type that most
people think. The education young people suffer through for years and
then go into debt for more of is designed largely to impoverish,
enslave, and brainwash. It's anti-education, creating false
expectations, instilling poisonous memes, punishing independence and
non-compliance.
There are exceptions of course. Education for the rich is designed
to teach the rules of the game, weed out the unreliable, and establish
lifetime networks.
I am reminded that people with curious minds are always
educating themselves – formal setting or not- wealthy or not.
The social system should provides an outlet for those talents
and effort. The failing of todays ruling ideology is that human
talent is undervalued and underutilized. In effect, built on
waste and inefficiency in a broader sense. Todays economic
system seems most efficient on creating inequality.
A 4 hour work day based on a livable wage could open many
"educational" doors.
I am also old enough to remember that vocational training
was taken seriously in public schools without social stigma.
Labor was not a dirty word. A different form of critical
thinking focused on manufacture.
Are you referring to the "practical" one and two year programs
like the Australian TAFE system ? I got a two year computer degree
from such a program almost twenty
years ago and was fairly impressed with the program. Of the twenty
people in my class, eighteen had at least a masters degree in some
technical
subject though the program was designed for those who did not seek
to
go to university. The ones with the advanced degrees such as myself
were unemployed and so retraining.
Not at all. Practical training like TAFE (or like TAFE used
to be) can be valuable, depending on what course you choose. I'm
referring to primary, secondary and university education as it
is offered to the mainstream today in the western world.
Primary and secondary education is degraded for reasons far
too complex to get into here. Of course there are still tertiary
courses and teachers that educate, but universities are now run
strictly as commercial enterprises, and such teachers find it
harder and harder to prosper.
Before John Major UK had quality courses such as City &
Guilds and Part-Time University Courses – "Sandwich Courses"
where working students had Block or Day Release to study and
could work through their studies with access to industrial
labs and equipment and university facilities. It was very
cost-effective. Major turned everyone into Full-Time Students
so they emerged after 3 years with no relevant industrial
experience and lots of debt
The answer to your question is No. The resistance to single payer
health care in America belies that fact. Many alternative lifestyles
would be possible if one could relieve exorbitant medical care from
household expenses. Private businesses would be indirectly forced to
offer more humane working conditions, regardless of what that work
entailed by the mere fact that labor could easily relocate to a less
exploiting employer. Added to that, the removal of stress accompanied by
needing to deal with medical uncertainties of life. A sane society would
provide care for all its members.
Guaranteed food, shelter, basic education, healthcare, and some form
of work are all that is required from a just society. That should be the
criteria for evaluating the system. This is not utopia, and is within
reach. There is nothing technical holding this realization back. The
elite create conflict to secure their position. They believe in
inequality.
When you look at it, most "jobs" in capitalist society don't satisfy
any legitimate human need for survival. Not to mention the needs of the
remaining life on the planet. Most are satisfying manufactured wants. A
cynical play on human emotion that condemns most to unhappy and stressful
lives.
Change will happen when a critical mass of people can get past the
fear and psychological damage that is caused by manufactured needs,
excessive higher education for all being one them. In and of itself, a
"higher education" is meaningless if you cannot practice the acquired
skill. Are lower work hours on the horizon to accommodate all the excess
degrees? Not in the least.
This is not to say that lifelong education should not be an
aspirational goal. Only to stress that the social organizing structure
must accommodate that goal in a meaningful way. Right now, in America, it
is mostly overt exploitation. A creative way to manufacture debt slaves.
Once upon a time, most of the highly educated took a vow of poverty
with the assurance they would be cared for in a time of need.
Today most jump on the degree bandwagon to get on the road to
material consumption and end up realizing they were sold an expensive
if not worthless bill of goods.
Regarding excessive higher education as a manufactured need, I
think there are at least two other factors at play besides
credentialism and the (futile?) pursuit of good careers.
One is the decline in the literacy, numeracy, general knowledge,
and other educational achievements of your average high school
graduate compared to 30 years ago. It's well recognised in
universities that much of what used to be taken as known by
freshpersons, today needs to be taught or retaught in the early years
of a university/college course.
The second factor is simply the growing complexity and pace of
change of the world we inhabit. I suspect this is a major reason
behind the increase in the number of years of fulltime education the
average person seems to think they require.
+ 100
I think that people are so driven to value themselves in terms of money,
that they won't even allow other ideas like this to enter their
consciousness
Sadly, now is the time when we need to be thinking about other ideas,
because the ones we currently accept as valid just aren't working for most
of the world's people ..
Thank you. You seem to be the only one who got my most important point
namely a subversive function of money as a propaganda of liberalism that
underlie socioeconomic system of capitalism and commodification
(valuation and valorization in terms of money) of environment and social
relations.
What I mean by "propaganda of liberalism" is hijacking of ideas of
individual Freedom to mean abandonment of common interests and separation
from community, also separation from community in a form of alienation of
private property from community commons and hence introduction of money
as a representation of the private property, capital or collateral in a
debt based monetary system.
The money is so much embedded into people's psyche that trying to
explain artificiality of such an arrangement amounts to a sort of
Copernican revolution of explaining reality that completely contradicts
everyday common sense experience.
What's insidious in capitalism is that social relations among masses
of people are forced to be negotiated by money in addition to old ways of
social relations (also labor relations) being negotiated by social
position and political power and/or what we call culture i.e a common set
of attitudes and practices that have been empirically/historically proven
beneficial for community.
People do not realize that even 200 years ago many people were living
who did not use money even once in their lives since they did not need
to, they produced their own food, cloths, tools, they barter other goods
and even taxes they paid via field labor.
Imagine us today paying all our bills directly with our labor, one
thing we have abundant and we control, not scarce money controlled solely
by greedy elite.
Unemployment would be something our children would have learned about
only from history pages.
I guess nobody every read False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, by
John Gray then a professor at the London School of Economics. It was published
in 1998 and is to this day the greatest critique of neoliberal economic dogma
ever written. Then again Gray is an intellectual's intellectual so the media
has always ignored him in favor of pop intellectual simpletons like Tom
Friedman.
It is as if Gray had a time machine which allowed him to see the future.
Prior to 1914 Global Capitalism had powered ahead hindered only by US
Tariff Walls such as McKinley Tariff and the upsurge in Tariffs in Germany,
Russia, France and a ludicrous British commitment to Free Trade which
destroyed investment in industry as capital flowed overseas. The result was
1914-18 War and the removal of Russia (the fastest-growing market) from
European trade and destruction of Germany and Central Europe
Social unrest and a populous backlash against global capitalism are always
trotted out as the main effects gross economic inequalities will have. But
given the elites control of the media and our economy they have the tools and
power to limit unrest and any backlash. The more important effect of economic
inequality is that it will destroy capitalism itself.
That is reassuring, I would hate to think "the Global Elite" was out of
touch or playing shepherdess in Hameau de la Reine; it is good to know the
Controllers have their finger on the pulse and are "caring" for us.
Cynicism is well-fed in the current era.
Years ago I read Amy Chua's book "World On Fire" (2002)
None of the workers give a shit about how rich the rich are. All they want
is a living wage. That the rich, who Piketty points out are rich because they
inherited wealth to start with won't pay, is insane on the part of the rich.
Le Pen was similar to Trump in her desire to improve the relations with Russia and generally more
realistic view of recent events. she is not a USA stooge. That probably a partial reason why she lost.
Macron is somewhat like French Obama a shadow figure who is a marionette of forces behind him, not a
actual politician.
Notable quotes:
"... the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has been over-hyped from the day after results were announced. ..."
"... the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday joke). ..."
"... It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen... ..."
"... Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared, fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power. ..."
"... Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west. The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out. ..."
"... Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems but with the elite. ..."
"... to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday. ..."
"... Exactly. I wouldnt be surprised if its Macron team itself that leaked this dull, uninportant stuff to show that "russians have interfered". ..."
"... Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. ..."
"... That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST "adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him. ..."
"... they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human. ..."
"... Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises. ..."
"... That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. ..."
"... she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies ..."
"... long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly wake up, but i wouldn't count on it.. ..."
"... " the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists versus nationalists. ..."
"... Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states. Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not. ..."
"... A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines... ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc. ..."
"... Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy. ..."
"... Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline, sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite, or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a very conventional profile! ..."
"... You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals. They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common man. ..."
"... In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might just be that the French are happy the way things are. ..."
"... Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US. Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency will make possible a Front National victory in five years. ..."
"... The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron. (Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country jokingly "East Corea" ..."
"... I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency. Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions. Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things. Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war. ..."
"... I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes, it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary people in France and the US. ..."
"... Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow. ..."
"... In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister, now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true French populist and nationalist. ..."
"... She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken to de Gaulle. ..."
"... Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide, against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump. ..."
"... The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming from the Twitter account of Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California. Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley protest. ..."
"... Originated online in California, just before the 2.5 hour debate between Le Pen and Macron. ..."
"... Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw ..."
"... In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free trade. ..."
"... Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting result' - the Russians did it! ..."
"... Macron has no effective political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. ..."
"... she has said that she won't allow French citizens to have Israeli passports ..."
"... Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011. ..."
"... The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan? ..."
"... Macron's dirty secrets according to The Duran: http://theduran.com/breaking-macron-emails-lead-to-allegations-of-drug-use-homosexual-adventurism-and-rothschild-money/ ..."
"... Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all / those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone.. and just keep their heads down. ..."
"... The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc. though some contacts/friendships cross these lines. ..."
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Good short summmary: The Truth About Macron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6H0cjIN4gw ..."
"... n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote, either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy. ..."
"... The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid, if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe. ..."
"... That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin, ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. ..."
"... Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands. ..."
"... These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast. ..."
"... Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party, F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left. ..."
"... Obomo praises Emmanuel Macron well run campaign and like Emmanuel Macron's "Liberal value" . Good ridden! ..."
"... Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow: ..."
"... The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist ..."
"... The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!" ..."
"... The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation straight to Hell. ..."
"... The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting a dangerous Extremist. ..."
"... Macron is a shark (report from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced by his family background to take their point of view into account. ..."
"... The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate. ..."
"... I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le Pen. ..."
"... You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades" and "civil war". ..."
"... What does that say about any French thinking their vote matters? Look at the choices they were "offered". ..."
"... the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future "political showbiz" career at an early age. ..."
"... the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities. ..."
"... If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. ..."
"... A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9 percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support to either of the candidates." ..."
The French 2017 election has become the battle of the status quo; one a historical myth (La Pen)
providing some comfort from a perceived tradition, the other of hidden political power looking
to perpetuate itself by stealth and deception (Macron). Should the French electorate decide that
silence can be an effective form of a lie, they can support the candidate which best meets the
voter's best interests. La Pen is a candidate of a legitimate but small political party; Macron
has, like any good magician, produced a facsimile political group, a crypto-political party. Taking
a page from U.S. political history, lies never produce the results they promise. Good luck France,
reach into your conscious and vote your best interests Sunday. The world awaits your collective
decision if politics still operates in France.
"It seems clear so far the the synthetic Rothschild candidate will win this round."
That's the way it's shaping up, despite the weirdness of Obama adding his name to the Kiss
Of Death list of pro-Micron Swamp Dwellers headed by such unpopular has-beens as Hollande, Sarkozy
et al.
There's too much contrived 'flexibility' in this charade. In Round 1 the voter-participation
rate settled at 77.1% after early cites that it was a fraction under 70%. That's a huge jump in
a factor which normally reveals reliable trends. Also the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has
been over-hyped from the day after results were announced.
The final outcome will hinge on how gullible/docile French voters are, historically-speaking.
the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll
cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday
joke).
It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating
against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for
Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen...
France will be rudderless, adrift, enduring a exponential increase in violence and internal political
and cultural strife. Then, next election Le Pen will nab it. They aren't there yet.
Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite
views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared,
fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power.
I see the UK is now wanting to introduce more investigatory powers on the web essentially eliminating
end to end encryption. The EU countries are going to go full Big Brother before they let the populist
right movement gain any more traction. Again, they may only be delaying the inevitable.
Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or
less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west.
The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people
are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out.
Pro-bankers
Pro-war
Pro-establishment
Anti-Russia
Pro-Nato
Pro EU
Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause
more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems
but with the elite.
I cant see why anyone would vote for Macron, even his eyes/looks are slimy.
Another Leaks about emails, this time about Macron. The difference is that nobody is allowed to
publish any part of it by the electoral commission (15,000 euros fine). No doubt there will be
a huge crackdown on alt media once he gets elected.
France is an occupied country, much more than the US
to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just
generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords
few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting
came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday.
@jen : what possibility ? none Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I
know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because
they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. And that's it. They
probably don't fully believe it, but the doubt was hammered deep in their mind, and they won't
take the (imaginary) risk to appear the on "wrong" side of history and be shamed for years...
And the same thing will obviously happen tomorrow.
That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST
"adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half
of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him.
they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned
job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having
said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile
like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human.
Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken
it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald
Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more
experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises.
That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her
actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. Of the two
areas she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is
avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the
Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies . The other is possibly succeeding in upending
the European Union and the Eurozone - which as it stands, does everything for rapacious banks
and an export at any cost dependent Germany, and nothing for anyone else other than a small group
of plutocrats.
long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full
on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle
their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views
will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly
wake up, but i wouldn't count on it..
in france, terrorism will continue.. in europe a greater
malaise will prevail.. in the world, things look to be falling apart.. maybe more war for all
the wrong reasons, if nothing else.. macron will be onside with global dominance thru the west
of syria.. the usual lame excuses will be trotted out..
" the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists
versus nationalists.
Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states.
Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing
a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not.
This US has ceded much of their power to corporations. Past time to take it back.
Macron, next Pres. of France, an exceptional person. (I am not a fan.)
A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a
candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial
elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines...
ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc.
This pov is conveniently conspiratorial, and the media support is real; yet, the MSM merely
follow and go for the winner, in kind of positive feed-back loop, pretty mindless.
"Manu" - pour les intimes - is very clever, tough, and determined to rise / become powerful
since he was a precocious child, attracted to and competing within the world of adults, since
the age of 5? Yes, a psych profile approach is superficial, junky, or only one aspect.
The 'parental' love of his life was his grand-mother. Manu took decisions about his life very
young. At 12 he was baptised Catholic, by his decision. Pic in church first from coll. of pix
young Macron, Gala gossip mag.
At 15 -17 he decided he would marry the teacher B. Trogneux (24 years older than him, with
one child older than him, another the same age and in his class at school), and he managed that.
The 'unconventional' marriage is now 100% accepted, and even a I'd say a 'plus' point, in the
sense that 'different love-lives' tinged with trangression attract support from certain quarters.
Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type
cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death
of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande
then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline,
sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite,
or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a
very conventional profile!
@ Gravatomic at 6. Le Pen will never win, the FN will never have a 'prez.' About the social
unrest, yes.
You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something
that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries
have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals.
They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the
demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that
wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events
become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the
new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common
man.
This whole idea of turning everything upside down to spark some kind of political renewal has
taken a few hits of late. After Trump's election and Brexit the there was a school of thought
that had it that upcoming elections in Europe would fall in line with the new political philosophy.
First would be The Netherlands, that didn't happen. Then it would be France, unless something
very drastic and unexpected happens then that's another bad bet. Nobody's yet surmising that Merkel
is toast. In spite of the unpopularity of her immigration policy at its outset it may be that
Germans are ready to forgive her that and stick with the status quo. I don't know enough about
English politics to guess if any party can unseat May but it's evident that a lot of Brits are
wishing that Brexit had failed.
In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy
of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it
isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might
just be that the French are happy the way things are.
Emmanuel Macron will have to make a decisive move on Europe The most exciting promise of his candidacy is the agenda for eurozone reform
--Wolfgang Münchau Emmanuel Macron has a convincing lead in the polls, but a low turnout among his more reluctant
supporters could still produce a result too close for comfort.
The final round of the French presidential election on May 7 should not really be a contest.
Mr Macron has the backing of more or less the entire political establishment - from the left to
the centre-right. But events can intrude even in such a situation and already have. His decision
to celebrate his first-round victory in a smart brasserie in Paris's sixth arrondissement was
politically illiterate. During a visit to a Whirlpool factory in Amiens, northern France, Mr
Macron was upstaged by his opponent, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far right National Front.
As a political campaigner she is in a different league. If she crushes him in Wednesday's television
debate, she might have a chance.
The problem with Mr Macron's agenda is that nobody really knows how he can make it work. The
role of the French president is powerful, but the fate of François Hollande should serve as a
cautionary tale of the limits of what a president can do. Mr Hollande's Socialists at least had
a majority in the National Assembly, the French parliament. It is not clear whether Mr Macron
will have a single MP after the legislative elections in June. Will he end up as a mere figurehead
- like the German president - whose job is to shake hands and give grand speeches? Or can he find
a way to force change?
Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US.
Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency
will make possible a Front National victory in five years.
Here's my prediction: five years from now, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen will win the presidential
elections.
sounds like the french will find in micro endless, magnificent diversion from the collapse
of their republic at the hands of his puppet masters the financiers. had he a religion at all
before choosing to become a catholic at 12? or just ambition?
The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron.
(Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be
said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country
jokingly "East Corea"
I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency.
Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing
the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions.
Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things.
Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war.
Truth be told, even if she hadn't much chance of winning, Le Pen could've hoped to go close to
45% if she had played it right and campaigned well. She totally blew it with an awful performance
in the debate, though, while Macron was probably a bit better than expected.
The most worrying bit is that voters who sided with Macron might feel compelled to give him a
majority in parliament, which is the key. Considering how human psychoology tends to work too
often, there will be a follower/commitment effect with some voters, who have crossed a line by
voting for him and will find it less abhorrent to back him again in the legislative elections.
If that happens, imho, it would mean France had just gone through a coup, and democracy is dead
there. The good news is that it means that sooner or later, bloody revolution will sweep the country
- but it might take time and, as most if not all revolutions, will probably not be thorough enough
in wiping out the ruling elites.
@33 smuks quote "Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things."
there is stability and then there is stability.. if a house of cards needs to be held up - macron
is the man, lol..
Will people of France show that they are worthy their great sons like Voltaire and vote their
conscience or will they vote out of fear and intimidation?
That is the question.
I admit that French people or EU citizen may have totally different view of the French political
process from perspective of the details and particularities they are acutely aware of, than my
view from The US, by may be this very distance and emotionally cold judgment of outsider is needed
as well to have truly a big picture of what is going on.
I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes,
it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le
Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary
people in France and the US.
None of them are politically radical in any shape or form, and definitely not Marine Le Pen
who just want to ask French people what to do since they never had really a chance to do so. Either
to support continuing pauperization of society and allowing for further collapse of French sovereignty
and cultural autonomy which is one of the pillars of European culture and western tradition and
hence retain status quo or reject it by demanding EU to return to its EEC roots and give up on
a superstate projects like Euro or banking unity/ECB. And that is the highest crime in Brussels
and hence she was set for at least metaphorical assassination of her character and her populist
appeal.
Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be
obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow.
In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister,
now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true
French populist and nationalist.
She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of
globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken
to de Gaulle.
Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide,
against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not
likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french
elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump.
The real issue in these elections though will be how strong roots of sociopolitical/economic
dependency on EU imperial clique are in France and believe me they are strong.
Millions of French know or feel there are dependent of Brussels and will vote status-quo regardless
even of their suffering, threatened with supposedly worse alternative under Le Pen.
How strong such a calcifying paralysis may be was shown in Roman empire collapsing over two
centuries only because people supported status-quo in fear of change into unknown, even when the
world around them was collapsing.
But if Le Pen thinks she can do without a sort of "revolution" metaphorically breaking legs
and heads, she is not gonna get anywhere since the autocratic EU system is designed to prevent
popular upheavals and drastic changes to the EU imperial order of bureaucratic rule.
EU has all the money, power, courts and propaganda machine to derail Le Pen presidency without
another French revolution to defend it.
Even case of Brexit showed that EU turned from happy family of loving EU nations to a pool
of viscous brats, little puny weasels, exhibiting embarrassing insecure teenage hysteria, wanting
revenge and nursing their personal hurt feelings, pretending to be conducting supposedly rational
and serious international negotiations among formally at least, sovereign countries.
This Sunday we will know if in France once again fear prevailed over courage.
The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming
from the Twitter account of
Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California.
Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley
protest.
Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make
it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections
after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and
Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to
read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw
Melenchon is the only one who points out the realities (translate from Lemonde):
In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the
causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries
of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free
trade.
Here's Melenchon on Africa, LeMonde Feb 17:
"We are part of the political camp that was against colonialism and for the self-determination
of peoples. We know the misfortunes endured, but we consider that it is up to historians to
write history and not to politicians to instrumentalize it. It seems to us more urgent to fight
the scourge of ultraliberal predation that is falling on Africa."
"The best advantage that France can derive from it is the harmonious and successful development
of African societies. If we consider only the climatic risk, it is 250 million migrants whose
humanity will have to deal with by 2050. It is time to ensure a balanced development that does
not aggravate the state of the planet. But the condition for achieving this is to return Africa
to the Africans, to ensure national and popular sovereignty on the bases advocated by Thomas
Sankara or Patrice Lumumba." [Notably Lumumba was overthrown and killed in a CIA-supported
coup in 1961]
"The defense agreements, and in particular their secret clauses – which have the real objective
of controlling popular movements for the benefit of dictators – must be denounced by democratic
scrutiny by Parliament. In the event that some of these bases are maintained, military cooperation
can only be envisaged with democracies, with priority being given to the formation of an
independent national republican army."
Can you imagine any U.S. politician pledging to end military cooperation with Saudi Arabia
unless it converts to a democratic form of government? Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know.
Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not
allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman
was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from
reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting
result' - the Russians did it! It also had effect in Brexit as well and may be at work in France,
though time will tell the better story there. Propaganda may be omnipotent in many ways, it certainly
isn't omniscient and predicting the future of things that haven't happened is notoriously difficult.
Whoever wins the French presidency can be helped or hobbled by other factors. Macron has no effective
political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary
standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. M. Le Pen's party has been on the margins of the
French political spectrum but does have an identifiable political history that is evolving from
its origins. Of the two, the least likely to effect disastrous policy on the French public is
the FN of Le Pen, it is a known and does have knowledgable opposition to waywardness; not so Macron
who hasn't revealed who supports or funds his candidacy for the office. That would be the greatest
danger to the French Republic. About this time tomorrow, the electorate will have spoken.
The French still collect billions of whatever currency you want to use from their ex-African colonies.
An agreement for paying the French for leaving and for the "benefits of colonialism". It's a big
% of the French government budget - straight from the poorest countries on the planet. This is
why I hate France with all my heart.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics.
With regards to FN's steady rise over decades, this really is well forecasted opportunism at
work here. Spot climate trending too far in one direction, find slogan like 'never le pen', install
manufactured centre left/right cardboard cutout.
And (as far as the west goes with it's super concentrated media power nearly running off one
script) it could nearly be cut and pasted into any race where one side strays too far from centre.
I'm sure there is a couple of seminars at Davos about it.
When far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen Marine made it through to the run-off
of the French presidential election on Sunday, some powerful people in the United States were
celebrating.
One is hoping to be celebrating in Paris tomorrow.
BTW: The dual nationals : French -Israeli may have to rethink in which country they would want
to live should Marine become Mme La Présidente ( she has said that she won't allow French
citizens to have Israeli passports )
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is [allegedly] the daughter of
Roger Auque:
Roger Auque died from brain cancer on September 8, 2014, at the age of 58. He revealed
in a book that was published posthumously in 2015 that he had been a Mossad agent.
. . . . .
In 1989, he is said to have fathered a child with Yann, the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
This daughter, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, elected deputy in 2012, was born out of wedlock
and subsequently recognized by Yann's husband, Samuel Maréchal, a fact only revealed publicly
in 2013 in a book by Christine Clerc titled "Les Conquérantes."[6]
Mischi @ 48: Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central
African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's
pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly
zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011.
In these times, it really shows how small influence people have, it is media and their
millionaire
candidate that have already fixed the election with their huge power. Quite sad.
@46 anon.. that macron leak story has legs! i like what some guy on twitter said - "Amazing that
the French government and media now stand as enemies of freedom of speech." who whudda thunk it?
lol... remind anyone of any other countries?
AKSA 8 The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack
on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were
they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan?
USA will win anyway. Macron and Dupont-Aignan (prime minister of Le Pen) was both member of the
program of "The Young Leaders : French-American Foundation France":
http://french-american.org/en/initiatives/young-leaders/
Its means neoliberalism, NATO and free finance.
Well well well... you know... its France... le pen's mother made nacked pictures for french playboy
when she divorced the father... another one is on x... just pawns.
The MSM are going to be embarassed with the leaks. On one side they keep referring to the Ruskies
and Trump, and on the other no one among the Western politicians has a B plan in case Trump continues
to wreck havoc (and he will).
Next week, he goes to KSA before Israel and since the Saudi prince said it would be 'historical'
we can bet KSA will announce the recognizance of Israel
Then step 2 will be to say Syria and Iran: you recognize or we turn you to Somalia.
And where will Junker, Hollande, Macron and co go then?
even Wikileaks says the metadata is full of cyrillic. clumsiness or the will to point towards
the usual culprits?
not sure if Hollande has really turned into a Machiavel but that sounds like him
More broadly, the U.S. should reconsider whether blindly supporting the EU is in America's
best interests. The EU is a supranational organization that infringes on national sovereignty.
It prevents the creation of genuine transatlantic free trade areas, harms transatlantic security,
distorts European immigration policies, and wastes taxpayer money.
jfl @ 30. Something like that yes! - no religion afaik before 12 yrs. (Macron.)
jen wrote: "What's the possibility that le Pen will receive a large proportion of her votes
from people who would vote for anyone who looks like a winner, regardless of political and ideological
affiliations, simply to stop Macron from winning?"
MLP will not attract votes as 'the winner' as it is known that she is, and probably always
will be - a loser. Yet, some Mélenchon - Fillon, 'other' voters, who are rabidly against Macron,
will vote Le Pen. The anti-Macron crowd was discussing voting MLP/abstention/nul vote to death
on boards, and some said, heh go for MLP.
My prediction was that the outcome would be closer to 70-30 than 60-40, in favor of Macron;
for sure MLP will pick up some anti-M voters, not enough though imho to change that prediction,
but who knows, trivial details, no matter.
More seriously.. It is generally assumed, or put forward, that Le Pen voters are the poor,
the unemployed, the ugly racists, etc. - see Trump and Brexit. While the correlation with region/unemployment
is high (as in GB and rust-belt US), for the rest it doesn't hold.
The poor - those under the poverty line or severely disadvantaged, vote exactly the same as
the national average, that is, not more for the FN, Le Pen, or FN candidates. (no link..)
Le Pen's *presumed electorate* in the worker category, i.e. low-paid private-sector
employees (factories, supermarkets, services, small biz, agri, etc.; *State* personnel votes socialist)
is imho made up of roughly 3 equal parts.
Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants
of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all /
those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone..
and just keep their heads down.
The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know
of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes
small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc.
though some contacts/friendships cross these lines.
Marine is not pro-worker, and 2/3 ppl working one or two jobs of that type or those wanting
to actually GET a job like that are aware. The last third grabs an opportunity to make noise,
be heard, posture, play some kind of role, etc.
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit.
Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people
post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe
the lies.
Started watching 500 Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from it... had
to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right before bed (unless
one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people should
be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal thugs is
what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment in
time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as most
other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try something
new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is
the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how
nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find
rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country
here)-first voters. Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional electoral system,
a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition candidate to gain enough
popular votes to win. Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless,
but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they
can use to their advantage.
Everybody expected Le Pen to be much stronger than Macron for the debate on Wednesday. Instead,
she made a fool of herself and certainly lost a number of her own voters. check "Macron Le Pen
débat" on google you will probably find videos. the image and sounds should be enough without
need of subtitles.
Really? Asking the question of what will be the long term result of elections within the bailiwick
of the western plutocracy? I believe it is long past the time of crystal ball gazing and time
to grow up and face the reality of the situation. Any political entity that is not issuing from
a grassroots spontaneous popular grievance is completely suspect. When any of these candidates
can have a million or more people accompany them as they march on the plutocracy's seat of power
at the site of government and more importantly the site of their central banks then I will believe
their message that they mean to clean house and usher in the necessary changes needed. Otherwise
we must assume that an illusion is being presented as a deception to bestow legitimacy, via false
democratic institutions, on an illegitimate system of plutocratic rule conducted with a carrot
and stick structure that permeates all levels of civil society.
The EU is drawing up a tax haven blacklist, due to be finalized by the end of 2017, with the
intention of preventing money from being diverted to avoid taxation. It is also compiling a
list sanctions it will take against any country or jurisdiction that ends up on the EU tax
haven blacklist.
I think the between nation comparison of platforms shows, except for the individuals named to
play the role of candidate, in each of the respective countries, the role of the candidates is
the same, to carry out "allowed policy". Further, the "allowed policy" seems nearly always the
same in all of the Republic nations. Some-how the "allowed policies" are being established globally
and mandated locally?
I n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote,
either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the
same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit
of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy.
The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is
about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the
French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates
who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid,
if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe.
Candidate A or Candidate B may seem to be a choice: but either, if elected, will be obligated
to execute only the "allowed platforms" established by those in control of these Republics. Candidates
seeking to present non-allowed platforms, are nearly always silenced and defeated. Example: the
policy allowed by the hidden powers is that the target nation, is slated to go to war. That "go
to war" policy may or may not be articulated by the viable person candidates, but the election
is not about whether or not "perpetual war should be the policy of the nation" instead the election
is about which candidate should be paid to operate the war time government in accord to "globally
determined, locally allowed policy".
On election day citizens may choose; but if they don't, make a choice on election day, the
choice of elected persons will be made for them; either way the winning candidate is obligated
to execute only the "allowed policy".
Maybe it would be useful to concentrate discussions, not to the person of the candidates, but
to "allowed policy", such person candidates, if elected, will be obligated to accord with, when
talking about national elections.
Politics is always a 'house of cards'. A political/ societal system exists as long as most
everyone believes in its legitimacy; once this is no longer the case, it can rapidly disintegrate.
And don't say 'things can't get worse', they definitely can - would you prefer living in a delicate
'house of cards' or in a civil war?
@somebody 70
Exactly. There is no more profits/ capital yield under stable conditions ('new normal'), so
let's create a huge crisis to reap the benefits. It's strange how many people hate the 'deep state'
in their own country, yet wilfully support its agenda in other parts of the world.
@jfl 72
It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. Don't let prejudice
get in the way of a rational view. It's still a long way to go, but there are important first
and second steps. What do you think why the right-wing (=pro-capital) media is so anti-EU?
The title is misleading (typical with France Culture) what the journalist says is that no actual
figures exist for the expenses of each ministries. She had been trying to find the figures dealing
with the decrease of subsidies for culture in the last 5 years and could not get a single document
from the gov. When you start the famous ENA school, the first thing you are told is that all the
number are fakes. The journalist of this piece i linked to ends up her paper saying that in the
end, discussing the few figures mentioned here and there without any support by the officials
is equivalent to spreading fake news.
None of it makes sense, yet everyone laps it up like mother's milk. This is the 1st of these
leaks to have obvious forgeries in it.
The release date makes no sense, there appears to be nothing damaging in it, the speed at
which the trusties found the Cyrillic metadata says they were looking for it / told where to
look / not looking for damaging material.
The sheer scale of the breach from what must be the closely monitored mail server in political
history.
None of it adds up if you look at it with an open mind. This is dangerous slavish behavior
from infosec, the media and public. If you will swallow this hook, line & sinker then your
parliaments need more fire extinguishers
Everything is based on two enormous falacies.
1. That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin,
ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. That the Trumps, Le Pens, Farages are
not a native virus.
2. Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled
leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands.
These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily
dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast.
"You can flood these [phishing] addresses with multiple passwords and log-ins, true ones, false
ones, so the people behind them use up a lot of time trying to figure them out," Mounir Mahjoubi,
the head of Macron's digital team, told The Daily Beast for its earlier article on this subject.
In the end, whoever made the dump may not have known what is real and what is false, which
would explain in part the odd timing. After the disruptive revelations of the Democratic National
Committee hacks in the United States, the public is conditioned to think that if there's a
document dump like this, it has to be incriminating. By putting it out just before the news
blackout, when Macron cannot respond in detail, the dump becomes both the medium and the message.
...
>> The relative lack of power of France
>> wonder the real reason why they
>> led the NATO attack on Libya.
Because they were the only unit Oceania could field safely at the time without potentially
undermining its political regime.
"War weary" populations oppose overt war. (When populations oppose more overt war, regimes
start or continue wars un-overtly.) Sizable percentages of the populations in the rest of NATO
realized they'd been conned. What would be the domestic reaction if those NATO countries "led"
another effort against an "enemy" generally considered even less dangerous than the prior one
(whom the populations learned wasn't a threat)?
In contrast, because France didn't join in on the most recent invasion of Iraq, their population
was not as "war weary" and thus did not protest/oppose overt war.
>> Was it the financial dealings between
>> Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say
What do they say? Heard that G gave money to S's campaign. I didn't read anything into that
other than "another example of why never again to trust or give money to a politician".
>> or were they really prodded by the US to
>> lead the way of the overall game plan?
Think about "the dogs that did not bark".
What do EU leaders do in response to allegations of being bugged? They blame Eurasia for interfering
with elections! That tells me Oceania is their master.
Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist
on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party,
F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell
of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left.
So now the result is this - more of the same shit. Ugh.
Emmanuel Macron victory speech praising 5-years François Hollande's regime.
Good luck good ridden!
exiled off mainstreet | May 7, 2017 3:21:46 PM |
106
It is unfortunate that the propaganda globalist state now appears unassailable. How anyone of
intelligence could support such a fascist empty suit carrying his baggage is beyond me, unless
propaganda received wisdom has reached such a level. I agree that it would have been better if
Melenchon or Fillon had been the opponent, since Le Pen carries the baggage of her family inheritance.
It seems to me that an undoubted status of being part of a present day fascist structure is
more relevant than having an inheritance of collaboration with a prior regime a lifetime ago.
It is also obvious that Le Pen's positions were in the interest of the French people rather than
the unelected international power structure. I see little future for anything after this result.
I wonder when Israel will start sweating. The idea is to make the use of lethal force against
Muslims acceptable in the NATO countries with mass influx of them that will not assimilate but
go to war on their host one way or another. Good plan but...
Plans could go awry as there is a real danger of a Sharia Europe if they forgotten how to be
a barbarian.
the media in unison crowing over the result of course. Was at a lunch today and all the obedient
little Europhiles there watching the media talking heads were delighted.
I'm not even a Le Pen supporter in particular but merely by questioning Macron's agenda, where
he came from, etc, I was met with mock Nazi salutes and snide remarks. The ideologues amongst
the middle classes who back the EU/Globalist project are genuine fanatics, I can see it with my
own eyes with every passing week. They won't accept any counter arguments or dissenting voices.
They refuse to think critically but merely rehash whatever the Guardian, New York Times or BBC
say. The level of pro-Brussels tribalism is astonishing, even as someone who has grown up with
and befriended many of these people down the years. One day their bubble will burst though but
unlike them I'll have the good grace to smile inside and whisper "I told you so" under my breath.
Indeed, these people are brainwashed, they have no idea whats going on in the world, just watching
msm and like you say you cant debate with people like these. The worst is that the left is the
most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda. Thats why leftists parties are so weak
today.
I know that France attempts to rigorously regulate "their" French language, so I presume that
the Académie française prohibits the importation of the US colloquial term "sheeple".
So we won't see any French newspapers or websites proudly proclaiming " La Sheeple Ont Parlé!
"
This is an utterly predictable, even routine tragicomedy. But I must post this to give credit
to an expatriate relative I'll call "Joe"; Joe lives in France, and has proved to be a prophet.
Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and
Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe
then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow:
1) The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate
careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist
(s).
2) The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated
howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!"
3) The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign
to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation
straight to Hell.
4) The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line
and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal
status quo.
5) The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the
inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting
a dangerous Extremist.
________________________________________________
At the time, Joe offered this scenario to explain why Bernie Sanders wouldn't be allowed to
succeed. As it turned out, there are many reasons why the US debacle didn't precisely conform
to this pattern.
But Joe's description perfectly fits what's happened in France.
The French elections are also the end of the post-world war 2 world order. Until now, the elections
were left against right, socialists against conservatives.
In these elections both socialists and conservatives lost out. Now it's nationalism against
globalisation.
So Macron 65%, and Le Pen has already conceded. Campaign well run. Macron is a shark (report
from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet
till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family
of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced
by his family background to take their point of view into account.
The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself
against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover
what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate.
"The worst is that the left is the most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda.
Thats why leftists parties are so weak today."
couldn't have put it better. As many have commented on, the notion of left vs right is dying.
In Europe it has morphed into something akin to pro-EU vs pro-nation state. The levels of cognitive
dissonance from people of the traditional left is truly astonishing.
I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters
who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media
had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they
know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le
Pen.
There is a very good interview of a French liberal (as in "proponent of free-market rather
than big State". Americans would call him "a libertarian"), Charles Gave, who gives a clear vision
of the whole shebang, and of why this could be getting out of control in the near future.
You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed
the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the
French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically
dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades"
and "civil war".
@90, smuks, 'It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. ...'
righto ... you offer an assertion with zero analysis. meanwhile the rothschilds guy is president
of france. superficial analysis, sure, but hard to walk around. or is big finance our friend?
seems to be yours.
the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on
the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future
"political showbiz" career at an early age.
the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial
power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the
need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more
apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities.
@119 Psychohistorian: the other way around. High turnout compared to your average election in
Western democracies, moderate turnout for France. Macron still got more than 40% of all possible
voters' approval.
Which leads me to:
@117 Lea: If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets
a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. As
in major demonstrations. And unlike Nick, I'll make my best to remind to all my acquaintances
who voted Macron by default / because their friends/significant others were brainwashed idiots
who would've killed them otherwise that they did vote for the guy and are to be blamed for that
shit. I want all those who voted for him without considering him worthy of the office and despite
considering his opinions as utter shit to actually hate themselves for what they've just done,
and then to hate him for what they did. And I mean *hate*, not dislike.
I'm also not sure it's hardcore leftists who would go the farthest in violence; antifas and
similar groups mostly seem to focus on soft targets and heavily outnumbered cops. FN guys are
just as tough and desiring violence, they just don't dare to risk it now considering how everyone
else suspects them of being closer fascists; and the longer they're kept out of any significant
power, the closer they'll come to giving in to violence.
" ...PARIS (Sputnik) - A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in
the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9
percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support
to either of the candidates."
This is LF Economics' first review of a book, entitled
Game of Mates:
How Favours Bleed the Nation
by economists Cameron K. Murray and Paul
Frijters. The name is a play upon the wonderful TV series
Game of
Thrones
and rightfully so, given both are about how a small number of
wealthy and highly-connected individuals, often operating within a cluster
of powerful networks, rig rules, policy, laws and ideology for their
personal and class benefit.
Game of Mates
is a gold mine of information on the racket of
rent extraction for a number of reasons. First, it provides background on
how the game slowly evolves (Chapter 1) by contrasting the hard-working
Aussie Bruce with the connected insider and rent extractor known as James.
By using the power of networking and soft corruption, the wealthy James (the
1%) is able to rip-off Bruce (the public) legally without violating the rule
of law.
Second, the book goes on to detail the largest state-backed legal thefts
carried out by the corporate sector for the benefit of rentiers. This term
means those who obtain rents (unearned wealth and income over and above what
is justified by perfectly-competitive markets). Unfortunately, Australia is
a haven for robber barons, siphoning massive and illegitimate mountains of
rents from the property market (Chapter 2), transportation (Chapter 3),
superannuation (Chapter 5), mining (Chapter 7) and banking (Chapter 9) for
the benefit of owners and managers.
... ... ...
Game of Mates
helps to reveal the absurdity of
what is falsely called free-market capitalism, as it is
thoroughly infected by rent extractors. Recent research
has demonstrated that Australia's private sector is
dominated by cartels of monopolists, duopolists and
oligopolists to an even greater extent than the US, the
latter of which is often considered the home of crony
capitalism. This is no mean feat.
Whoever said there is
no such thing as a free lunch (perhaps it was Milton
Friedman or someone he quoted) is speaking an utter
absurdity. The term 'free lunch' doesn't do justice in
describing the epic levels of legal grift in our economy.
Indeed, it should be termed 'free banquets' as we argued
in our article
Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners
.
The process of extracting free banquets has gained pace
since the neo-liberal reformation of the economy by the
Hawke-Keating government, lurching from the centre-left to
the centre-right on economy policy during the 1980s. The
Howard government continued and magnified these rackets
when in power between 1996 and 2007. It should be
important to note that these policies can hardly be termed
'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little
to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal
capitalism is a better term.
...It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when
they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal
capitalism is a better term.
....
The
Game of Mates
is about detailing the methods of redistribution
from the poor, labour, productive competitive business and the environment into
the pockets of those who benefit the most from non-work. There are some data on
how much the wealthy steal from everyone else (Chapter 13). Hint: the
redistributions are massive in scale and yet do not quantify the full extent of
the rent extraction taking place.
In addition, apart from criticising the
upwards redistribution of wealth, they advocate solutions to rectifying these
problems (Chapter 14). This can be done by reclaiming the value of the free
banquets for the public, disrupting the coordination and networks used by
rentiers, and shattering the myths peddled to justify their wholesale theft.
This book is a very timely addition to the emerging research in Australia
and elsewhere which explains the processes and estimates the amount of wealth
and income siphoned off by these schemes of legal theft. At 204 pages, it is
not overly long and is makes for an easy read. Fortunately, the authors avoid
the often opaque writing style and jargon often found in the economics and
financial academic literature.
If one wants to understand how the country is being looted by the minority
of the opulent for their own benefit, look no further.
The interesting thing about exploiting personal connections to extract
rents, build cartels, capture regulators, gain legal protections, or
generally restrict competition is that all these activities are essentially
risk free. Gaining a rent or legal protection from a friend or colleague has
zero risk, and guarantees higher profits. This is in contrast to innovation
or product improvement which requires high risk, time, effort, capital, and
expertise, but can return much higher profits. When opportunities for rent
collection become systemic, I think economic rents can crowd out risky
innovation because returns for economic rents are guaranteed. In this case
the probabilities for (short-term) economic success are higher with economic
rents, and as the saying goes 'firms act to maximize profitability'. That is
a bad outcome for all of society.
In 2014 62 individuals owned one half of the world's wealth, now
that's down to just 8 people (how they sleep at night is utterly beyond
me). When it's down to one guy we can strangle him in the bathtub and
redistribute, and usher in a new Golden Age of prosperity and peace.
"... It's on par with US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity. ..."
Welcoming and supporting dictators who act in U.S. interests is the usual behavior of
any U.S. president. U.S. media support such.
Comments
Piotr Berman | May 2, 2017 10:46:14 AM |
1
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?"
What the targets of marketing believe may
be true, false or imponderable (are big chain hamburgers delicious?), but marketing
itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people believe.
The problem with skepticism is that it is not catchy. There are some tunes of
skeptical songs that are instantly memorized, but the message is absorbed by a few.
The older of us remember how Ronald Reagan quoted a bitter anti-war song, "Born in
the USA" with total cluelessness about the song's intention, and was warmly received
by equally clueless public.
I see it as depravity, pure and
simple; the billboard-sized calling card of the Outlaw US Empire's immorality as it's
existed for decades and is essentially its own autonomic policy.
It's on par with
US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the criminal missile strike against Syria
was "after dinner entertainment." Depravity in the nth degree, not insanity.
NewsWorld Middle East
UK government refuses to deny voting to put Saudi Arabia on the UN Women's Commission
Belgium's prime minister has apologised for his country's vote in favor
What is wrong with those chocolate makers? It was a secret vote, and the stupid
Belgians did not keep their mouths shut. However, the high humanitarian tone of Her
Majesty Government was disturb only for a moment. I can imagine dignified polished
English toff accent "It is our policy to adhere to the spirit of the rules of the
United Nations and thus we can neither confirm nor deny in which way our delegate
casted her vote."
U.S. police shoot dozens of innocent each year, but when drug dealers get killed
in a Philippine police raid its elected president is called a "strongman".
That is direct consequence of the "legal system" created in England, and these
days practiced in the Five eyes. System without a rules and legislations, ideal for
rich and powerful to abuse the system, and get away with a murder.
The common-law tradition
The common law is law that is not written down as legislation. Common law evolved
into a system of rules based on precedent. This is a rule that guides judges in
making later decisions in similar cases. The common law cannot be found in any code
or body of legislation, but only in past decisions. At the same time, it is flexible.
It adapts to changing circumstances because judges can announce new legal doctrines
or change old ones.
thanks b.. it is worth addressing from time to time and you provide some good
comments/questions for anyone who has been asleep for the past 50 years, lol.. here
are some i like.
"There surely is a certain "uniqueness" in U.S. global political behavior. But its
is certainly not engagement for "human rights". It is exactly the opposite." growing
up in the 70's and seeing the bs from the usa in south and central america opened my
eyes.
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?" unfortunately a lot of americans who
follow these news outlets and lack any critical faculties when it comes to
understanding the usa's foreign policy agenda..
"Thuggish anti-American behavior" is automatically attributed to any head of state
who works foremost in the interests of his own country." it would be hard for the
nyt, wapo and wsj to come out everyday and say "We are the Greatest". this is a round
about way of getting to that same place.. works like pablum with babies, lol..
@ #2.
Harbouring magnanimous beliefs TOWARD humanity and unconscionable beliefs AGAINST
humanity, simultaneously, is insane.
Acting on the unconscionable beliefs, whilst preaching the magnanimous beliefs is
depraved.
Who believes such marketing bullshit?...Is that not just another form of insanity?
unfortunately, b, i think most Americans still believe it, and yes, it does indicate
some kind of deranged mind. the more interesting question would be, how does this
insanity
mostly manifest itself throughout society? and i guess i'd have to say,
to make a big subject small, through fantasy and delusion.
but i think far more psychological damage will ensue when Americans can no longer
deny the bloodcurdling chronicle of their
exceptionalism
.
I was travelling through parts of SE Asia last October and asked various people (in
different countries) what they thought about Duterte. Many were on the fence but
granted that Duterte - in their minds anyway - was actually "taking care of" some
real problems faced in the Philippines. Some had relatives who lived there, and they
claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte.
Speaking only for myself, I abhor what he's doing. OTOH, the USA has done nothing
be murderous and genocidal (at least in terms of Native Americans, if not others)
since the inception of Europeans here. We've definitely supported numerous muderous
thug dictators around the globe. Some of our support comes under a "veil" so to
speak, in that US citizens may not always be aware of what the thug dictators are
doing, much less how much and what USA support is happening.
On another hand, our own home-grown PDs have taken to routinely murdering citizens
on our streets with almost no provocation or reason. It sounds like - I have not way
to verify and doubt it's true in all instances - Duterte is "at least" going after
known criminals. I still very much disagree, but... Here in the USA, if you're a 12
year old black dude that the cops don't like the look of, well get ready to meet your
maker in a violent way. So, eh? What's the difference, really? We have this thin
veneer of allegedly - cough cough ha ha - being some sort of "democracy" with a
purported (yeah, right) "rule of law," and that somehow makes up better than Duterte.
Again, let me stress that I very very much disagree with Duterte's methods. He's
despicable.
I speculate that Trump, in part, wants to "make nice" with Duterte because of
Obama's opposition to Duterte. I truly think some small part of things motivating
Trump is to be as anti-Obama as possible, even if it means doing horrible or
ridiculous or counterproductive stuff.
But all the hand-wringing and freaking out over Trump wanting to talk to Duterte
is the usual hypocrisy. I mean, the media did the same kind of bs freaking out with
Obama, too. It's just endless. But Duterte makes for a convenient scapegoat - in a
somewhat similar way as Putin - so now it's all about "How could he even THINK of
doing that???!!!???" This from the same media constantly dissing Obama (disclaimer:
I'm not an Obama fan) for various other things.
I dunno. It's all bullshite, propaganda, lies, hype and spin anymore. It's all
meant to distract from what's really going on behind the curtain where the real
damage is done.
Do people "believe" this stuff? Well yeah. When Obama was in office, it was
conservative voters who got their knickers in a knot over every little alleged
"horrible" thing that Obama was supposedly doing (mostly dumb stuff. they never ever
said word one about the important stuff like drone killings, etc). Now with Trump we
get the shrieking about Duterte, which Democratic voters can reliably get their
panties in a bunch over.
Same old, different day. I fail to see how talking to yet another Thuggish World
Leader will make much difference one way or the other. Team USA certainly has no
human rights record to hold up as some sort of shining example. US Prison Industrial
system anyone? Gitmo? Torture? Renditions? Drone Killings all over the place? MOAB?
Tomahawks? Really? We're shrieking about Duterte? Really?
Duerte exhorted his people to kill drug dealers. I have no idea how bad the drug
problem is in the Philippines nor do I give a fuck but declaring open season on any
group of people is not kosher regardless if one is democratically elected or not.
People get to settle old scores that may have nothing to do with the drugs. I know
how I pissed I would be if someone shot my dealer and tried to write it off as a good
thing.
No beef with the somewhat dog-eared premise that the US is an evil
hypocritical empire of chaos, it's all true and I'm not sure we need to be reminded.
But lets not pretend that Duerte was only doing what he thought best for his country.
He essentially took the crime of murder off the books. He brags about the people he
killed personally. Whether or not he should be invited to the White House is a
question I'll leave to posters who are smarter than I am.
I had hope that with a Trump presidency we would start to see an end to the uniparty,
duopoly rhetoric that has infected the public here in the states so that this is the
only reality: rethugz vs. Demoshits. Indeed, I had even taken to listening to Fox
news at time on the radio because I detected that same change in the air as Trump was
gaining ground and anti-establishment sentiments were flourishing over Fox's
airwaves.
Fast forward three months into his presidency and boy do I feel like a
total dipshit. A "turkey-butt" as my Dad used to call me. Now on Fox we are entering
Bush 3.0, head-in-the-sand patriot drivel heard 1000x before. "We'll see which
Democrat can challenge Donald next election." "He has to make consessions to look
Presidential." And on. And on. Ad nauseum. Donald conceded the path way too fast and
now we are back to comfortable tit-for-tat partisan bs everywhere one can view it or
hear it.
At least Mr. Trump mentioned that we ain't so nice, you know. But the media is
already running with it and soon we will be back to that golden vision of the city on
the hill. But for how long can the charade carry-on?
hrw agitating in new york with a new report on asad's supposed systematic use of
sarin, let's wait 8th may and see how they ll pressure macron on that (he already
said he ll send troops if the UN says so)
Since you mention Orwell, may I recommend his essay, 'Freedom of the Press' (
intended as a preface to 'Animal Farm'), which describes the media's toxic
self-censorship. It is, however, pre-Cold War, so does not cover the complete volte
face performed by the media in relation to the Soviet Union.
When it comes to
politicians effusing about strongmen, how about this by Churchill in the House of
Commons, November 1945:
"Therefore, I say that it is the profound desire of this House-and the House
speaks in the name of the British nation-that these feelings of comradeship and
friendship, which have developed between the British and Russian peoples, should be
not only preserved but rapidly expanded. Here I wish to say how glad we all are to
know and feel that Generalissimo Stalin is still strongly holding the helm and
steering his tremendous ship. Personally, I cannot feel anything but the most lively
admiration for this truly great man, the father of his country, the ruler of its
destinies in times of peace, and the victorious defender of its life in time of war."
Stalin ticked off Molotov for publishing it in Pravda. He did not need flattery
from imperialists.
So, we have a Cabinet Head saying killing people is entertainment and an elected
official saying people already suffering through no fault of their own ought to
suffer further. And I'm sure more such sentiments are uttered daily and can easily be
found since that's the mindset of far too many people within the Outlaw US Empire. It
would seem to be Puritanical Thinking's logical conclusion, and one can find many
examples of it beginning at Plymouth.
ASEAN affairs, Cambodia could not be theirs,
100 percent, it is an ally of China. Laos, it is always an ally of China. Vietnam,
same thing. Widodo of Indonesia is neutral. Duterte of the Philippines is veering
towards China. [applause]
Because China has the character of an Oriental. [applause]
It does not go around insulting people, insisting on policies to follow them and
trying to control the money of the world through the IMF and the World Bank.
[applause] Dito (here) Asian Development Bank.
Now go that of late, China decided to make a counterbalance here and that is the
AIIB. And so, America is really checkmate here. It is not ready for war because they
are not ready to die anymore.
And you can see it when in the special forces when they go home, there's a lot of
crying and criticism and a congressman talking there, filibustering about the lost of
an American life.
Filipinos, if you want to go to war, go. As long as it is really the desire of the
nation, to protect itself.
When you're exceptional, anything is possible! A dictator can become a symbol of
democracy, while an elected leader can become a brutal tyrant. The US owns the
mainstream media's lexicon and the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. always carefully toe the
line of what the powers that be consider proper terminology. It's so much better than
overt censorship!
Duarte is advocating and practicing (due-process free) vigilantism, see also
lynching, which is often very very popular with everyone who is not a target ... the
problems are many, most glaringly that of proportionality and mission-creep (see also
lynching and/or Emmett Till) ... seriously, eventually in all likelihood, as with
McCarthyism or 6 degrees of separation or NSA surveillance, you will likely become a
target or collateral damage.
As to the marketing bullshit, I suspect virtue morality naive realists believe it.
The people who believe these things, including many (former) leftists, are naive, in
the sense that they do not hold a prior theory or information of the world, and often
lack means or willingness to develop such theories or find such information. A prior
theory need not be an absolute bedrock, and it should be modified *logically* per the
normal logical process of science, as expressed in the tautologies:
for all a,z,
((a) AND (a implies z)) implies z
for all a,z, z implies ((not a) OR (not (a implies z)))
Let a be composite (c AND d AND ...), and apply de Morgan's theorem ((not c) OR
(not d)...) with OR being inclusive or (a OR b = a OR b OR both). Let c be the fact
that US supported (mis)information peddlers/propaganda houses claim a given
violation, and d be the truth of a claim. Z is "Assad used Sarin," or "The rebels are
moderate," etc. Attention to prior claims, especially long after the claims have
served their purpose, may disabuse one of a high probability of d being true for a
given c.
Allow that d is probably false in a given case. If d is false, then no logical
conclusion follows on z, although it should be assumed to be false until evidence to
the contrary arrives; compare this situation to the defendant in a criminal case, who
has been suborned to institutionalised perjury (plea bargain)---even if the defendant
perpetrated the alleged actus reus, the particulars of the complaint are likely to be
in error due to police sloppiness, efforts by the police to hide their own crimes,
and erroneous presuppositions on the part of the police.
There is a non-zero probability that a given claim, no matter how ridiculous on
its face, may be substantially true. Put aside the fear of being abused verbally or
prosecuted legally for de facto abetting a serious crime---leftists, and even
apolitical journalists, will often face that risk, based on their beliefs and
evidence before them, and proudly so. Rather, the problem is facing oneself, and
living with oneself given the possibility that the propaganda is true. Once one caves
once, caving to the propaganda in the future may become easier, and harder to
recognise.
Thus we may understand this problem of the left, and of otherwise critical
journalists, not so much as prior fecklessness and dishonesty, but as subconscious
fear of unvirtuous conduct. Some examples:
Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks),
repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an
external reference (
Postol
),
he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear it.
Another example is Stan Goff, who has written at some length on
virtue
ethics
, complaining about
Tulsi Gabbard
, and sounding uncharacteristically like Louis Proyect; he has
omitted to post my first comment, in which I gave a detailed criticism of the
background to the current situation, especially regarding Ukraine. Allow that what he
says about the character of Gabbard to be true---if she is not bound by virtue
ethics, and judges matters based on self-interest, or on ethical frameworks other
than virtue ethics, she can observe the reality in Syria far more keenly.
Perhaps this is why universities have ethics courses that lay special emphasis on
virtue ethics (when convenient)---my experience was a course on ethics for engineers,
although the usual practice is to give the example of killing an infant, in order to
save the lives of many infants. The purpose of such examples is precisely to produce
an inability to act of one's own volition outside of social(ly engineered) norms.
Goff's own example in the one link (crime novels) may serve a similar purpose.
Because of the general weakness of logical thinking, especially in the west at the
moment (elimination of Euclidean geometry a generation ago in most syllabi, followed
by the elimination of syllabi for rot such as "
outcomes
based education
", and general incoherence when that farce is ended), a naive
realism takes hold, in which the reality that is held to be true, is the information
given.
I abused Proyect recently, to rub in his face his support for aggression against
Syria, but perhaps the problem is greater. He
studied Turkish
some years ago; this would have made him particularly receptive
to Turkish propaganda on Syria. The fact that his background is programming, should
not lead one to think that he has a good formal logical background---many programmers
do not have such a background, and have simply developed a large set of algorithms
that work, and algorithms to develop new algorithms, rather than clear logical
thinking. I nearly ran into a similar problem when studying Ukrainian (around the
time of the first Maidan), and if it weren't for prior information about Ukraine, and
information from counterpunch at the time, I might well have gone down the same
route.
Thus there is a danger to see these individuals as necessarily unvirtuous, which
is a precise misdiagnoses. A better solution was presented by Ward Churchill, who
suggested
deliberately non-virtuous
conduct (guns, less than ideal feminist attitudes
toward sex) as a curative for what ails the left. Once one can willingly do something
evil, even as one generally avoids such conduct, and the fear of evil conduct
(including abetting) no longer dominates how one approaches situations in which the
information is incomplete, it becomes easier to resist the lurid propaganda.
Then of course, accompanying the Imperial Doublethink is its Junk Economics, an
ideological system economist Michael Hudson's made a career of bashing/debunking. To
further his mission, Hudson embraces what he calls "The economics of the future" in
the form of Steve Keen's new book,
Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis?
,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/02/the-economics-of-the-future/
Excerpt:
"But mainstream models [Randian Neoliberal Economics, ie Junk Economics] ignore
the overgrowth of debt, as if the economy operates on a barter basis. Keen calls this
"the barter illusion," and reviews his wonderful exchange with Paul Krugman (who
plays the role of an intellectual Bambi to Keen's Godzilla), who insists that banks
do not create credit but merely recycle savings – as if they are savings banks, not
commercial banks. It is the old logic that debt doesn't matter because "we" owe the
debt to "ourselves."
"The "We" are the 99%, the "ourselves" are the 1%. Krugman calls them "patient"
savers vs "impatient" borrowers, blaming the malstructured economy on personal
psychology of indebted victims having to work for a living and spend their working
lives paying off the debt needed to obtain debt-leveraged homes of their own,
debt-leveraged education and other basic living costs."
fastfreddy @ 15 hit on it, I think. the USG does not give a hoot about anyone gunning
down its own people, be they citizens, terrorists, drug dealers, minorities,
migrants, refugees, homeless, witches, adulterers, etc.
Philippines is about China,
that big base there in Subic Bay, etc. trump knows what's up w/that. is he just sweet
talking duterte for other reasons? and folks like at WaPo have to make a show of
hand-wringing, Nicholas Kristof runs to buy another Thai out of the sex trade or
whatev. propaganda for us rubes. is trump "the strongman coddler" in on this
performance? a wink-wink nudge-nudge thing going on b/n the unitary executive & the
msm?
most folks who were adults in the 1980's can remember how quickly hand-wringing over
China's human rights issues (particularly wrt Tiananmen Square 1989) and "Buy
American" and even "buy union" campaigns evaporated into the ether when size of the
money to be made from off-shoring became apparent.
For myself, exposure to the working class as a laborer has undone much of
my liberal arts programming where during the 90s in public education, post-feminist
and generally postmodernist thought was idealistically tainting a healthy world view.
You want geopolitics and how this shapes one's place say here in America? History can
inform!
Read Thucydides and pay attention to the Mytelanian Debate. Or the debate before
Athens sailed to Sicily where it's empire was destroyed. Shades of John McCain...
This essay, too, adds another dimension to why we fight evil:
"In the United States, conquests are frequently labeled as humanitarian interventions
whose sole purpose is to unilaterally help various people across the world. This has
become an official mantra, despite the long-term outcomes of such actions. Within the
context of the humanitarian interventions narrative, a framework of personalizing
foreign evil holds great significance. American people have to be convinced that
actions are indeed helping the people in distant lands get rid of evil dictators, and
to feel that sacrifice is worth the promised outcome."
and
"Depending on national security interest, individual evil located somewhere between
90 and 10,000 miles from our country's shores has one of the three forms."
"Who believes such marketing bullshit?"
... "but marketing itself is a science with proven track record: a lot of people
believe."
Unfortunately Piotr, 95 or better % of the American sheeple who read
(sorry, see/hear, most can't read past a seventh grade level) and believe the
prestitutetic MSM. A major roadblock to intelligence, sanity and peace.
...
Yes, Edward Bernays style, not just marketing, but propaganda. In these times, a
highly developed and effective science. Ronnie was just one of the trial balloons.
The article in the link from
Zok Palivic
just above is hilarious, thanks "47".
Almost Hitler
is an evil dictator who may have been our friend and ally at
one time, but is not any more. Change occurred when he, in an apparent moment of
madness, decided to simultaneously (A) run his own affairs and (B) for no reason
begin torturing his own people.
...
Hitler
, or better say, the
New Hitler
, is the next form of evil. He
not only tortures his own people, but tends, for example, to nationalize the
country's oil industry and have economic and military interaction with other New
Hitlers.
...
Worse than Hitler
is evil that has fully graduated. He not only tortures
his own people and exports terrorism, but may have attempted to generate even
worse crimes against humanity. Among them are attempts to abolish the country's
central bank, return to a gold standard, and trade oil and goods internationally
in currencies other than the dollar.
I'm re-posting this in hope that we can return to some of the fun and snark of the
Moon's early days ... not that I don't value the imformation-rich yet somehow
monotonic, serious posts of recent times.
Also popping my head up in harmony with other founding moonbats. Hey y'all!
Lest we think this is some kind of new standard, Obama was raked over the coals for
suggesting he even meet with Iranian diplomats. It cuts both ways of course. We were
quite cozy with Sadaam until we decided it was not cool to be cozy with him so that
we could go to war. Both the media and the government play us when it comes to who we
should and shouldn't form relationships with.
@25
Bemusing stuff---ancient adventurists for our neocons versus realist imperialists,
although the ancient Hellenes lacked the bomb. Then again, on Syrian Perspective,
there is a commenter who uses the name Thucydides, and he always suggests that we
learn to love the bomb...
An intriguing story from Germany. A cleaner working at Vienna airport found a handgun
hidden in a restroom. The Austrian police checked the fingerprints and they matched
those of a Syrian refugee in Germany. When the Germans called the refugee in, they
found out that he was actually a soldier in the Bundeswehr. He had been pretending to
be a Syrian refugee for 18 months, receiving the full benefits refugees are entitled
to. In his original application, he claimed to be from a French colonial part of
Damascus, in order to explain his lack of Arabic and fluency in French. Followup
investigations found evidence suggesting a hit list of left wing German politicians.
The soldier had right wing views (revealed in a Masters dissertation he wrote at an
elite French university) and the theory is that he was planning to frame refugees for
attacks. A whole can of worms has been opened.
i don't think it's a question of 'belief' ... i think most people accept the role of
lying propagandists for 'our side' ... people are fearful of losing what 'benefits'
they enjoy from the lopsided system, stacked in their favor, and will support
anything they feel will safeguard their 'privilege'. until it doesn't anymore.
unless and until the 'tried and true' system is seen to be absolutely broken,
unfixable, and an alternative proposed, one capable of eliciting mass faith and
belief ... the beatings will continue, and the drivel to drip out of the tnc msm
trumpets.
people need to accept that the 'old way' is done, and a 'new day' is being born.
certainly it seems the collapse of faith in the continued 'viability' of the old
system must come before an opening can be found for an alternative.
the present level of 'play' has sunk below all levels of believability - mina
above mentions HRW's
death by chemicals
, the blueprint for the continued p2p destruction of syria.
and people have linked the destruction of syria and other nations to be named
later, somehow, with foreclosing the end of their own 'good thing' in the west.
it's becoming clear that it's 'not working'. the way for an alternative is opening
up.
It makes for very interesting reading, not least because Duterte has adopted
socialist initiatives and has expressed interest in a Cuban-style healthcare policy.
RUkidding @ 8 said: " they claimed that Philippine citizens mostly support Duterte."
I just had a stay in the hospital, and, most of my attending RNs were from the
Philippines.
they ALL said they backed Duarte, so, maybe most of what we hear about him is BS?
At any rate, as long as the U$A backs a murderous regime like the KSA, who cares?
If such nations act in our interests, the rulers of the U$A don't care what they
do...
I appreciate all of b's efforts to deconstruct the nonsense of the MSM - perversely,
this leaves me free not to care that much.
Instead, I find the greater matter to be how Trump is behaving. I have a theory
that he will come to be seen as the greatest Teflon president of all time, far
surpassing Reagan in his ability to make a gaffe one day and rebound effortlessly the
next.
Indeed, perhaps only someone like Trump could play the card of actually meeting
with Kim Jong-Un - which China wants - and make it sound, in his insouciance, like
the US is holding a better hand than DPRK, when in fact both nations are holding
lesser hands than China's, in my opinion.
But everything about Trump requires time to see the full extent of the sine waves
he rides: up and down, this and that - where does he come to rest? We have yet to see
this because not enough time and motion have gone by. We and the Pentagon both have
known all along that the US has no real violence it can lay on North Korea without
reciprocal damage to itself an order of magnitude greater. And yet, all this bluster.
I've maintained for some time that the US has no effective material power left
that it can exert against serious opposition. All it has left is treachery and
theater - theater aided and abetted by a servile MSM that loses the plot as quickly
as it relays new ones, as shown by b's current analysis. And of these two tools,
treachery loses its effectiveness as more people come not to believe you in the first
place. But perhaps the theater still works?
Is it possible that the true purpose of the US is served as soon as it manages to
scare investment money away from this part of Asia, in capital flight to US
Treasuries?
We began a discussion about this in an earlier thread, and it was off topic. I'm
not sure it fits here, but maybe we can keep carrying it forward. The original
discussion occurs here, principally in comments
31
and
39
.
These contain links to an
Alasdair Mcleod analysis
of a
Chinese appraisal
also presented in an
alternative
translation
- all essentially saying that capital flight to the US dollar from
trouble spots in the world, is actually the reason that the US incites trouble in
those spots in the first place.
Thanks for claiming Australia is a democracy, the fact that the prime minister is a
former goldman sacks banker and the ruling party are us supporting, brain dead,
empathy bypassed, mainstream thinkers (who have ratified the tpp in the absence of
the us) shows that murdock owning 65% of all the media was a good investment.
The marketing bullshit works here too.
You know the MSM is completely full of shit and yet you accept that Duterte is the
murderous thug they claim him to be. Nothing more to the man. Murderous thug.
Why do you suppose they present him in that light?
Subic Bay for the Chinese, baby. Dollar can take a shit.
@27 - 47.. thanks for that! very succinct on the thread topic at hand..
@32
curtis.. good video.. thanks
@33 yonantan.. wonder where that story ends? one wonders how he could have pulled
that off - being a cop and getting the refugee benefits... sounds like the records
are not cross checking names, or he gave a different name, or? interesting.
@38 outraged.. good overview... i am sure the nyt covered it well, lol..
collective amnesia is alive and well at the nyt and in it's readership..
When the Filipino people realize the grandeur of their future destiny by reason of
association with the great Republic, and come to understand that they are a chosen
people to carry not only American commerce, but also republican institutions and
the principles of personal liberty throughout Asia, they may be relied upon to
rally to the inspiring thoughts thus suggested and follow and support the American
flag in whatever contests the future may have in store for it as the symbol of
human liberty throughout the world.
...
We are now living in a heroic age of human history. ... There is one very
noticeable feature in the American occupation of that archipelago. It arises from
contrast with the inspiring motives that have actuated and controlled the action
of other branches of the Aryan race, which have worked their way back, coming in
the opposite direction. We are planting in those islands imperishable ideas. All
other governments that have gone to the East have simply planted trading
establishments; they have not materially affected the conditions of the people.
... The contrasting idea with our occupation is this: In planting our ideas we
plant something that cannot be destroyed. To my mind the archipelagois a fertile
soil upon which to plant republicanism. ... Beneficient republican American
institutions once planted in the Philippines will last forever, and therefore,
will radiate an influence the appreciation of which it is hard to estimate. But
that fact in itself is beyond any possibility of dispute. We are planting the best
traditions, the best characteristics of Americanism in such a way that they never
can be removed from that soil.
testimony of general arthur macarthur,
american imperialism and the philippine
insurrection: testimony taken from hearings on affairs in the philippine islands
before the senate committee on the philippines - 1902
, little, brown and
company, 1969
alfred w. mccoy:
..this study's first substantive conclusion: the creation of sophisticated modern
policing was crucial to the U.S. pacification of the Philippines.
..a second major conclusion: the U.S. colonial regime's reliance on police for
pacification and political control embedded this securty apparatus within an
emerging Philippine state, contributing ultimately to an unstable excess of
executive power after independence.
..a fourth conclusion: by collaborating in the refinement of covert techniques for
internal security, these two states have forged powerful instruments to fortify
themselves against the processes of political change, slowing progress toward
civil rights in America and social justice in the Philippines.
The study of U.S.-Philippine security relations also serves as a microcosm for
America's changing role in international affairs. No other nation has felt the
force of American power so closely, so constantly throughout Washington's
century-long rise to world leadership. No other nation can reveal so much about
the character of America's international influence, both direct colonial rule and
diffuse global hegemony.
policing america's empire: the united states, the philippines, and the rise of
the surveillance state
, the university of wisconsin press, 2009
There is no doubt that some of the strategies Duterte has promoted in a
sensationalist attempt to address the Philippinnes crystal meth problem are beyond
questionable, but equally Filipino politics have finally elected a president from
outside the five ruling families of Luzon. Duterte himself originates from Mindanao -
altho his origins are from the language group of an island that lies between Luzon &
Mindanao.
Mindanao has been treated like a garbage dump ever since imperialists
chose Luzon as the administrative base for their takeovers.
Spanish, amerikan, Japanese and then amerikan again, greedy fuckers. They didn't just
fuck over Luzon, the uncaring assholes destroyed the ancient cultures of Mindanao by
dint of slave driven resource extraction. Initially by using the low level conflicts
that had been happily bubbling away between different clans on Mindanao. But it
didn't take the indigenous people long to recognise that unity was needed to overcome
the external threat; they unified so the next trick was to destroy the social fabric
& cultures of the island by indulging in a program pretty similar to the Indonesian
transmigration program. Indonesian transmigration caused many formerly peaceful &
productive islands in the Indonesian archipelago to be 'javanised' due to the forced
migration of thousands/millions of people from the slums of Djakarta to outlying
islands.
The same on Luzon. With a practice which appears to have been invented by the
englanders & Australia, millions of Luzonese have been forcibly removed to other
islands.
Selecting the already disadvantaged as the forced migrants ensured that Mindanao,
once a home to several successful if competong cultures, became anarchic and
uncontrollable. Little surprise then that when Duterte was just a Mindanao pol, he
promoted himself as the 'great bridgebuilder' whose stated aim was to restore a
semblance of order by favouring neither indigenous nor the bigger population of
exotic cultures. He became popular & he went on to dominate national politics.
To also paraphrase FDR, Filipinos may believe Duterte is an asshole but he is their
asshole.
I don't wanna sound all drug elitist - there is no doubt that people who do bad
shit when intoxicated, do that shit as a result of who they are - their behaviors -
not the drug's; but one cannot deny that crystal meth does inspire/enable more people
to do more dreadful shit that most other illegal intoxicants do.
The shit meth heads can get up to reduces much more ordered societies than the
Philippines' chaotic tightrope of a developing culture to near disaster.
Most people just want to 'get by'. That is the unfortunate reality for those of us
who understand the world could be much better for humans if more of us gave a fuck
about more than just the immediate needs of our
whanau
, that is not how most people think however, so Duterte was elected in a
reasonably honest (definitely a more accurate & true reflection of voters wishes than
say, amerikan elections) ballot as the president of the Philippines.
He announced he was going to go to war with the metho's and he did.
There are many concerns particularly about the concentration on street level dealers
who are frequently only in the game to fund their habits, whilst the 'Mr Bigs' have
largely escaped the old double tap to the base of the brain, but even so most
filipinos support his strategy.
We all know what this dislike of Duterte by western media and to a lesser extent the
trumpet himself, is really about.
Firstly he is not a regular example of what a philippines prez should be. Ke doesn't
prostrate himself in kneejerk obeisance to the biggest amerikan asshole in the room.
Neoliberalism is only partially accepted - where the benefits are palpable and the
'deal' has been examined for fish hooks - worst of all President Duterte has taken on
a few activists formerly with NPA (New Peoples Army) links into his team. amerika
views them in still in 1950's terms as "Chicoms". Duterte understands that the
Philippines has a substantial Islam population and that the only real hope the nation
has of not being destroyed by sectarian civil war is if the primary driver of
dissatisfaction towards the established order, inequality and its inevitable partner,
poverty is seen to be addressed.
Even that could be considered 'tolerable' by the assholes in DC, London, Paris and
Tel Aviv, if Duterte led the way in allowing his nation to be a battleground for the
coming war on China.
Duterte may be old but he isn't stupid or senile; he knows that the only opportunity
his people have lies in not taking sides in the coming blue.
Hence he has backed away from previous governments' (amerikan poodles all of em)
antagonism toward China particularly in regard to disputed territories.
Not because he is a commie, but because he understands that if he can successfully
negotiate a way through without overly antagonising either side, filipinos will
benefit long term. As China shifts much of its low wage low skills work offshore, the
Philippines can benefit and hopefully enjoy a similar move up the laddr as China has.
We (correctly IMHO) can consider that to be a bad deal longterm for the
Philippines, but OTOH if you have spent any time in that beautifully cursed nation
you must concede that 'things cannot continue as they are'.
amerika believes that things must continue as they are and has always blocked any
move (even pointlessly cosmetic base closures by previous filipino govts) as being
unacceptable.
When the trumpet & Duterte talk, the trumpet will doubtlessly adopt the usual
bully-boy tone towards Duterte that State, amerikan military and corporate assholes
have always used.
Except they cannot, if Duterte drops Xi Jinping's name as a more frequent dinner
partner of his than trumpet's, amerika has to listen. Listen and alter the way they
consider the Philippines in future.
In the old days they would simply off Duterte, but just as with Latin America, the
amerikan concentration on ME 'terrorism' since the late 90's, has left them somewhat
impotent. Plus of course Filipinos would be understandably outraged & the country
would either sink into a chaotic civil war with jihdists on one side, duterte-ists
another and Luzonese neolibbs another, if somewhat less popular, third grouping.
That doesn't prevent the Davos loving neoliberal cocksuckers from trying to revert
back to the old days using their media propaganda. It won't work, but it could
encourage amerikans to naively support the truly outrageous - the rape of Manila or
something equally awful.
So, for want of a viable alternative, it is Duterte who is the one most deserving of
our support.
B writes: "Meanwhile U.S. they U.S. directed war on drugs in Mexico has killed
thousands...."
in fact, this figure is in the many tens of thousands of lives, all
a direct result of blatant US foreign policy dictates to the president/congress of
mexico to start and continue this awful phony "war on drugs"
...Mexico stepped up its drug war in 2006, bringing a new wave of homicides as
Mexican officials and drug cartels clashed in horrific violence that killed soldiers,
police, drug cartel members, and civilians.
The researchers noted, "The mortality rate for males ages 20–39 in Chihuahua in
the period 2005–10 reached unprecedented levels: It was about 3.1 times higher than
the mortality rate of US troops in Iraq between March 2003 and November 2006.".....
....as shown by Mexico's war on drugs, in which as many as 80,000 people have
died....
from this July 2015 PBS article: "...Last week, the Mexican government released
new data showing that between 2007 and 2014 - a period that accounts for some of the
bloodiest years of the nation's war against the drug cartels - more than 164,000
people were victims of homicide. Nearly 20,000 died last year alone, a substantial
number, but still a decrease from the 27,000 killed at the peak of fighting in
2011...."
thanks for that unbelievable quote from a macarthur jr. perfectly
believable of course, just so opposite to reality, only someone in uniform or an
american politician of the first water could have made it.
"Chomsky (and his hangers on, e.g. Amy Goodman, Michael Albert and similar folks),
repeat lurid fantasies from the propaganda, about Assad, for example, but given an
external reference (Postol), he may make a principled stand---his conscience may bear
it."
If anyone told me they're avid readers of the Washington Post, NY Times, etc I'd walk
away immediately, they're a lost cause and cannot be reasoned with. I almost feel
physically ill when even an excerpt from those rags is published on a site like this.
@51
People who quote
BellingCat
are either brain damaged or willfully malevolent. Postol's point about
the explosive being placed outside the container stands---which begs the obvious
question of when the container was filled with Sarin, if it is to be believed that
the container in fact contained Sarin. But then again, as Hersh correctly pointed
out, Turkish prosecutors had prosecuted these 'rebels' before for being in possession
of Sarin---hence the AKP and 'rebel' rubbish about anti-freeze, following a certain
US movie, where the liquid form is identified as being green, where in fact it is
colourless. But keep on spinning---the US/Saudi/Turkish sponsored rebels need their
own industrial base, rather than use the industrial base of their sponsors---your
claim. Once US policy changes, I hope to see you legally prosecuted, for abetting
after the fact. The funniest thing in your link is your apparent lack of knowledge of
highschool physical chemistry---you claim that special technology is needed to
separate HF from Sarin, yet the boiling point of Sarin is 158C, while the boiling
point of HF is 19C, at standard pressure.
@51
The even more disgusting aspect of your comment about the need for an industrial base
for separation of Sarin (the utter nonsense of it aside), is the looting, and
shipping off to Turkey, of Syria's industrial base, by your so-called rebels. You
clearly lack any sense of shame.
Thanks for the chemistry lesson, Johan. I certainly could use some instruction on the
boiling point of sarin but I certainly know the difference between 2013 and 2017.
@57
The point about the boiling point of Sarin versus Hydrogen fluoride being that one
can separate them by evaporation at room temperature. If degradation of Sarin is a
concern (too slow separation), one can cool the mixture e.g. -40C/F and use vacuum
distillation with a rough to low vacuum pump to lower the boiling point---no
industrial base needed.
As you cannot answer the substance of Postol's charges
(local detonation outside vessel) nor Hersh's (Turkish prosecutors prosecuted your
'rebel' friends for possession of Sarin), you distract with a fumble of similar
events in different years, by an elderly man (Postol). Your claims, that it is
necessarily (let alone probably---again, not) Assad that launched a chemical attack,
when even the rescue videos disprove a Sarin attack, speak to your habitual
dishonesty, though I suspect that that dishonesty is in the first instance to
yourself.
are wayoutwest and louisproyect actually the same person? or are their often
convergent views brought about by their common provenance ... retired
cia/state/dnc/mic hangers-on? they never die ... just fade away. too. poor wow has
just about faded completely. may lp slowly hasten to join him.
@57
The chemistry lesson is a reaction to the bunkum that you wrote, to which I linked in
53, to wit:
In a must-read article on Bellingcat by Dan Kaszeta, we learn that
Sarin gas is extremely volatile and cannot be stored as the final product used in
military strikes since the main chemical reaction that produces Sarin creates one
molecule of hydrogen fluoride (HF) for every molecule of Sarin. This hydrogen
fluoride byproduct destroys nearly anything the Sarin would be stored in and quickly
degrades the Sarin gas itself.
Basic Boltzmann statistics and phase diagrams are enough to understand that what
you wrote is idiotic. My comments on chemistry are of the spelling out variety that
an irritated instructor might make to mock an arrogant and stupid (Dunning Kruger
effect) student, and give a laugh to the capable students---a tactic I've seen a
number of times in my day.
Rex Tillerson makes an interesting distinction between foreign
policy missions/aims and 'values' ... not sure it all makes sense but there is some
clarity in his expose of the situation in hand. Numerous internal re-org messages for
a department under the 'change' banner, but also some good insights into US thinking
at the top on global role and balance. I think he articulates his vision rather well
although I'm not sure that vision is shared by others who see the large gap between
the talk and the walk. Interesting omission at the end of a certain three-letter
agency (CIA) in his linking of DoD and State Dept. Perhaps there is hope if Tillerson
and Sergey Lavrov can establish a working relationship. Yet the emerging future will
be based on the how close the Americans can actually get to their espoused set of
immovable values in practice. Well worth the 39min, imo.
"Secretary of State Tillerson Addresses Department of State Employees"
(Published on May 3, 2017)
https://youtu.be/jMqa2T4nRj0
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right,
from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate
presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.
They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist
commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into
Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen
addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees,
unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.
The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le
Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove
France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars.
Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched
bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the
EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase
trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel
Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight
in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the
35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to
prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises
to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for
equal pay for women.
Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links
to terrorists.
Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs
Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited
from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy
Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist'
Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.
Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose
demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of
public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.
Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European
Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for
French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO
wars on three continents.
Propaganda, Labels and Lies
Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one
conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor,
not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.
Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the
media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current
supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.
The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism'
and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the
oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.
Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs
and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling
the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands
for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies,
budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.
Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction
of the National Front Party.
She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's
rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers,
public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial
revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers
as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers
and business owners.
Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and
political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize
the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the
profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters
of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the
lesser evil with the greater evil.
If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard'
and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades
in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential
'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.
If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine
will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does
not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.
This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left'
is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism,
mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left'
or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment
in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment,
lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement.
It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum
seekers being deported.
The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore
welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more
an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases
than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.
And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so
many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the
working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic
group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable.
The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among
their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.
The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often
exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they
don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and
thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)
Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short
video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with
Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:
The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest
most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have
enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum
over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and,
instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran
and Palestine."
Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found
himself neutered by invisible rulers?
France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on
hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein
lies the rub.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North
America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes
that had never seen or heard of the white man.
Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the
abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least,
weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where
- after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives
and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).
But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look
much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while
the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession
laws exist for a reason.
Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then
bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians
didn't do it to themselves.
@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she
married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol
She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)
@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though
opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"... In a system rigged for ever-increasing concentration of wealth, identifying whose ox to gore is precisely an important part of making things better. And the higher one goes on the wealth spectrum, the bigger the number of resentful underlings who are prepared to do the necessary ox-goring. ..."
"... Just Noah being disingenuous, as usual. ..."
"... That's given (part of his institutional role as a Bloomberg columnist). What is important is his amazingly sophisticated level of dishonesty. In this sense he is simply great: he creatively apply identity politics to the problem that in all times was defined as "class straggle", in which Warren Buffet class is winning ;-) "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... Note that he never mentioned the term "neoliberalism" and "neoliberal globalization". Still a very creative astroturfing ..."
"... FDR taxed virtually everyone, by getting Congress to tax almost everyone. Exempt from taxes as a compromise were most blacks and browns and white people trash, but every white workers was taxed. Those taxes mostly paid workers, with some taxes paid to workers without jobs so they could keep paying workers to work as iffy they still had a job paying them money they used to pay workers. ..."
"... FDR was much plainer speaking compared to today, but that's driven by progressives buying into the majority of free lunch economics sold by the Kochs of the 50s and 60s and turned into mainline by Milton Friedman ..."
"... "A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. ..."
"... "I am not willing [to accept] that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up .papers in the public parks. We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but also their self-respect, their self-reliance and courage and determination. This decision brings me to the problem of what the Government should do with approximately five million unemployed now on the relief rolls." ..."
"... And it was FDR who was the capitalist: "All work undertaken should be useful -- not just for a day, or a year, but useful in the sense that it affords permanent improvement in living conditions or that it creates future new wealth for the Nation. ... Preference should be given to those projects which will be self-liquidating in the sense that there is a reasonable expectation that the Government will get its money back at some future time." ..."
"... I doubt that Jeff Bezos subscribes to the idea that "All work undertaken should be useful..." His business model is to subvert all brick and mortar stores into acing as his exhibition halls so that customer can investigate item and buy it from Amazon slightly cheaper. that's a kind of sophisticated, Internet age, parasitism. ..."
"... One also can argue that Elon Musk is a new type of Ponzi entrepreneur, using Minsky classification. His ability to repay those loans that he is taking is very questionable. ..."
"The problem with populism isn't that its anger is unjustified -- lots of people are really
hurting, and the economic and political systems really are deeply unfair in many ways. It's
that the anger is aimed in all directions in a confused jumble of blame and resentment.
That kind of confused war of all against all is unlikely to yield good results. Instead of
an anger-based populism that focuses its energy on attacking some group of elites, what the
country needs is a reformist populist movement that focuses on changing the system itself.
Instead of thinking about who to blame, Americans should be thinking about how to make things
better."
First response: "yeah, that whole 'French Revolution' thing was useless." / snark
Second response: "What pablum! In a system rigged for ever-increasing concentration of wealth,
identifying whose ox to gore is precisely an important part of making things better. And the higher
one goes on the wealth spectrum, the bigger the number of resentful underlings who are prepared
to do the necessary ox-goring."
That's given (part of his institutional role as a Bloomberg columnist). What is important is his amazingly sophisticated level of dishonesty. In this sense he is simply
great: he creatively apply identity politics to the problem that in all times was defined as "class
straggle", in which Warren Buffet class is winning ;-) "There's class warfare, all right, but
it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
That's typical for neoliberals in general.
Note that he never mentioned the term "neoliberalism" and "neoliberal globalization". Still
a very creative astroturfing
"You kind of need to get your analysis right. Also you can try many different things like FDR
did. Why isn't Noah Smith complaining about Yellen killing jobs?"
You obviously have no clue what FDR, and his Yellen, Mariner Eccles, actually did, nor the
role of the Congress voters elected back then.
FDR taxed virtually everyone, by getting Congress to tax almost everyone. Exempt from taxes
as a compromise were most blacks and browns and white people trash, but every white workers was
taxed. Those taxes mostly paid workers, with some taxes paid to workers without jobs so they could
keep paying workers to work as iffy they still had a job paying them money they used to pay workers.
FDR was much plainer speaking compared to today, but that's driven by progressives buying into
the majority of free lunch economics sold by the Kochs of the 50s and 60s and turned into mainline
by Milton Friedman.
I never see you saying anything like FDR:
"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief
rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human
as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them
precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively
that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally
destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic,
a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is
in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
"The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.
"I am not willing [to accept] that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash,
of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up .papers
in the public parks. We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but
also their self-respect, their self-reliance and courage and determination. This decision brings
me to the problem of what the Government should do with approximately five million unemployed
now on the relief rolls."
It was FDR who described welfare as the opiate of the masses. It was FDR who called unemployment
a moral decay. It was FDR who called government paid work something that sapped individual vitality.
And it was FDR who was the capitalist: "All work undertaken should be useful -- not just for
a day, or a year, but useful in the sense that it affords permanent improvement in living conditions
or that it creates future new wealth for the Nation. ... Preference should be given to those projects
which will be self-liquidating in the sense that there is a reasonable expectation that the Government
will get its money back at some future time."
FDR and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would all be in total agreement. None believe in or promise
free lunches.
Paying for things has gotten a bad name, but Obama got thing paid for, which is the reason
the left and right hate him. The left and right want only free lunches.
FDR and Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would all be in total agreement. None believe in or promise
free lunches.
I doubt that Jeff Bezos subscribes to the idea that "All work undertaken should be useful..." His business model is to subvert all brick and mortar stores into acing as his exhibition halls
so that customer can investigate item and buy it from Amazon slightly cheaper. that's a kind of
sophisticated, Internet age, parasitism.
One also can argue that Elon Musk is a new type of Ponzi entrepreneur, using Minsky classification.
His ability to repay those loans that he is taking is very questionable.
"... Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence !!! ..."
"... His style was actually fairly drone like. He went up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger. ..."
"... Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected. ..."
"... Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers? ..."
Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate his
way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other sentence
!!!
Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went
up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition
of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man" an
Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a nothingburger.
I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling to be projected.
Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen Casey,
in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative device,
expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision. I thought
then, having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers, is this
a dog whistle signal to the bankers?
Very interesting discussion of how the project of mass surveillance of internet traffic started
and what were the major challenges. that's probably where the idea of collecting "envelopes" and correlating
them to create social network. Similar to what was done in civil War.
The idea to prevent corruption of medical establishment to prevent Medicare fraud is very interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their integrity. ..."
"... 500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it. ..."
"... People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same thing. ..."
"... In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to protest. ..."
"... Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause ..."
"People who believe in these rights very much are forced into compromising their integrity"
I suspect that it's hopelessly unlikely for honest people to complete the Police Academy; somewhere
early on the good cops are weeded out and cannot complete training unless they compromise their
integrity.
500 Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys No matter which government conducts mass surveillance,
they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
I am wondering how much damage your spying did to the Foreign Countries, I am wondering how
you changed regimes around the world, how many refugees you helped to create around the world.
Don Kantner, 2 weeks ago
People are so worried about NSA don't be fooled that private companies are doing the same
thing. Plus, the truth is if the NSA wasn't watching any fool with a computer could potentially
cause an worldwide economic crisis.
Bettor in Vegas 1 year ago
In communism the people learned quick they were being watched. The reaction was not to go to
protest.
Just not be productive and work the system and not listen to their crap. this is all that was
required to bring them down. watching people, arresting does not do shit for their cause......
In defense of Obama making $400K while Clinton only made $225K
he was actually able to *GET ELECTED*.. She took all her bribes up front then lost to Trump
with a 2-1 money advantage and the press completely in her pocket. Truly pathetic. He should get
WAY more than 2x what she does. HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED SOMETHING TO HIS BENEFACTORS. If she had
any shame - which she obviously doesn't - she'd disappear forever. And we'd all be the better
for it.
Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are three of the most embarrassing Americans to have ever lived.
If you think I'm being too harsh, ask yourself why the (D) party they built for 30 years prefers
fascism to democratic socialism.
Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama
as a reward for [not prosecuting anyone on Wall Street for the crash].
Well, something that seems fairer , if not inarguable, is that if President Obama
had prosecuted people on Wall Street, demanded Pecora investigation-style hearings, or,
y'know, acted generally in the public interest, Wall Street would not be shelling out
$400,000 to hear his views on anything.
To view Obama during his presidency as not being constrained under those circumstances
seems, to me, to be a kind of willful obliviousness.
I have always wondered how successful the big producers, such as Wall Street
traders, would be if they were subjected to random stop-and-frisk of them in
their cars and coming out of the bars at night like they would be regularly
subjected to if they lived in poor neighborhoods. It is likely that a lot of
DWI and drug charges would be filed, similar to what we see in the inner city,
with attending legal issues impacting their productivity. Assuming they then
faced the court system with court-provided counsel instead of highly-paid
Harvard Law grads, I wonder how many of them would be back at work the next
day?
My spouse teaches in an inner city school and its pretty much only the
immigrant kids who have intact families providing them with support at home –
most of the American (black, white, and hispanic) kids in her classes have
parents in jail, domestic abuse protective orders, etc. They are frequently
raised by their grandparents or other relatives. Playing outside at recess and
lunch at school is very important because many of the kids live in
neighborhoods where it is unsafe to play outside. Being poor is very effective
at teaching kids how to be poor.
Workers in the so-called 'gig economy' face heightening conditions of precarity and exploitation.
From delivery couriers to taxi drivers,
this series has shown that conditions of work are increasingly deleterious and show little sign
of improvement.
To combat this, innovative new strategies of organisation and mobilisation have been developed.
New, and more direct, tactics of trade union struggle have been at the heart of
successful disputes led by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain in London and via spontaneous
strikes by Uber drivers and others across
the USA ,
the UK ,
France , and
beyond .
As yet, there has been less traction for these forms of the gig economy in Latin America. This
may be about to change, as according to a
recent Bloomberg report Uber HQ is responding to recent negative press attention by turning to
the region as its new 'Promised Land'.
Three reasons may explain why the gig economy has had little success so far in the region. First,
it relies on a business model that requires particular market conditions, namely a high volume of
relatively high-income consumers living alongside significant surplus labour. Such conditions are
not as widespread in Latin America as in Europe and North America.
sorry to be a debbie downer--Uber-Lyft drivers have been trying to organize (both work slowdowns
and unions) for years with no success outside of Seattle, Austin, NYC. (wouldn't count Denver)
(see the organization forums at uberpeople dot net)
problems: workers' don't have the capital to organize a viable alternative unless there is
a very pro-driver local govt/regulatory system (eg, Austin). Austin is literally one of the few
municipalities who didn't buy Uber-Lyft's Orwellian it-aint-a-cab-it's "rideshare" nonsense.
Yes, while the app can be replicated--Uber's moats are ultracheap/subsidized fares, regulatory
capture, a global network and user inertia as Uber is the go-to app.
More problems: atomized workforce; lots of part-timers who have different incentives v. full-timers;
(sorry if this sounds awful) desperate or innumerate natives or recent immigrants who don't mind
working at/or below minimum wage as it's > $0; drivers are commodities easily replaced, lack of
support/indifference from customers; customers are addicted to low fares and don't want to care
about the externalities (like Americans are with cheap meat); people had a low opinion of the
taxi industry.
Bottom line; many drivers have been thinking these problems for a while it's David v. Goliath
and his lobbyists and his investor cash hoarde.
Cite: I was a driver who completed literally thousands of rides.
Gig workers won't organize into unions – until they do. Something will spark it, it will happen
first in Seattle and the other places where the organizing infrastructure is in place, and then
it will happen lots of other places all at once, well ahead of any drawn out organizing activity.
This is how it happens, how it always happens.
Because we have an existing private sector labor law that says independent contractors are
not employees, the legal part will be awkward and confusing. But when the spark is lit, that won't
really matter. The law will, eventually, accommodate itself to the reality.
The only question is whether this happens sometime in the next two years or in the next twenty
years.
Actually, I gave up reading the article after the first paragraph (skipped right to the always
insightful comments section). Anyone who uses the words 'precarity" (I don't even think that's
real word) and "deleterious" in the first two sentences is someone whose clarity of thinking is
immediately suspect. Inflated academic jargon has become the death rattle of the university intellectual
class. A long time ago Joan Didion hit the nail on the head: "As it happens, I am still committed
to the idea that the ability to think for one's self depends upon one's mastery of the language."
Oh Please -- Without a teleprompter, the great(est) orator (whose time ?) couldn't orate
his way out of a recyclable plastic bag unless the noun 'folks' was interspersed every other
sentence !!!
Thanks Polecat, I agree whole heartedly. His style was actually fairly drone like. He went
up and then down in every sentence. He spoke platitudes with great force. If that is the definition
of an "orator' than, yes , he was an orator. But an "orator" can also be a "film flam man"
an Elmer Gantry. But if you define an orator as someone who conveyed great ideas, he was a
nothingburger.
I agree. Obama is not a great orator and his insincere use "folks" vocally dripped of his
disdain. (He should have used "lessers" if he wanted some real authenticity and human feeling
to be projected.
Stoller had an article saying Obama is just a Hamiltonian. Here in 08′, standing next to Sen
Casey, in front of a war memorial, Obama's entire speech used the Founder Hamilton as a narrative
device, expounding Hamiltoin's greatness and sort of promising a return to Hamilton's vision.
I thought then,having just read a book on Jefferson and his hatred for Hamilton and the bankers,
is this a dog whistle signal to the bankers?
"... It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten. ..."
"... It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which are
far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long dark winter
of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions. ..."
"... i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch was
clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have armed Wahabists
in Syria. ..."
"... A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were called.
The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed. ..."
"... I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the United
States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision poll, which
found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed in all cases and
66% believe it should be allowed in some cases. ..."
"... Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind. ..."
"... I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the Pope
emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen. ..."
"... Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency". ..."
"... The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics, and
nones). They represent about 35% of the US population. ..."
"... How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want.
They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world. ..."
"... Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic, voted
for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war. ..."
Throughout his American visit the pope's approach was deft and nuanced, but challenging. He could speak softly because he carried
a big stick; he had fiercely denounced unfettered capitalism in his documents
Evangelii Gaudium
and
Laudato si', which both identified common causes in the rich world's indifference to the planet and to the poor.
This pope is a tactician as well as a moralist. All this could have a significant impact in the US. Politically, there has been
a shift that could prove pivotal in terms of the quarter of the electorate that identifies as Catholic.
Under the previous two popes, Republicans could count on papal endorsement for their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances.
Catholic Democrats, by contrast, had a trickier time, treading a tightrope between voicing respect for the pope and for their electorate
on such issues.
tjt77 -> ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 20:08
by the time the election actually yawns its way into being, some 14 months away, the public will have long forgotten the visit
of Pope Francis..although wahtever current titlilating juicy 'news /entertainment' story plus the words that the still standing
bought and paid for clowns utter a few days before might have some impact on the majority voter in (to quote the late Gore Vidal)
"the United States of Amenesia."
Dave "marmite71" -> O Robert Cuminale 29 Sep 2015 19:12
No confusion - Every Catholic will say the creed with these words "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. This
is said in every Mass.
I think I was eight when I was taught for my first communion that meant belief in the Catholic church as the only legitimate
christian church and church hierarchy headed by the that guy who lives in Rome.
But what would I know, I was only catholic for 25 years, as was all my wider family, two of whom are priests.
Okasis -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 19:10
Many Progressives Do Give a Damn. Every time I have to listen to one of the Catholic Bigots on the esteemed Supreme Court,
I want to puke! Most of us are pretty unhappy about the Anti-Abortion/Gay/Immigrant/Women trash that passes for political dialogue
in the US - Much of it aided and abetted by the Catholic Bishops, in all their wisdom...
Robert Cuminale -> Dave "marmite71" O 29 Sep 2015 18:41
I know the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasion Creed. I'm not Catholic so I asked others who are and they don't
what it is either.
Are you confusing that small "c" in catholic (universal) with the large "C" as in the name of the denomination?
Maqbool Qurashi -> talenttruth 29 Sep 2015 17:30
It is like the Roman Empire. Its military was spread all over the world while the internal core was getting rotten.
Our infrastructure is rotting. The water system in the Washington DC is 150 years old and leaking 15% of the water. The rate
at which they are repairing, it will take another 70 years to fix it.
Education system is in a chaos. As we ignore these deficiencies, the problems become worse. Hey, we do have the largest and
well equipped military in the world and we keep feeding it.
John Kayoss -> John Kayoss 29 Sep 2015 16:11
Here's a couple articles, well sourced ones, to begin your education with:
Most Americans aren't Protestant - the pew survey last year http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
lists Protestants at 46.5 and it declined 4.8% from the last survey in 2007 when they were 51.3%.
I also don't think the dispirit numbers of Protestants voters are as dead set against Papal advice as you seem to believe.
My Methodist father-in-law was very impressed by him for instance.
What I think the article makes a case for (poorly articulated I confess -pardon the pun) is that without the American catholic
clergy's pushing just narrow moral issues like stopping abortions and gay marriage and failing to mention the church's social
justice positions to catholic voters that will make a difference in a key voting demographic, i.e. Catholic Voters.
Even a relatively small switch in the groups voting patterns will have major impact in US elections.
namjodh -> MXJones 29 Sep 2015 14:30
A few things ...
1. The Catholic Church in the United States is part of the worldwide Catholic Church. With 69.4 million members, it is the
largest religious body in the United States, comprising 22% of the population.
2. Separation of Church and State ... ummmmmmm tell that to the frigging Tea Party, dude, or Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum or Mike
Huckabee for that matter.
Your comment like most "Conservative" comments is both factually incorrect and simply bullshit.
ewmbrsfca 29 Sep 2015 13:40
Time will tell whether the pope has a decisive influence upon the 2016 race for the White House.
It will be far more important to see how the conservative US Catholic Bishops' Conference, most of the members of which
are far more conservative than most conservative Catholics, and who are culture warrior apparatschiks appointed during the long
dark winter of the JPII/BXVI-pontificate, will respond to Pope Francis' words and actions.
We will know soon enough during the Synod, which opens its Second Session on October 4 and is slated to last two weeks, or
potentially more, given the expected highly controversial debate.
There is a reason why Pope Francis added, by appointment, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich to the number of participants in
the Synod, and this must not have escaped Mr. Vallelly. It is Blase Cupich, after all, who most profoundly "gets" what Francis
intends to achieve.
Meanwhile, among the US bishops there are still some very recalcitrant holdouts (e.g. the prelates in San Francisco, CA, or
Providence, RI, to name only two) who would love to see Francis gone.
What can be said, I think, is that it has become a bit more difficult for the USCCB to unashamedly broadcast the Republican
Party Line as it did, to the embarrassment and diminishment of its own moral authority, during the previous Presidential Election
Campaign. In that sense, Pope Francis may well have left many Catholics a precious, and certainly by some bishops despised, gift:
vote according to your informed conscience, vote for the Gospel, for peace, justice, and equality for all.
chanayutr 29 Sep 2015 13:31
There is simply no way that the timing of Boehner's announcement is completely unrelated to the Pope's visit, so in that way,
at least, the Pope has had an influence, insofar as the teabilly faction will be put off for a couple more months, at least. What
happens after that will (most likely) be the responsibility of another Irish-American politician, Kevin McCarthy. The timing of
the next teabilly-inspired government shutdown, debt-ceiling crisis, or other near death experience has been moved back in such
a way that it could very well influence the Nov., 2016 election. So, yeah, in a way, the Pope did cast his vote against the conservatives.
John Kayoss -> Aaron King 29 Sep 2015 12:53
i highly doubt Francis would have bombed Libya based on lies (as even the US State Department infested Human Rights Watch
was clear, after the fact, that it was). Nor would Francis have assisted open Nazis in their coup in Ukraine. Nor would he have
armed Wahabists in Syria.
Nor would he have used drones to kill a 16 yr old American citizen, simply because the kid chose to have a father that the
US didn't like.
This pope would not have given a free pass to Wall Street, nor would he have arranged a nationwide violent crackdown on those
who protested this free pass.
The pope would not have jailed Chelsea Manning for documenting the truth about what informed people already knew, nor would
he have imprisoned John Kariakou (sp?) for blowing the whistle on torture (nor would he have remained silent as the torture ring
run domestically under the leadership of John Burge, in the same area Obama used to "represent", was exposed)
Nor would he have had the plane of a Head of State (who is far closer to Francis's positions than a corporatist like Obama
could ever hope to be) grounded, based on a rumor proven to be false.
Of course, to claim that a man who the banks have invested so heavily in, only to be repaid in appointments, and who tries
to push monstrosities like TTIP and TPP onto a public whose "representatives" are not even allowed to speak about the details,
as being somehow "left" is indicative of the level of (self?) deception needed to support Obama.
And please, do tell me about how Francis had his opposition chained to a desk for 8 hours at a black site during the debates,
to keep the media ignorant of her existence. (As Obama did in 2012).
Obama is not fit to kiss the shoes of the Bishop of Rome, much less be equated with him.
fredimeyer -> Al Simballa 29 Sep 2015 12:31
you raise an extremely worrying point. look at the knesset, where parties with a handful of followers with the most bizarre
religious notions can sometimes control certain votes.
In America, splinter 'religious' groups from the scientologists to the mormons to the amish have very specific one or two issue
political agendas. and Americans fall over backwards to accommodate any mention of 'religious freedom'
Voters do not seem to mind that candidate x is a total nutter and denies the very fabric of science, or wears magic under clothing
or insists of snipping the johnsons of baby boys. no matter how whacky, it is 'religious freedom'.
The massive turnout for the leader of a barbaric and medieval 'religion' was frightening. but experience, so far, suggests
that even his most devoted followers do not put into practice and of his preachings.
George Williams YorkerBouncer 29 Sep 2015 11:48
A little hypocritical since his predecessors condemned to death a lot of heretics, which is what political prisoners were
called. The Office of the Inquisition lasted until 1964, when, like ACORN, it simply had its name changed.
GreenLake Cooper2345 29 Sep 2015 11:10
There is no evidence to support your claim that the majority of faithful Catholics oppose the church's teaching on the sanctity
of life.
I didn't say anything about "faithful" Catholics -- you inserted that word. I said that the majority of Catholics in the
United States oppose the Church's teachings on abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. As evidence, I would cite this Univision
poll, which found only 21% of American Catholics support the Church's opposition to abortion. 10% believe it should be allowed
in all cases and 66% believe it should be allowed in some cases.
Opposition to the Church's position on every other social issue is even more overwhelming.
StevoKingoftheNewts -> Kevin Parcell 29 Sep 2015 11:07
Hmm. Seems like out of the frying pan into the fire.
A remarkable number of my schoolmates have killed themselves over the years. I believe this is down to the activities of the
local priest, who buggered many of them (not me, thankfully) and was helpfully moved by the bishop to another diocese where he
did it again. The actual case was reported in the Observer.
I'd no sooner send my child to a Catholic school than I'd sign them up to the junior Ku Klux Klan.
FWIW, I wouldn't send my kid to private school either.
John Kennedy 29 Sep 2015 09:55
The Pope is a great man and a great leader, but I doubt he will have any impact on the election. I think you over estimate
the partisan impact, the Pope was very balanced, I suspect on purpose. In fact, I would even venture to say he was a mirror, that
reflected your own basis's and views back upon you in a thoughtful manner. I am not surprised that this paper saw this reflection
in the mirror.
Daniel P. Ferreira -> bbqtv 29 Sep 2015 09:45
Change has to come gradually, and he is spearheading the biggest change the church has experienced in centuries.
Don't be a hypocrite, governments are the ones responsible to control corporations and stop the destruction of humankind.
Mindless greed in form of short term "profits" at any cost cannot be offset by selling Vatican works of art, which is nothing
but another short term fix.
We are a sick society, and we can only enjoy our existence by not caring about others suffering or turning a blind eye.
He has leverage and he is using it.
I am an atheist, but highly respect him.
BaronVonAmericano 29 Sep 2015 09:18
The Pope does not put wind under the wings of all Democrats. It's hard to see how so-called "centrist" Democrats get much out
of the Pope's remonstrations. Those candidates are just as wedded to the golden calf as any Republican, and they are opposed to
the Pope's position on gay rights and abortion. In other words, the only good things about right-wing Democrats find no support
from the Pope, putting them somewhere behind even Republicans as far as this visit goes.
I think if the Pope's visit boosted any candidate, it was Bernie Sanders, who not only focuses on the equity issues the
Pope emphasized, but is willing to reach out without judgment to all who will listen.
Captain_Smartypants -> conifer2 29 Sep 2015 08:44
I did say something about you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
So you've didn't get involved in the original point, and brought in something completely irrelevant instead. Christianity and
the Church is hardly one thing, and the Church acts less by Christian values than many an atheist. I don't think we're even having
a debate here, unless you're still going to argue for that Christianity (a very different thing from the Church, for the umpteenth
time) favours credit.
conifer2 -> Captain_Smartypants 29 Sep 2015 08:39
To make it even simpler for you, it would be like requesting myself to lecture people on debt on the sole basis of myself being
a lender. There's nothing in my status as a lender that would require me to do such a thing - in fact, as one I should probably
understand that an inherent part of interest is to cover the risk of credit loss, in other words the non-payment of debt, and
that this is widespread and part of the business model of any lender.
To make it simpler for you - I didn't say anything about the Pope lecturing Argentina on it's debt. I did say something about
you're comment that Christianity doesn't favour credit and lending.
Lysicamus -> Keo2008 29 Sep 2015 06:05
I understand that the Bible forbids usury, lending or changing money for profit. This was why the Jews were moneylenders in
Britain; the Church did not want Christians to transgress but didn't care if the Jews did. When the Christians had borrowed too
much they expelled the Jews to avoid paying back what they owed.
rivelle -> Zepp 29 Sep 2015 05:56
Chomsky describes the present day GOP as not a party but a "radical insurgency".
I think you'll find that Christian churches have no problem with credit or the profits from it. Many churches have investment
portfolios.
I would not confuse a pragmatic approach to investing surplus funds with the Christian message though, as the latter doesn't
moralise about debt and its repayment. I'm pretty sure it's in the Pope's job description to promote Christianity and its values
rather than give debt management advice...
DoctorStrangeglove -> JimPNY 29 Sep 2015 00:56
If you somehow see hypocrisy in those not hyde-bound to a religionist-myth version of American history, if that imaginary phantasm
is problem for you, then you've no effin' idea what either "separation of church and state", "...shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion..." or "freedom of religion" mean.
Gordon Stanly 29 Sep 2015 00:50
The Guardian needs to stop over-exaggerating the Pope's influence. The latest polls show that only 20% of the US population
identifies as 'Catholic'.
Most of the Catholic population in America are immigrants from Poland, Ireland, Britain, and South America.
The largest (and fastest growing) growing demographic in America are the "religiously unafilliated" (atheists, agnostics,
and nones). They represent about 35% of the US population.
Religion has lost it's influence.
spinnyspace -> Esslloyd 28 Sep 2015 23:48
How dare the Elected Pope attempt to interfere with the 'sole pastime' of the USA in their passion for interfering with other
countries leadership.
How dare someone else from one of those little countries who should be doing and thinking what their told not as they want.
They don't want people preaching at them? Stop the worldwide policing and judgment of the rest of the world.
peacefulmilitant -> GreenLake 28 Sep 2015 22:51
as the number of white Catholics declines and Hispanic Catholics increases, the trend will probably build more in the
Democrats favor.
Except Hispanics are the most likely US Catholics to abandon the Church.
capitalismsucks1 -> Meme Mine 28 Sep 2015 22:40
Add a "Neo" and you are correct. Neoliberals from both corporate owned and operated parties, Republican and Democratic,
voted for the war. Socialists and others opposed the war.
Francizek 28 Sep 2015 21:59
Above all, the Pope is realistic and pragmatic. Not so many years ago, the western world was beset with an unsustainable birth
rate, and an horrendous infant mortality rate, not so different from the current situation in so-called third world countries
today. Medical improvements have certainly helped enormously to change this situation, but equally obviously changes in cultural
attitudes involving birth control have had just as big an effect. These changes will not be reversed.
"... "Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth." TR SoU 1902 ..."
"... "To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." TR 1907 SoU ..."
"... "To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action, no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege, would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing." TR 1908 SoU ..."
"... "In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole." TR Square Deal speech 1903 ..."
"... Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security, much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and publicly provided post-secondary education. ..."
"... geez... Sanders is "lumped in" with Trump as far as both of them are running against the status quo. ..."
"... "In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Saunders' on the left) resonates with so many." ..."
"... Middle-aged Americans today are among the first to find, in their 40s and 50s, that they will be no better off than their parents. Many of them, who used to look forward to defined-benefit pensions, are now dependent on a stock market that looks like an increasingly unreliable guarantor of a happy retirement, and a world of zero interest rates is not a good world for those saving for retirement. These people have legitimate reasons to be unhappy. ..."
"... You argue that low wages are somehow wonderful for the economy and business. Yet you do not immediately see and note that low wages depress GDP or even cause GDP to fall. ..."
"... An economy is like hands clapping. Waving one hand is unproductive, contrary to all you have been taught about supply side economics, the ultimate in hand waving. ..."
I suppose, but to place Bernie Sanders on the left is to call Reagan a leftist who became a centrist
when bought by the big corporations.
As a flower child hippie long haired freak, either leftist
means Zionist or Marxist or Cuban Revolutionary, or most Republicans and half the Democrats with
the other half of the Democrats being hard right racist fascist circa 1960.
Bernie Sanders and Teddy Roosevelt would have been in agreement for many things.
"The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the
creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty
bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown." TR speech 1902
Though Hilary would be more likely to say:
"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations
are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would
be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body
politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations
until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring
to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that
they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct,
not against wealth." TR SoU 1902
"Malefactors of great wealth." TR 1907
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of
using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children
the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed."
TR 1907 SoU
"To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action,
no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege,
would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in
the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing." TR 1908 SoU
"In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or
greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves
and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and
so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for
the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole."
TR Square Deal speech 1903
What is interesting is how great the parallel is between circa 1900-1915 and 2000-2015.
It is a post without a clear point. mulp writes, "Bernie Sanders and Teddy Roosevelt would have
been in agreement for many things." But so what? Lots of people who differ politically are in
agreement on some things. Ralph Nader and Richard Nixon agreed on some things.
The fact is, in the US Senate and among current candidates for President, Sanders is on the
left. It hardly matters that he isn't pure enough for you, because you yourself aren't going to
do anything about it, and you yourself don't have a plan.
Another fact is that Sanders isn't going to get elected, but if he did, the country would move
to the left. Another fact is that if Hillary gets elected, the 2017 provisions that are already
in Obamacare will kick in unobstructed, and states will be able to go single-payer, and so the
country will move to the left. Left-right is not a purist thing. But quote more Teddy, he was
friends with John Muir.
Another fact is that if Hillary gets elected, the 2017 provisions that are already in Obamacare
will kick in unobstructed, and states will be able to go single-payer....
This is exactly the same kind of article that was written in 1992 to address the popularity of
Perot's candidacy. The issues really haven't changed, and in fact the processes have intensified.
But they are more similar to the early 20th century, stepping back a century in time.
"Political
parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these
great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general
welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their
selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing
no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government,
to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task
of the statesmanship of the day." TR 1912
"Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds,
we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals-not to speak
of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our
people were awakening. Many leading men, Americans and Canadians, are doing all they can for the
Conservation movement." TR 1913
"We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by a mob. There is something
to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in
peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely
nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain
lines and gifted with "the money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those
of so many glorified pawnbrokers." TR 1913
"Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence
or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened
our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too
often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive
the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest
is entitled to justice-full, fair, and complete - and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt
by mob-violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, that I most
dislike, and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would
fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special
interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on
the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to
property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any
corporation." TR 1910 New Nationalism speech
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes
an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone
else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace,
or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing
but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from
the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We
have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes
all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation
to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language,
for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality,
and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and
that is loyalty to the American people." TR letter on topic of immigrant which TR had spoken of
for a number of years.
Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial
sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security,
much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well
within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and
publicly provided post-secondary education. So to see him casually lumped in at the end of
this piece with a dangerous bigot like Trump as some kind of extremist scapegoat monger is dismaying.
Breaking up the big banks and driving down compensation levels in the finance sector has broad
based and non-extremist appeal. John Kay's recent book *Other People's Money* - well reviewed
by many mainstream publications like the Economist - argues:
"We need some of the things that Citigroup and Goldman Sachs do, but we do not need Citigroup
and Goldman Sachs to do them," he writes. Instead of vast conglomerates, what is needed are focused
institutions; banks that take deposits, for example, should be limited in the assets that they
hold. Intermediaries who handle other people's money should be held to high standards of customer
care, and subject to civil and criminal penalties. These penalties should fall on individuals,
not corporations, which tend merely to pass on the cost to shareholders."
Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial
sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security,
much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well
within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and
publicly provided post-secondary education. So to see him casually lumped in at the end of this
piece with a dangerous bigot like Trump as some kind of extremist scapegoat monger is dismaying....
[ Dismaying and disgraceful, but fitting the shallowness of the entire "letter." ]
"In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the
women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got
rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime
savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Saunders' on the left) resonates with so many."
Deaton is setting up a parallel: two groups of the disaffected, from opposite sides of the spectrum,
looking for "scapegoats".
Middle-aged Americans today are among the first to find, in their 40s and 50s, that they will
be no better off than their parents. Many of them, who used to look forward to defined-benefit
pensions, are now dependent on a stock market that looks like an increasingly unreliable guarantor
of a happy retirement, and a world of zero interest rates is not a good world for those saving
for retirement. These people have legitimate reasons to be unhappy.
In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the
women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got
rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime
savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Sanders' on the left) resonates with so many....
-- Angus Deaton
[ A disgraceful stereotyping in general, and a decided specific demeaning of liberalism. ]
"immigrants who held down wages" Seems to me this has happened. What I find fascinating is why
the policy elites are surprised that nativism and worse thereby develops and flourishes. No one
anywhere on the planet has ever and will ever welcome into their community people who are going
to be in competition with them. It's not how humans work.
Yada Yada yada citizens won't do the
jobs. Pure BS. They will if you pay them. But why should employers pay them if they have cheap
labor that has few to now rights? And on the high end, tech jobs are being outsourced too.
"But why should employers pay them if they have cheap labor that has few to now rights?
And on the high end, tech jobs are being outsourced too."
That you write that means you have been fully indoctrinated into free lunch economics. You
are just one of the happy one hand wavers, who has been freed of the "dismal" economist "joke"
of "on the one hand, but on the other hand".
You argue that low wages are somehow wonderful for the economy and business. Yet you do
not immediately see and note that low wages depress GDP or even cause GDP to fall.
Why should businesses want low consumer spending is a better question?
And why do businesses always blame government for low demand for their production when these
businesses are paying their consumers such low wages?
TANSTAAFL
An economy is like hands clapping. Waving one hand is unproductive, contrary to all you
have been taught about supply side economics, the ultimate in hand waving.
"... I like Marina's argument and mostly agree but it's important to remember that there is no incentive
for the DP to reform as long as they have have political influence to sell. ..."
"... I believe my criticism of both Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren as being too accepting of
the U.S. Empire and ignoring how the drain of finances to fund the Empire's wars and global expansion
would prevent their commendable domestic social/economic policies from being funded precipitated Marina
Bart's original essay and its comments, so I appreciate this follow-up by Marina, as well as the comments
to it. ..."
"... animal spirits. ..."
"... " .So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a healthy
and happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and abroad? One
that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses (which would
involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited by the global ruling
elite)? ." ..."
"... We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse and
rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last 30 years.
..."
The essential problem remains unsolved. The majority of United States citizens would benefit
from a government focused on citizen needs over elite desires. They neither want nor benefit from
our military adventurism. Neither do the people everywhere else on Earth. There is already a electoral
majority for a number of important policies and legislative initiatives that would move the country's
governance in that direction. Those policies and initiatives remain unimplemented not because people
don't want them, but because the United States is not functionally a democracy. The economic elite
controls all the levers of government, as well as all the pathways into government. We have a deeply
corrupted electoral system, which the ruling elite uses to engage in empty democracy theater as a
means of social control.
So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a healthy and
happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and abroad? One
that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses (which would
involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited by the global
ruling elite)?
I think there is. Yves and Lambert agree with me. We're not the only ones. The idea is to build
such a massive, energized coalition, organized around a nurturing, peaceful vision of what American
government and community can and should be, that we can overwhelm the electoral, media and other
entrenched obstacles that stand in the way of real change.
Yves and I were both arguing that there's an opening now to do this. There are challenges.
Nothing is guaranteed. But the times they are a-changing, and this offers the left a real opportunity
it hasn't had in decades. A key goal would be a significantly reduced military. We are not
advocating assisting current Democratic Party leadership in any way. In fact, the objective is
to remove them from power, inside the party as well as in government. All we are saying is
give universal direct material benefits a chance to build the coalition and teach Americans what
a government that serves them can and should do. There's more to the strategy. Coming up next
will be a post laying out the whole plan – there's more to it than "vote" + "magic" = Utopia!
But first, since this is a grassroots strategy aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, I
thought it might be useful to hear from other members of the commentariat. As some old dude once
said, "It's not me. It's us."
... ... ...
While the full game plan does not require every member of the coalition to ever cast a vote
for a Democrat or even vote at all, it does hinge on purging corporatist Democrats from the party.
Not just as elected officials, but within the party machinery at the state and local level. Among
other advantages, that means we won't get McGoverned this time. We're not asking any leftist to
help any corporatist ever, just as we are not asking anyone to support any warmongering candidate
ever. As
per Sluggeaux ,
Federal, State, and Local campaign laws favor the so-called "two-party system" and it is
quite impossible for a third-party solution at the ballot box. At this moment the Democrat
party is completely out of power in any branch of government and in most states, so there is
indeed no reason for the Military-Industrial Complex to direct graft the way of the Democrat
establishment. This creates an opportunity to push the agents of the Washington-Wall Street
axis out of the party.
The two major parties have been working for over a century to guarantee that no national
third party can take power. This is intended to trap the left, stranding it in the wilderness
with no path to power. Even if your preferred outcome is a new party, weakening the corporate
hold over the Democratic Party is a necessary condition for success. It's their job to stop
us. We have a unique opportunity to instead oust them. Universal material benefits are the key
that unlocks the door of our cell.
As a precursor to the next post explaining the overall strategy,
here's Kurt Sperry :
I like Marina's argument and mostly agree but it's important to remember that there
is no incentive for the DP to reform as long as they have have political influence to sell.
They must first be weakened and starved of resources–and political power–before reform
efforts will find any traction. I think that means in the near term that we cannot give any
aid to the party where that aid is administered by the party, and that we should vote Republican
(or at the least withhold our votes) when there are no reformist Dems on the ballot to vote
for. To reform the DP, it must mostly be torn down first, and that in practice necessarily
means allowing Republicans to win any contests where there are no reformers to vote for.
I have a daughter. When she was about the same age I was when my mother pushed me in that
stroller, I pushed her in a stroller through the Los Angeles Zoo on September 11 th
, 2001. A friend had called and suggested we get the kids out of the house so they wouldn't
be around much television, to give us time to figure out what to tell them. I don't want her
to also have to push her daughter in a stroller over another American war or blowback from
the last one. I want to be a citizen of a peaceful nation. Doing the same thing again and again
yet expecting a different result is famously considered to be unuseful. Perhaps a paradigm
shift can get us where so many of us have been trying to go for so very, very long.
Agreed. And I'd add one more thing. You want to invigorate the anti-militarist movement? Instate
a draft. No exceptions. Everyone owes a commitment to do 1.5 years, at any time up to age 40.
I posted a similar suggestion in the comments section of the April 27th article. NC reader
"Waking Up" posted a reply that is worth quoting:
"shinola: I agree that reinstating the draft (including women) would jolt people out of their
apathy. However, it won't happen. A major lesson learned from the Vietnam War was to avoid a draft
at almost any cost (far more difficult to promote war when people aren't willing to die for imperialism).
It is "easier" for those with money and power to keep the majority of people compromised economically.
That way they get "troops" who lack other options AND they can profit handsomely from military
arms and weapons sales. A win-win for imperialists, neo-cons, and neo-liberals."
Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree. All these years I thought the PTB had learned nothing
from the Vietnam debacle.
1. Immiserate the proles so that soldiering becomes an attractive, well paid, career.
2. Drones and bombs are cheaper than hueys and F-105's. The US lost a staggering amount of
expensive brand new aircraft over Vietnam.
3. Censor the press's war coverage via embedded reporters and press pools. Any reporters not
toeing the DoD line get their access revoked.
4. Deploy the NG and reserve components to bolster active duty recruiting, and to discourage
those on active duty from transferring to the reserves en masse.
Great, just great thinking. At minimum in our even more crowded world you are saying throw
at least these
many people into a meat grinder to relearn/ get back to where we are now, with no draft?
Arguably the only victory the anti-war movement of that time gained.
Total number of U.S. soldiers / personnel deployed to South Vietnam 2,594,000
Total number of U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War 58,220
Total number of U.S. soldiers wounded in the Vietnam War 303,644
I cannot begin to imagine the horrors had the U.S. maintained a draft these past 40 years..
under any of our presidents and congress.
Historically, the way to get power in America's two party system is for the other side to preside
over a stagnating economy. The way to keep it is to preside over broad-based prosperity. Basically,
almost everyone has a job and feels economically secure. If your party has that, they have a lot
of leeway on foreign and military policy, as well as social and environmental policy.
This is what the Clintonites don't want to get. Focusing on identity politics instead of economics
just perpetuates identity grievances and stymies everything else. I suppose that's the whole idea.
An anti war agenda will have to come from a position of strength. Broad-based prosperity is
the only way to get there. A full-employment agenda is vital for achieving prosperity. Only the
left can do it because the neoliberal way won't ever improve on current conditions.
If everyone is working, the left can do all the other anti war and justice stuff. Under current
conditions, there's no traction for any of it.
FAIL!!! Reformer's Paradox.
The Reformer's Paradox is the expectation that a corrupt system will seek to its own reform, or
enable its reform to take place. Thus any "solution" that uses this paradox is bound to fail.
Instituting the draft as an anti-war strategy is nothing new. Hell, this was proposed to stop,
or at least slow down Bush I Iraq War. But there are two major problem with this strategy.
One, the establishment is already aware of this approach. Thus they will never institute the
draft for the specific reason that it could harden public discontent. (Keep in mind, as the article
already noted, the endless wars are already unpopular.) Besides, they don't need the draft with
poverty and social mobility such as it is.
Two: Voters are not stupid. When the anti-war movement is the one PROMOTING the draft, then
its the anti-war movement that rightful gets the BLAME for trying to institute the draft. There
is a contradiction at work here in that the anti-war faction is promoting the mandatory recruiting
of soldiers to fight a war, When you mess around with contradictions, unintended consequences
tend to be the result. Some results I can foresee is generous enlistment bonuses (which help to
lift minorities out of poverty) get gutted. Poor people now have to server for the equivalent
of a minimum wage and few benefits, And as we also saw from the Vietnam War, the draft becomes
its own form of discrimination as the wealthy kids get to pay for draft deferments or can pick
their post, while the poor have few options and get sent to the front lines.
The Nation-State emerged for the purpose of fielding large armies by filling the ranks with
soldiers across multiple ethnic identities, as opposed to tribal clan warfare. Colonial arrangements
are made to support massive troop concentrations. I don't believe American Imperialists or Lockheed
invented bloodshed. But without the need for the means to cave-in the skull of the other poor
bastard tasked with doing the same for his leaders, people would prefer small localized government.
I'm sure nobody would choose of their own free will to be ruled by the Dems or Repubs unless under
threat of incineration.
Peacenik movements are ineffectual counter-forces at best, and co-opted belligerent parties
at worst. Historically bands of humans have avoided bloodshed by ritualizing [most of] the warfare
and sublimating the death drive. Pantomime the battles across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
I support what you are doing and would like to make a few observations. Contra Lambert, I don't
think material benefits alone will provide the motivation to overtake the Democrat Party despite
the amassed corpus of Marxist literature. I would point you to work done by Scott Atran showing
the need to fuse a sacred value with an identity to motivate a group. (I am not linking to Atran
to avoid Skynet.)
Referring to yesterday's inclusion in the Water Cooler was a tweet from Ms Magazine's editor wanting
to bury Bernie.
This may be metaphorical, but literally a potent remark This and a few other signals points to
my conclusion that the Feminist and likely the LQBTQ movements are in competition with the Left/Labor
to control the Democrat Party. Of course, alliances should be pursued, but the iron law of oligarchy
will cement the eventual leaders and their particular interests.
All in all, I wish you good fortune.
Regarding the conflict you posit between Feminist/LBGT and Labor/Left factions in the Democratic
Party, I can only imagine that Betty Friedan, who, before writing " The Feminine Mystique" and
becoming a founder of Second Wave feminism, was editor-in-chief of the UE News, publication of
the most left wing union in the US (the United Electrical Workers Union, or UE) is spinning, or
sobbing, in her grave.
Nothing personal, but it seems to me that Stopping The War gets conflated with everybody's
pet issue or pet take on what needs to happen to reform the parties. No. Stop The War should be
the only message. It's simple. It's easy for everybody to understand. It's universal. The numbers
support it. It cuts across parties and religions and geographies and ethnicities and genders and
age groups:
All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance
Litmus test every politician from local to national on this (like the anti-abortion people
do).
I believe my criticism of both Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren as being too accepting
of the U.S. Empire and ignoring how the drain of finances to fund the Empire's wars and global
expansion would prevent their commendable domestic social/economic policies from being funded
precipitated Marina Bart's original essay and its comments, so I appreciate this follow-up by
Marina, as well as the comments to it.
As a conscientious objector since 1970, and no longer a registered Democrat, I look forward
to Marina's full exposition of her strategy.
"War is immoral, advocating for and implementing war is immoral, and therefore supporting any
politician who advocates for or implements war is immoral. I agree."
This is the classic pacifist position, the refusal to accept violence as a solution under any
circumstances. It is a coherent position, though not, I suspect, one that most of us would actually
adopt. (Incidentally, Rosa Luxemburg was imprisoned for opposition to the War, but died during
the violent Spartacist uprising in Germany that followed it: she was no pacifist.)
Seen from across the Atlantic then, and without wishing to pronounce on US politics, the real
issue is whether you can have an à la carte approach to war. Luxemburg opposed WW1, as did many
on the Left, because she thought it was an internecine capitalist struggle. She supported the
Russian Revolution, and the Reds in the Civil War, because she believed in their cause. Effectively
the same arguments were used by many on the Left in Europe and the US in the 1930s, that any war
with Hitler would be a struggle for supremacy among capitalist nations, and so the Left's duty
was to oppose it. More did so at the time than they would later want to remember.
Being a little older than some readers, I remember the Vietnam War, and I remember the very confused
reaction to it among my contemporaries. A few were pacifists, but the majority simply wanted the
other side to win: they were "against the war" in the sense that they hoped the side supported
by their government would lose, which was a reasonable position with historical analogues (Spain,
for example) but it's very different from a blanket opposition to war as such.
You won't convince people to be "against war" until you sort out in your own minds what you are
against. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many who are "against war" in Afghanistan,
for example, were fervent interventionists throughout the whole parade of humanitarian causes
from the 90s onwards: Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur, Libya, Syria . Indeed, militarism has tended
to migrate in a curious fashion from the Right to the Left in the last couple of decades (Albright,
Power, Clinton etc. etc.)
I know what I think: war is never a good solution but sometimes it's the least bad. Sometimes
it's necessary, but I hope I have enough moral sense to distinguish good cases from bad ones,
and, more importantly, explain my reasoning to others. What about the rest of you?
Luxemburg opposed WW1, as did many on the Left, because she thought it was an internecine
capitalist struggle. She supported the Russian Revolution, and the Reds in the Civil War, because
she believed in their cause.
It is true but must be qualified.
While Luxemburg was no pacifist, she was still vehemently against WWI, not only because it
was motivated by colonial interest of ruling European aristocracies, nothing to do with peoples'
interest only profit for elites but most of all because she was internationalist believing that
working class has no country and that stirring nationalist fervor, that war propaganda did, would
lead to divisions in international workers movement as well as mere fact that most of dead and
injured would have been working people killing other working people, again war would have weaken
workers movement.
Her anti-war stance was pragmatic not principal in a word she represented working class morality
based judgment (to counter ruling class morality judgment) about the war and not pacifism based
on general morality judgment.
As far as Russian Revolution she was for it, but criticized Lenin for how he led it and what
actually he was able to accomplished.
It is an important distinction between what Lenin in the end did (in aftermath of Bolshevik
and Menshevik revolution and civil war) and what Luxemburg saw as a way of true revolution of
class consciousnesses , as she tried to accomplish during Spartacist revolt, namely to build new
parallel structures of power while German Emporium was collapsing instead of taking over existing
structures of power as Lenin and later Stalin did from hands of weak few months old, bourgeois
government.
In a sense Luxemburg revolution was by nature of not taking over the government directly, nonviolent
except for self-defense, and not unexpectedly it was what exactly happened during Spartacist revolt
and similarly in Hungarian revolution 1918 both failed while aggressive and violent Russian revolution
in the end "succeeded" ironically by Stalin resurrecting Russian empire under new label of Soviet
Union using German bankers money.
Maybe what we're really against is the profit that comes from making war? In principle there
are is probably some violence that I could support In the immortal words of Omar from The Wire,
"Some people need to get got". I guess I'm not really a pacifist but I'd still call myself anti-war.
I'd aruge that none of our current global strife is really about saving anyone from anything.
Further, I'd argue that it is about making rich people even richer at the expense of many millions
of peoples' lives and homelands and I'm firmly against that.
I don't think war (aggression against another country) is really the same thing as revolution
(internal aggression against the existing power structure). Nor do I think defense of one's own
country is the same as aggressive war.
Now do I think revolution against the belly of the beast in the U.S. is possible? Noone wants
it anyway, and noone can agree on what a good result would be anyway. But also no, I don't. But
in some less colonized countries it might possibly be viable (but there are so many external players
with their own agendas, it's hard to say, beware of color revolutions!).
What the U.S. does the overwhelming majority of the time is aggressive war. It also more covertly
supports reactionary elements (even to the point of ISIS). And I know enough to oppose that! And
it really does serve larger economic interests, even if occasionally another (usually not virtuous
either!) motive gets mixed in, it's about profits and economic dominance. I know to oppose this
unequivocally, without reservations, even if I can't single-handedly stop it.
I know what I think: war is never a good solution but sometimes it's the least bad. Sometimes
it's necessary, but I hope I have enough moral sense to distinguish good cases from bad ones,
and, more importantly, explain my reasoning to others.
I used to hold your position, until, like, ten minutes ago.
Seriously, I thought about that statement that you referenced for a while before I wrote it.
It wasn't in the first draft. Here's my personal current thinking on this: war and violence are
not identical acts. War is an act of aggression, and as such, it is always about taking something,
some resource by force, is it not? The slippery slope the American century and neoliberalism put
us on is to keep redefining what wars are and what defense is until both terms are meaningless.
The American military is currently overseeing and protecting poppy production in Afghanistan,
while waging a "war on drugs" in other parts of the empire. It's all nonsense. You can't "wage
war" on drug use, as the United States has proven every day for over forty years. And the United
States isn't even trying to stop drug use and production, in reality, just monetize it in a favorable
way for war and havoc-making branches and affiliates of the government.
I had a teacher who had been a conscious objector in World War II, which was practically designed
in a lab to be the ultimate "good war." It's basically the permanent excuse for sending young
people outside the country's borders to die in the service of some projected, often fantasized
threat. Consider 9/11. That actually WAS an attack on our soil. Did the two wars launched overseas
to supposedly protect us here actually do that?
Meanwhile, Germany is basically waging war on Greece, very successfully, using economic means.
The citizens of Greece are starving and dying, as their lands and goods are sold off against their
will to private entities. They are now ruled by outside powers, for the benefit of those outside
powers. Sounds like they lost a war, to me.
War is immoral. Perhaps an argument might be made for some situation like World War II in the
future, whereby providing an assistance to an allied country overseas makes some sense. But even
if that ever occurs again, it would not make war a moral choice ever. Murder is immoral. This
is drummed into all our heads. Sometimes, our society deems that killing another person - in self-defense,
for example - is morally justified, in which case, it is deemed not to be murder. But we set a
societally high bar for determining this. We operate from a position that when one person kills
another, it is treated as an immoral murder unless a specific, stringent set of facts is demonstrated
to prove otherwise. (What's going on with sanctioned police violence is an erosion of that principle,
and a great deal of effort is put forth by the state when these murders are revealed to prove
that they are not what they appear. At no point do they ever say, "murder is fine.") I think we
have to embrace and accept as a society that war is innately immoral, if we're ever to have any
chance to create a system where the need for protective defense can't and won't once again be
twisted into immoral empire-building.
Sadly, Marina, no - war is not unjustified aggression while violent self defense is a rational
response. There is no escape in semantics from the cold fact that war is an innate, natural part
of our primate nature. Humans organize for, and opt for war the same as a band of chimpanzees
occasionally will. It's done for territory, plunder, or for the most common impulse - because
we can. Behold - we have the strength and power to deal out death. We can be gods for a little
while.
In chimps it's usually the males who go for it, but they have the full approval of the females,
who enjoy the booty and expanded territory afterwards. Who doesn't like a little lebensraum?
Chimpanzee and homo sapiens males find war exhilarating, and the most totally engaging emotional
and psychological peak experience they can ever have because war is when it's down to your existential
survival, and the only rules are tooth and claw. You are never so alive as when you're struggling
against death. There's no guarantee for anyone locked in the melee of group combat that this is
not their last, best effort to live on, if only for another minute.
Humans, with our much bigger intellects, don't talk ourselves out of aggression. Quite the
opposite. We celebrate and honor it. What's the Wall Street phrase for a rising market - animal
spirits. We do business as war, we do politics as winner take all war, and to hell with any
women and children in the way. Collateral damage.
We play football as war. We play it as war quite religiously.
So war is loose in the human psyche, and it's not going away while our DNA encodes it. And
war will find each of us. It will come right to us.
When the wolves come for your children and you, the rational choices are to hide, to get gone,
or to surrender by paying their price. Some of you might live to fight another day. Slavery is
better than death.
It makes no difference if the wolves are four-legged, or are grown men in crisp business suits,
or in military uniforms, or wearing ISIS hoods. They are all creatures come to exercise total
power over you. War has come right to your front door.
It's also a rational choice to engage in violent self-defense. Shoot back, pour boiling oil
from the ramparts, load the trebuchets, launch the ICBM's before they can launch theirs. All of
which presupposes that you prepared for war, knowing that it will come. Which makes you a war-maker,
a warrior when the need arises.
Wherever human populations exist, it will always be possible for sociopaths to divide the group.
Color of eyes, shoe size, choice of music, whether you like or hate broccoli, anything will do.
Once tribes divide, identity politics works to deepen and spread the division, like ice splitting
granite mountains. This is the seed of war.
The seed is seeing that the Other is not with us. If it comes down to tooth and nail, we must
survive, not the Other. We must exercise power over Them, not Them over us.
Individual humans can renounce and forswear war. But our species shows no ability to overcome
our innate insanity, which is to destroy anyone or anything that thwarts our desire to walk the
earth like gods.
That's our crazy. That's where war lives within us.
Today I pointed my history class toward an article about plastic debris piling up on the beaches
in Kau district on the Big Island of Hawaii. I had previously urged them to eliminate or at least
reduce their use of plastics. In an ideal world we could banish plastics entirely with a stroke
of the pen. That is not happening but if my students and their parents and their friends and their
friends parents and so forth stop using plastics and remind its producers and users that they
are passing along the externalities of plastics to all of us and if the heat is turned up high
enough, then change can and will happen.
The same thing can be done to slow down and then shut down the war machine.
In an ideal world we could banish plastics entirely with a stroke of the pen
Really? A ballpark estimate of the ;lives saved by plastic is pushing a billion. Go walk around
a hospital and look at all the plastics there and start trying to tell me how you would replace
them with alternatives. How much CO2 do you think it takes to make an aluminum can or a glass
bottle compared to a plastic one? I could go on.
There are lots of downsides to the status quo use of plastics but your efforts would be much
better directed at pushing to limit the production of non recyclable plastics and to find better
ways of mandating that all products get recycled.
" .So, is there any way to get from here to a country with broadly shared prosperity, a
healthy and happy citizenry, and a more peaceful mode of governmental operation both at home and
abroad? One that does not require increased bloodshed or waiting until the entire system collapses
(which would involve tremendous suffering, particularly for the billions already being exploited
by the global ruling elite)? ."
This is a strong candidate for an application of Betteridge's Law.
I personally am a committed Socialist in political terms. But I try really hard to also to
take into account the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. I also acknowledge that I
have evolved from the young idealist I once was (I participated in the 1st Earth Day demonstrations
as well as others against the Vietnam War) into an undeniable cynic.
To wit: All proposed solutions to governing structures, financial structures and procedures,
alternative energy policies, developing the economies of the 3rd world, feeding the starving,
etc, etc, and so on have to be evaluated in light of the global situation we find ourselves in.
The world is swiftly entering into the effects of a rapidly changing climate due to our emissions
of greenhouse gases, we are continuing to pollute the world at a rapid pace, the global carrying
capacity is rapidly shrinking due to these things as well as due to the worsening impact of having
a rapidly growing global population. These are the critical issues we face as a global human population.
If we do not take drastic measures to reduce the rate at which this situation is deteriorating
the declining carrying capacity curve and the rising consumption curves are going to race past
each other very soon. The rational part of me does not see much likelyhood we are capable of making
the really hard decisions on a global basis to address these macro problems and the cynic in me
thinks that those who really do have the power to address them are far more likely to use the
situation to further their personal interests at the expense of everyone else.
We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse and
rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last 30
years.
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
We have big problems to deal with but we spend all of our time on political and financial ideology
and pretending that green solutions (a marketing tactic mostly) are actually meaningful and will
lead us somewhere useful. There is simply no time left for this type of activity unless it is
done in concert and as part of a package of dealing with our vast overpopulation and the crushing
effects of climate change.
We are heading into a situation where there is very likely no way out other than collapse
and rebuilding and we have made no meaningful progress on any other possible outcome in the last
30 years.
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
I like your comment very much. But I take issue with the notion that "collapse" or any other
similar outcome is a singular event we are powerless to affect. There are, and will continue to
be, different kinds and degrees of "collapse," and the more unequal our society is at the time
of "collapse," the more unequal and ugly that collapse will be.
For many people, in the U.S. and elsewhere, it is not at all clear that society has not "collapsed"
already. That doesn't mean that there is nothing to do or nothing that can be done. Nor does it
mean that things have to get worse before they get better, or will get better just because they
got worse. I'm not attributing any or all of these sentiments to you. But I do think it is important
for all of us not to fall into the trap of saying, "That's it, there is nothing that we can do,"
or "nothing we can do that makes a difference."
My socialist interests and moral positions are not likely to be addressed in this declining
world and they would in fact not have a measurable effect on solving our existential problems
I am sad to say.
Maybe. Probably. But not necessarily. My thing is, if it's going to be ugly when things collapse,
they there is nothing wrong with making things ugly right now for those that are most intent on
bringing about the (predicted) collapse. No need to worry about social niceties!
On the other hand, I think you misunderstand some of the objection to your previous entry.
I for one do not find you or Yves or Lambert to be insufficiently antiwar. It is the suggested
approach which I find ultimately so, and I believe much of the hostility you correctly perceive
is because the approach involves what many find to be a myopic interpretation of the implications
of "not require[ing] that candidates overtly and aggressively campaign against" America's military
machine.
Foremost, I staunchly believe that allowing representatives to ignore this issue is, even as
we speak, to the ongoing detriment of the American psyche, the manifest national illness of which
is in my opinion too massive for me to state here and be taken seriously. This fact itself is
also part of that problem. The US is so gravely ill that there is no medical coverage that can
fix it. And we cannot expect to have some kind of two-pronged approach wherein all the grass roots
are out campaigning about something for which the people they're supposed to elect have nothing
more than, at best, milquetoast patriotic electoral boilerplate if they cannot avoid the topic
altogether.
Now, while it may be true that many Americans on balance do not benefit from the MIC, insofar
as that money could be spent much on what your approach advocates several times over, there is
a very tangible benefit to the American economy that serves the interests of not just the upper
10 percent. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but it's a big reason there isn't the
anti-war coalition that can break thru the mainstream press or politics. The war economy is huge.
If Americans were to win universal healthcare tomorrow or next year or four to eight years from
now, that would not change the national mindset in this regard, and most certainly not the politicians
known as "viable" who we allow to skirt the issue. In short: you cannot just chalk the pushback
to your previous entry down to misreading. We disagree and it has nothing to do with you not being
purely anti-war. However: I do find the "let's get material benefits for us first" to be a little
bit troubling.
So you say you thought Obama would be a lesser war-wager and, bravo, admit that he wasn't.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that those of us who knew better and didn't lend him any
support could smell this tidbit between the lines of the previous entry. How? The argument you're
making is the same one his more sober supporters were making eight years ago. The only difference
I read is that your suggesting we shift the purity line on some things and ignore, at least on
some level, one other critical issue - so that we can get people elected .
You cannot tell me that you were around to work for McCarthy yet have not heard your argument
before. I do wonder myself who all the non-corporate Dems are and how they'd fare, assuming they
really aren't corporate Dems at heart. America needs a complete conversation change. The Warrens
and Sanders of the world are the gatekeepers before the gatekeepers named Schumer, Pelosi, and
Feinstein, whose default function is to stop this conversation change. There's an Ellison before
every Perez. A Booker before every you get the point I hope. So how are we gonna oust these people
while our list of enemies grows to numbers unspoken?
This is not the same as the Obama phenomenon. For one thing, our strategy focuses on specific
policies, not vague nostrums like "Hope and Change." That anchors the discussion in ways that
are difficult to evade and elide, which is why the Democrats are working so diligently to shut
this kind of thing down.
I don't want to take over the discussion here, because this is not about me. But under this
strategy, I would never have voted for Obama. I wouldn't have had to be savvy enough to know to
read Glen Ford. I would have be able to reason, "He was given a speaking slot by the Democrats
at the convention, so he's a favored insider. That means he has already been corrupted." Or I
might have thought, "Hope and Change is fine, but he's not promoting universal direct material
benefits, so he's not worth backing." Obama got in because he exploited signifiers he in no way
deserved and people like me had not yet accepted that the Democratic Party (and the rest of the
ruling elite, like the corporate media) had been corrupted root and branch.
If you take the focus off personality and "values," it's easier to cut through the piles of
ripe manure the Democrats offer up. Shifting the purity line away from personal identity (both
citizen and politician) to policy that can be enacted is a bigger change, with a series of multiplier
effects, than you seem to realize. For example, right now, the most extreme "position" corporate
Democrats take is being "pro-choice." But what do they mean by that? What policy do they advocate
to achieve this goal? They never say. It's just expressed as a value. Whereas "I'm in favor of
universal health care via expanded and improved Medicare for All, and opposed to the president
applying the Hyde Amendment to it affirmatively via executive order. Since abortion is a legal
medical procedure, done and done." Obviously, there would still be a vociferous pushback. But
notice how significantly this shifts the playing field. The best possible way to get past abortion
as a wedge issue is to embed it in some universal program that benefits EVERYBODY. And it pins
politicians down. They can't slither around as much as they like. It's easier to hold them accountable.
Corruption will always be with us. Whatever politicians the left might install would be liable
to the same phenomenon over time. But focusing on concrete policies with concrete benefits is
different that what's been going on. This approach doesn't rely on Bernie or any other politician
being noble and pure. That's part of the point.
It may or may not work, and you may or may not ever agree with me. But it is NOT the same.
But it is the same. It's been the same for a century. If we were to begin with Eugene McCarthy
as a measuring stick: In retrospect, would you say the strategy then should have been the same,
say, move Viet Nam to the back burner (oh the unfortunate irony)? If not, why not? "Our boys"?
No, I'm sorry, you're right. It's actually worse. The expansion of war and the profiteering
that goes along with it, that serves congressional districts from sea to shining sea, is not the
same, but growing so broadly that most people you say don't want it, don't even know how many
countries and with which dictators we're allied. No one who does not put those most egregious
human rights violations in the name of what they admit is a nation governed by an intrinsically
corrupted body politic deserves the material benefits you propose to make central focus. The whole
world is watching.
don't deserve is too extreme, because it's not necessarily the people you think it is, people
without decent healthcare in the U.S. is very broad and includes people whose ancestors were brought
over here as slaves, who were red-lined, Jim Crowed, new Jim Crowed, generation after generation.
Of course they have a harder time being American $uce$$ $tories. Your beef is probably more with
a particular form of privileged American blindness that will never see the U.S. as anything but
basically good and the questions only whether or not we can "save the whole world" (though bombing
them) or not.
You're really trying hard not to get this. Material benefits providers that also are anti war
become the people who ensured I have a job, healthcare and old-age security, and my kids aren't
dying in some Middle East quagmire. Anti war without material benefits is just a bunch of annoying
longhairs, if not traitors. My life sucks but at least I can hate on those people.
But it is the same. It's been the same for a century, with the caveat that the sixties brought
about both civil rights and the anti-war movement. If we were to begin with your bona fides, with
Eugene McCarthy as a measuring stick: In retrospect, would you say the strategy then should have
been the same, say, move Viet Nam to the back burner (oh the unfortunate irony)? If not, why not?
Not enough of "our boys" coming home in bags with heroin in 'em?
No, I'm sorry, you're right. It's actually worse. The expansion of war and the profiteering
that goes along with it, that serves congressional districts from sea to shining sea, is not the
same, but growing so broadly that most people you say don't want it, don't even know how many
countries and with which dictators we're allied. No one who does not put those most egregious
human rights violations in the name of what they admit is a nation governed by an intrinsically
corrupted body politic deserves the material benefits you propose to make central focus. The whole
world is watching.
This from Cat Burgler deserves repeating again and again!
" universal benefits is a way to allow people the free space in their lives to overcome the
military-industrial-congressional complex"
Not to be too harsh but the twin purity tests of Identity Politics and Anti-War-ism would logically
appeal to those higher up the Maslow Hierarchy no? Widespread civic engagement starts when basic
needs are met. Otherwise there is no solidarity but just a low trust society where everyone is
screwing over everybody else.
Is the Left of use to anyone besides the anti-status-quo and as captured opposition to serve
the status quo?
What is the purpose of humanity? I don't see any good secular answers to that. And spiritually
I am thinking o of "There is a time for war and a time for peace".
But, how can an economic system have morals if it can create money from nothing without consequences?
Even the Magic Money Tree can create money from nothing.
Looks like some "economists" will have to create a "Morals Variable" in their economic models.
I think we should all incorporate. Maybe create the first diffuse political corporation via
the internet. We all buy shares, for some cheap price so that we can get tens of millions of shareholders.
We write up a corporate constitution for our goals. One of them, the first one, could be universal
health care, funded of course by our share purchases into a pool of money – a war chest – that
can serve among other things to be a mutual insurance organization. Recruit those medical professionals
who would like to participate, indeed take their experience into consideration. Buy into medical
facilities, hospitals, drug companies. A takeover of the medical industry. Because politics doesn't
work anymore.
I second that from CanCyn, great idea!!And then, if that secret TPP meeting in Canada leads
to its enactment, we sue using ISDS claiming low wages and war spending are depriving us of investors.
Your words – "Believe me. I have directly and personally confronted Democratic trust fund scions
on this and faced immediate, life-threatening blowback. "
Both the public awareness and appreciation of the consequences of real corruption remain low.
In fact, I find few in my own circle of contacts who even care, at best dismissing it as normal
or inevitable. There is a reason for this apathy. There is a reason we, as a nation, fought corrupt
practices and it is well presented in Zephyr Teachout's book on the topic. There is also a reason
that ways of catching and punishing criminals operating at the highest levels of business and
government have diminished over the last several decades. Not only has the threat of punishment
diminished, the possibility of even discovering the facts has shrunk concomitantly. I suggest
that there is a direct relation between the ability to effect change and the efficacy of punishments
for the powerful.
It is clear the elites don't want effective heath care for the underlings and until the methods
and reasons are clearly exposed it will not happen. Alternative sources of information exist and
still confusion can be maintained by mainstream, corporate owned, media propaganda. But what if
we can push through this first barrier? Will the leaders of any such movement be able to stand
firm in the face of the next?
I started this post with your own words. I don't know the method you used to confront these people
but I would suggest that the response you got is even less dangerous than that you might have
experienced had you represented a real and functional threat to the status quo.
I think some of the pushback was just how people prioritize issues. If one was both anti-war
and for expanding benefits but prioritized benefits (NOT for a pragmatic reason of them being
perceived as more politically feasible but just as a priority for rational, emotional, value,
or even personal reasons) then of course they might be in total agreement. If for some reason
they were both entirely equal in one's eyes then one might agree. But if one actually deeply cares
about opposing the wars, if anti-war is a primary (if far from the only) issue, it's hard not
to prioritize, and to agree to let it take a backburner until "after the revolution". Especially
if one is not sure it will even happen even "after the revolution". It might actually be a values
disagreement at some level among people who might nominally seem to agree and yet prioritize things
differently.
My reaction to Trump bombing Syria was absolute horror (whether Trump intends to escalate that
war I honestly don't know at this point, I think Trump is a disaster, but I don't know the end
game there), but it sure seemed so at the time, that he wanted to overthrow Assad period. It's
a visceral reaction, but it's not irrational, not wanting the horror of another regime change
and all the death, the endless death it entails is not irrational, even if rationally one ought
to care just as much about some other issue they don't quite care as much about.
As for what issues will draw the masses into action, nationally that might be economics. But
around here it seems racial issues get FAR more traction than economic issues EVER do. More protests,
etc. And it's not because there isn't economic desperation, because there is!
I just think people are USED TO things sucking economically and don't even see the possibility
of change there but only of adaptation, whereas they do see the possibility of resisting I.C.E.,
of protesting police brutality, etc.. Of course environmental and peace movements get even less
traction.
So maybe what I'm saying is what moves the masses is not always what they see as most urgent,
but what they see as changeable. Politics is the art of what is perceived as possible. And the
CA Dem party has probably conditioned many a Californian into real economic change not being one
of those things (I can't even get my state reps to respond to me when I email them demanding state
single payer. This does not really say anything particularly good about it's possible passage,
although I can hope).
Now there are real objective reasons why ending the empire and the war machine are nearly impossible,
the forces against it just being too strong, but to do something it not ONLY has to be possible,
but also it has to be seen as possible. Otherwise people just adapt to whatever the situation
is ("accept the things they cannot change" etc.), even when things are pretty bad.
Solomon Stanwood Menken about 100 years ago today, he went from being the executive director
of to president of some little organization he founded called the national security league menken
was one of jp (the jp) morgans lawyers to study him and the national security league is to understand
the genesis of the oft bantered and whispered meme when one gets too close to the burning coals
and if one wants to understand how from then we get to today study mary bancroft our own little
mata hari yes the wsj bancrofts she was good friends with one ruth forbes paine young whose son
As to the notion of stepping into the democratic party there certainly is an opening since
the party depends on surfz and other unpaid or underpaid volunteers the reality is the system
might sniff out so many volunteers and will cleave off any moves to consolidate unapproved or
inappropriate power grabs from the uninvited verily it will certainly be a challenge could be
done but many lives will be crushed in the making tis why the notion those over 65 need to be
volunteered for the front lines currently tis a bit difficult to remove those monthly checks from
arriving, however small they might appear to be everyone else can have their lives disrupted .
"The prominent anti-war activist Ann Wright says that, after being arrested for protesting
at a U.S. drone base, she stopped receiving her monthly social security checks, in what she believes
was a deliberate attempt "to curtail dissent of seniors."
that did not seem to last too long she has not mentioned it since and in her mentioning she
had explained she had already begun the process of "correcting" the record although the rule is
not arbitrary in and of itself but that if you are in jail for more than 30 days your social security
check can be voided for the time in jail
wright wrote a piece on her ordeal at drudgeleft but have seen nothing more on her issue guessing
she goterfyxd
In Canada, Naomi Klein and some others are championing the LEAP Manifesto as a way forward:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/#manifesto-content
I've signed on but it has never really felt like exactly the right thing. I could never quite
put my finger on what it is missing having read this post, I know what it is. Just like championing
anti-war above all other things (in spite of the rightness of the idea of no war and all of the
good consequences that would follow) won't work as a first step, championing the environment and
indigenous rights and perspective (in spite of it being right and the many good things would follow)
is just not the way to get a majority of people on board and to lead change. People want healthcare,
decent jobs, and decent lives – let's get together on that. Then talk about how to stop the corporatization
& privatization of EVERYTHING. Clean out the swamp for real. I believe that, at its heart, that's
what Occupy wanted.
I would love to hope and I do see the glimmer of opportunity – people are talking and asking questions.
But, like Diptherio, the pessimist in me is strong. Where is Occupy now? Was is simply the right
movement at the wrong time? Or is there just too little support? Are people just too defeated?
People want healthcare, decent jobs, and decent lives – let's get together on that. Then
talk about how to stop the corporatization & privatization of EVERYTHING.
Corporatization and privatization should be part of the discussion, whatever the prioritization
of specific demands, to contrast with demands for systems, services, and institutions that serve
the common good.
Not being killed, incarcerated, deported, banned, tortured by the armed power of the state
is a material benefit. As an observer, it seems to me that people organizing around these issues
domestically often do make connections to the international aspects (war, blowback, US alliances
with despotic regimes).
I also believe the Single Payer movement may be the best first step and most efficient approach
to promoting the true progressive message, which could effectively
marginalize and defeat, as I refer to them, the heartless "Condescenders." I will use an example
of a glaring problem within our current heartless and progressively demoralizing Healthcare System.
The example below came as a result of my own developed understanding of the serious socio-economic
issues currently faced by many struggling people, including those driven to bankruptcy, poverty
and a myriad of other problems (e.g. substance abuse). As we know, poverty and falling incomes
undeniably beget increasing problematic health issues for those affected by their struggles, whatever
the cause. I should briefly mention here that I believe a Single Payer System should include the
option for citizens to pursue certified naturopathic modalities (proper nutrition and other proven
strategies that offer freedom from horrible pharmaceutical drugs hawked by Big Pharma and For
Profit Medicine).
How many people with life-long undiagnosed neurological/physiological disorders, have perpetually
exacerbated physiological symptoms associated with their disorder, many times caused by triggers
unknown to them, which becomes a negative feedback loop propelled by environmental, dietary and
socio-economic factors, ad infinitum, as well as a lack of receiving proper care, let alone a
proper diagnosis? They stumble though life, mis-labeled and misunderstood. Their lives are many
times a life of varying economic or social poverty (and most likely both in some degree or another)
caused by gross underachievement based on fleeting societal standards driven by the elites who
control the narrative. They are stuck in the mire of life's undesirable swamps where the Condescenders
all-knowingly think they belong, because, well, "it is the 'Losers' fault for the messes they
are in; therefore, why should we help them?" Is this not the prevalent attitude of the Ayn Rand's,
ahem, Paul Ryan's and the filthy rich cohort Koch Brothers and other filthy rich bastards of the
world, grubbing for more money and power over the majority of citizens they oppress (lower taxes
via less government support for the middle and lower classes)?
As former Reagan Republican, right-wing, and so-called Christian, I can effectively see right
through their "mercy" horse hockey. My own move away from the Repugnants started in 2002-2003),
so I also easily see the glaring problems with the elite establishment Democrats and their enablers.
Yet, my faith has still grown, because I have now long seen the light. I cannot ignore the undeniable
call to social democracy, justice and mercy found, for example, in the Book of James or the teachings
of Jesus (you know, the guy who drove the money-changers out of the Temple). It just took a long
process of reasoning and critical thinking over the years for me to be liberated. As an Independent,
Green Party-type and part of the "Christian Left," I am happy to be a part of the clarion cry
for a paradigm shift on many social democratic fronts, starting with the Single Payer and then
Anti-War movements, as well as other great causes. I have no interest in being associated with
warmongering right wing or libertarian "Christians" who "hand their brother a stone" when they
are in need a "loaf of bread," who also have apparently forgotten that their God "is no respecter
of persons." I am truly ashamed to say, there is no "right" in the "Christian Right" supporting
any of their arguments for their ungracious attitudes and merciless political positions on these
issues.
The first proper act toward even attempting to address this ungodly attitude toward our fellow
citizens (and if they are not considered "fellow citizens," then who are they?), would be to remove
a large majority the Condescenders, who are unwilling to consider and change their heartless mindsets,
marginalizing them in the national discussion of how we can keep this sinking ship afloat and
get her to shore. I believe the first step would be the unmitigated nationalization of the healthcare
system, you know, like Universal Health Care found in other CIVILIZED developed countries throughout
the world.
I understand that you are frustrated with the right, but Libertarians do share your anti-war
and anti-interventionist positions. As one myself, I am concerned that Marina's focus on universal
benefits will splinter existing anti-war support, including the somewhat sizable portion of libertarian-minded
voters (4.5 million in 2016).
The solution is to FIGHT, and FIGHT again against the jumped up generalsimos and their enablers
in the five-sided bughouse. The country really has no enemies except those we make for ourselves.
These very same morons are extremely sensitive to the gross weakness of their position, and
implacable oposition will only emphasize it; RESIST them always! Don't let them catch their breath!
The benefits are obvious to eveybody; when they paint gory pictures of millions of chinamen
or russians against us, just give them your best belly-laugh!
I would have agreed that a universal material benefits (UMB) coalition-building strategy was
better than an anti-war strategy until I campaigned for Bernie in the south. Too many potential
coalition members buy into "meritocracy" and often find UMB threaten their identities by putting
them at the bottom of the totem pole – a place they've fought hard to inch away from.
While campaigning, I walked up to two guys on an electric cart working outdoor maintenance
for the city – at the time I thought they would be making far less than the $15/hr UMB that Bernie
supports. Figured we could find some common ground on a minimum wage. The older, 40ish, more experienced
of the two, informed me that if Bernie got his way on the minimum wage, he'd be making $15, no
better than someone just starting out. Turned out that one guy made $12/hr and the other $10.
Wouldn't the older guy be $3/hr better off? That just didn't matter to him. What mattered was
making 50% or so more than people at the bottom.
I suspect that objections to some other UMBs will face similar identity-threatening objections
from the masses who've bought into meritocracy. It will be difficult to "flip" the working class
on meritocracy and I believe that is essential for a UMB-based strategy to succeed. Perhaps even
more difficult than convincing the military and veterans to support an anti-war coalition.
The problem ultimately comes down to where are you willing to draw the line and vote for the
lesser evil. This will always be a problem with our shitty first past the post election method.
Of course there is little chance of fixing the problem because it suffers the same problem a JG
does. It has an UBI, a proposal that is not threatening to the current power structure so all
the reform energy that should be behind a JG gets syphoned off into something pointless. For voting
reform all the energy is behind ranked choice because it won't threaten the current power structure
at all. 3-2-1 Voting or Score voting would be much better and actually change things. Here is
a good discussion on voter satisfaction efficiency that explains what the different methods involve.
http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSE/
Or a shorter summary that explains the results a bit better. http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/
Because if we had a better voting method than .. https://electology.org/blog/honest-voters-had-preference-2016
Of course I don't see any hope for change in the future, at least not in the time scale we
need to save the planet. Even if there was universal consensus to do everything possible to avoid
climate change I don't see us avoiding 2C. Short of people pouring a ton of money into safe nuclear
I doubt this planet will be habitable in 150 years.
Greetings All, Thank you for this discussion. Back in the dark ages of the 1960's and early
70's, we were confronted with the same discussion. What I think I learned was that single issue
based coalitions were very good organizing tools. Each had its own rallying cry: For example,
"Bring the boys home now. Stop the War. Down with Imperialism", organized and rallied the anti-war
movement. A coalition around "Single payer Medicare for all" would act in the same way. However,
meetings, demonstrations and organizations around single issues provided arena's for discussing
and organizing around other issues. Back in the day, it was impossible not to have Women's Liberation
people, for example, handing out women's literature that was pro-abortion at the door of anti-war
meetings and at anti-war rallies. It was often normal operating procedure to invite people into
single issue coalition meetings to announce their separate issue meetings and demonstration as
the last agenda point of the evening. They were invited in to the big "tent" and allowed to speak
at the end as long as they were against the war. Demonstrations brought people into the movement
and educated them. Meetings organized people for action. The Democratic Party's elections took
the air out of organizing the movements. The big anti-war demonstrations, every last one of them,
were in non-election years: 1965, 1967, 1969 and 1971. We learned to hate the pro-capitalist Democratic
Party and its Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), including its leading members
like Ted Kennedy and Bernie Sanders. They were after all pro-capitalist and committed to rigged
pro-capitalist elections. Capitalism is war: Class war and imperialist war. They travel hand and
glove. Capitalism will not end war or liberate people. It is an exploitive system. It does give
concessions, when threatened. Concession and reform are here today and out the other. Look what
happened to the New Deal and the UN etc. etc.
Build single issue coalitions, for a starters, but educate people to unified struggle against
all exploitation and oppression. There is no other way that I can see to win and secure the victory.
As to war, I believe there is only one war that is supportable, class war. This is what Rosa Luxemborg
and the Third Socialist International gave their lives to during World War One and the 1920's.
Please keep on discussing and organizing. Study and fight back. You have nothing to lose but your
chains.
Peace and love,
k
This is an excellent start. It is not enough to be anti-war. The Reagan-Thatcher counter-coup
and globalization have been extremely efficient at atomizing 80% of the population who've been
marginalized and forgotten. War today is simply a mechanism to extract wealth from the western
middle class who still have jobs and pay taxes. If human beings are to survive, a new form of
government must arise that puts people and the earth first; controls man's mortal sin of hording
power and puts rich criminals in jail.
Readers might like to know that Davis Sloan Wilson is a fervent champion
of the importance of group selection in evolution, a possible mechanism
(differential survival among groups, distinct in genetically-based
socially-mediated characters) often deployed as an 'explanation' for
altruistic behaviours. He also sees an understanding of group selection as
crucial to the solution of myriad human social ills: "Evolutionary science,"
Wilson argues, "will eventually prove so useful on a daily basis that we
will wonder how we survived without it. I'm here to make that day come
sooner rather than later, starting with my own city of Binghamton [NY]."
After decades of effort, he has so far failed to make many converts, and
the prevailing view is that, while group selection is indeed a mechanism
that might possibly operate in some circumstances, those circumstances are
generally very limited in most organisms, and, moreover, the strength of
group selection will almost always be much lower than that operating among
individuals. As Jerry Coyne put it in a commentary on Wilson's
"Neighbourhood Project" in the NYT: "Group selection isn't widely accepted
by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it's not an efficient way to
select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be
detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form
other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other
organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the
tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural
selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection
on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more
plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for
reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial." see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books/review/the-neighborhood-project-by-david-sloan-wilson-book-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
"... "Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth." TR SoU 1902 ..."
"... "To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed." TR 1907 SoU ..."
"... "To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action, no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege, would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing." TR 1908 SoU ..."
"... "In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole." TR Square Deal speech 1903 ..."
"... Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security, much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and publicly provided post-secondary education. ..."
"... geez... Sanders is "lumped in" with Trump as far as both of them are running against the status quo. ..."
"... "In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Saunders' on the left) resonates with so many." ..."
"... Middle-aged Americans today are among the first to find, in their 40s and 50s, that they will be no better off than their parents. Many of them, who used to look forward to defined-benefit pensions, are now dependent on a stock market that looks like an increasingly unreliable guarantor of a happy retirement, and a world of zero interest rates is not a good world for those saving for retirement. These people have legitimate reasons to be unhappy. ..."
"... You argue that low wages are somehow wonderful for the economy and business. Yet you do not immediately see and note that low wages depress GDP or even cause GDP to fall. ..."
"... An economy is like hands clapping. Waving one hand is unproductive, contrary to all you have been taught about supply side economics, the ultimate in hand waving. ..."
I suppose, but to place Bernie Sanders on the left is to call Reagan a leftist who became a centrist
when bought by the big corporations.
As a flower child hippie long haired freak, either leftist
means Zionist or Marxist or Cuban Revolutionary, or most Republicans and half the Democrats with
the other half of the Democrats being hard right racist fascist circa 1960.
Bernie Sanders and Teddy Roosevelt would have been in agreement for many things.
"The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the
creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty
bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown." TR speech 1902
Though Hilary would be more likely to say:
"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations
are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would
be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body
politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations
until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring
to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that
they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct,
not against wealth." TR SoU 1902
"Malefactors of great wealth." TR 1907
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of
using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children
the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed."
TR 1907 SoU
"To permit every lawless capitalist, every law-defying corporation, to take any action,
no matter how iniquitous, in the effort to secure an improper profit and to build up privilege,
would be ruinous to the Republic and would mark the abandonment of the effort to secure in
the industrial world the spirit of democratic fair dealing." TR 1908 SoU
"In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or
greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves
and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and
so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for
the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole."
TR Square Deal speech 1903
What is interesting is how great the parallel is between circa 1900-1915 and 2000-2015.
It is a post without a clear point. mulp writes, "Bernie Sanders and Teddy Roosevelt would have
been in agreement for many things." But so what? Lots of people who differ politically are in
agreement on some things. Ralph Nader and Richard Nixon agreed on some things.
The fact is, in the US Senate and among current candidates for President, Sanders is on the
left. It hardly matters that he isn't pure enough for you, because you yourself aren't going to
do anything about it, and you yourself don't have a plan.
Another fact is that Sanders isn't going to get elected, but if he did, the country would move
to the left. Another fact is that if Hillary gets elected, the 2017 provisions that are already
in Obamacare will kick in unobstructed, and states will be able to go single-payer, and so the
country will move to the left. Left-right is not a purist thing. But quote more Teddy, he was
friends with John Muir.
Another fact is that if Hillary gets elected, the 2017 provisions that are already in Obamacare
will kick in unobstructed, and states will be able to go single-payer....
This is exactly the same kind of article that was written in 1992 to address the popularity of
Perot's candidacy. The issues really haven't changed, and in fact the processes have intensified.
But they are more similar to the early 20th century, stepping back a century in time.
"Political
parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these
great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general
welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their
selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing
no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government,
to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task
of the statesmanship of the day." TR 1912
"Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds,
we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals-not to speak
of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our
people were awakening. Many leading men, Americans and Canadians, are doing all they can for the
Conservation movement." TR 1913
"We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by a mob. There is something
to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in
peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely
nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain
lines and gifted with "the money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those
of so many glorified pawnbrokers." TR 1913
"Now, this means that our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence
or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened
our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too
often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive
the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest
is entitled to justice-full, fair, and complete - and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt
by mob-violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, that I most
dislike, and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would
fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special
interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on
the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to
property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any
corporation." TR 1910 New Nationalism speech
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes
an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone
else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace,
or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing
but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from
the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance
here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We
have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes
all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation
to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language,
for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality,
and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and
that is loyalty to the American people." TR letter on topic of immigrant which TR had spoken of
for a number of years.
Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial
sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security,
much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well
within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and
publicly provided post-secondary education. So to see him casually lumped in at the end of
this piece with a dangerous bigot like Trump as some kind of extremist scapegoat monger is dismaying.
Breaking up the big banks and driving down compensation levels in the finance sector has broad
based and non-extremist appeal. John Kay's recent book *Other People's Money* - well reviewed
by many mainstream publications like the Economist - argues:
"We need some of the things that Citigroup and Goldman Sachs do, but we do not need Citigroup
and Goldman Sachs to do them," he writes. Instead of vast conglomerates, what is needed are focused
institutions; banks that take deposits, for example, should be limited in the assets that they
hold. Intermediaries who handle other people's money should be held to high standards of customer
care, and subject to civil and criminal penalties. These penalties should fall on individuals,
not corporations, which tend merely to pass on the cost to shareholders."
Well, Sanders is mainly trying to restore the successful postwar US model - a smaller financial
sector with smaller and more focused financial institutions, stronger labor protections and security,
much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes - as well as add in a few things that fall well
within mainstream social democratic thought around the developed world: single payer health and
publicly provided post-secondary education. So to see him casually lumped in at the end of this
piece with a dangerous bigot like Trump as some kind of extremist scapegoat monger is dismaying....
[ Dismaying and disgraceful, but fitting the shallowness of the entire "letter." ]
"In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the
women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got
rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime
savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Saunders' on the left) resonates with so many."
Deaton is setting up a parallel: two groups of the disaffected, from opposite sides of the spectrum,
looking for "scapegoats".
Middle-aged Americans today are among the first to find, in their 40s and 50s, that they will
be no better off than their parents. Many of them, who used to look forward to defined-benefit
pensions, are now dependent on a stock market that looks like an increasingly unreliable guarantor
of a happy retirement, and a world of zero interest rates is not a good world for those saving
for retirement. These people have legitimate reasons to be unhappy.
In the long familiar way, they have found convenient scapegoats. It was the blacks, or the
women, or the immigrants who held down wages, or took the good jobs. It was the bankers who got
rich from tanking the stock market, sinking pension prospects, and now paying no interest on lifetime
savings. No wonder Trump's rhetoric (and Bernie Sanders' on the left) resonates with so many....
-- Angus Deaton
[ A disgraceful stereotyping in general, and a decided specific demeaning of liberalism. ]
"immigrants who held down wages" Seems to me this has happened. What I find fascinating is why
the policy elites are surprised that nativism and worse thereby develops and flourishes. No one
anywhere on the planet has ever and will ever welcome into their community people who are going
to be in competition with them. It's not how humans work.
Yada Yada yada citizens won't do the
jobs. Pure BS. They will if you pay them. But why should employers pay them if they have cheap
labor that has few to now rights? And on the high end, tech jobs are being outsourced too.
"But why should employers pay them if they have cheap labor that has few to now rights?
And on the high end, tech jobs are being outsourced too."
That you write that means you have been fully indoctrinated into free lunch economics. You
are just one of the happy one hand wavers, who has been freed of the "dismal" economist "joke"
of "on the one hand, but on the other hand".
You argue that low wages are somehow wonderful for the economy and business. Yet you do
not immediately see and note that low wages depress GDP or even cause GDP to fall.
Why should businesses want low consumer spending is a better question?
And why do businesses always blame government for low demand for their production when these
businesses are paying their consumers such low wages?
TANSTAAFL
An economy is like hands clapping. Waving one hand is unproductive, contrary to all you
have been taught about supply side economics, the ultimate in hand waving.
As we might expect from the speech's location on Roosevelt Island, Clinton explicitly claims FDR's
mantle. From the introductory portion of her remarks:
[CLINTON: It is wonderful[1]]To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt's[2]
enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be.
Moreover, she not only claims FDR's mantle, she claims Roosevelt's Four Freedoms (history;
text):
You know, President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation's unmatched aspirations
and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired
presidents who followed.
And quoting directly from FDR's Four Freedom's speech:
CLINTON: President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American
answered. He said there's no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America:
"Equality of opportunity Jobs for those who can work Security for those who need it The ending
of special privilege for the few (cheers, applause.) The preservation of civil liberties for all
(cheers, applause) a wider and constantly rising standard of living."
(Interestingly, Clinton's quotes are not the actual Freedoms; we'll get to that in a
moment.) After some buildup, she then goes on to structure her speech around four policy areas (which
I've to say is refreshing, although not refreshing enough, as we shall see). Here they are, organized
into a single list instead of being scattered through the speech:
CLINTON: If you'll give me the chance, I'll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.
Now, the second fight[3] is to strengthen America's families, because when our families
are strong, America is strong.
So we have a third fight: to harness all of America's power, smarts, and values to maintain
our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
That's why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing
our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
Before l take a look at the talking points that Clinton places under these four heads, let me
quote Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, so we can compare and contrast them to Clinton's. The context is
different; Clinton's is a campaign speech, and Roosevelt is addressing Congress, as a re-elected
President, in his State of the Union speech, in 1941, before our entrance into World War II (hence
the references to "everywhere in the world," and "translated into world terms").
Here's FDR:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four
essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of[4] speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings
which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the
world.
The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction
of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position
to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
Notice the extreme specificity and material basis of FDR's language: Freedom from want;
freedom from fear. You know, today, in your very own life, whether you are in want or in
fear. You don't have to ask anybody else, and it doesn't take some sort of credential plus a processing
fee to figure it out. Now contrast Clinton: "[M]ake the economy work for everyday Americans." What
the heck does that even mean? Certainly
nobody knows what "everyday Americans" means. This is focus-grouped bafflegab emitted by Democratic
consultants who are
slumming it on the Chinese bus instead of the Acela because optics. Could we be in fear or in
want after the economy "works"? Who knows? And if Clinton believes we won't be, why not say that?
With that, let me poke holes in some of the policies under Clinton's Four Four Well, Four Whatever-the-Heck-They-Are,
since FDR's "Freedom of" and "Freedom from" construct seems to have been disappeared from Clinton's
reversioning of FDR's material. I understand that the Clinton campaign, in a White House-style policy
shop operation,
will be rolling out more concrete material
in
the next 513 days, so I'll focus only on major gaps and contradictions. (The talking points won't
necessarily be in speech order, though the headines will be.)
"Make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top"
CLINTON: "I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not
quick trades or stashing profits overseas. (Cheers, applause.)"
CLINTON: "We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing
tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan."
First, I suppose it's OK to appropriate Republican rhetoric, Third Way fashion - "tax
relief," "red tape" - but it sure seems odd to do so after claiming Roosevelt's mantle. Second, we've
got entire industries (Uber; AirBnB) whose business model is to gain market share by breaking the
law, and I'd like to know what Clinton thinks about ignoring "red tape" entirely. And that's not
just a theoretical concern for small business, since the so-called "sharing economy" - Yves calls
it
the "shafting economy" - threatens them as well. (What does it mean for local restaurants and
Farmer's Markets that food plus a recipe can now be delivered
via an app?)
CLINTON: "To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons.
And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
First, note the shift from "everyday Americans" (whatever that means) to "middle class" (whatever
that means) and "the poor" (I think we know what that means). Because Clinton cannot
really define who her programs target, it's not possible to determine who will actually benefit from
them; hence, "mean something" is vacuous. People can project, of course, but 2008 should have taught
us the danger of doing that. Second, there are well-known policies that provide concrete material
benefits to wage workers, and which it would be easy for Clinton to support, if she in fact does
so. The first is raising the minimum wage, not to Obama's pissant $10.10, but to the $15 that so
many on the ground are pushing for. Silence. More radically, we have programs like the Basic Income
Guarantee or the Jobs Guarantee (or both). Programs like this would be of great benefit especially
to those who have been cast out from our permanently shrunken workforce, and will in all likelihood
never work again. These programs target millions, and so who benefits is easy to see. Silence.
CLINTON: "There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing."
There are leaders in finance who are walking the street but who should be in jail. It's hard
to see how "confidence" can be restored for "everyday Americans" until elite criminals no longer
have impunity. Of course, taking a stand like that would make life hard for Clinton with the Rubinite
faction of the Democratic Party, along with many Wall Street donors, and many contributors to the
Clinton Foundation, but corruption isn't my problem. It's Clinton's. So, again, silence.
"Strengthen America's families"
CLINTON: "I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety."
First, note again how abstract Clinton's words are. Where FDR says "freedom from fear," Clinton
says "not anxiety." Where FDR says "freedom from want," Clinton (with Wall Street) says "confidence."
Second, and as usual, what do Clinton's words even mean? Let me revise them: "I believe
Social Security benefits should be raised, not lowered, and that benefits should be age-neutral.
It's unconscionable that the younger you are, the worse off you will be when you're old. I also believe
that Social Security benefits should begin at age 60, so more can retire from the workforce, and
more young people enter." This is not hard. It doesn't take a think tank to work out.
CLINTON: "[I believe] that you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there
when you need it, without breaking the bank."
What does that mean? Well, we know what it means. It means tinkering round the edges
of ObamaCare, keeping the sucking mandibles of the health insurance companies firmly embedded in
the body politic, and
not bringing our health care system up to world standards.
CLINTON: "I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days. (Cheers, applause.)"
"Reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy"
CLINTON: "We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our
elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people. (Cheers,
applause.)"
CLINTON: "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United. (Cheers, applause.)"
However, the shout-out to a specific policy advocated by Move to Amend might make one reflect
on the curious lack of specificity so prevalent elsewhere in the speech.
CLINTON: "I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That's why I've proposed universal,
automatic registration and expanded early voting. (Cheers, applause.)"
There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level. (For example, on immigration,
she does support "a path to citizenship," though curiously not an end to mass incarceration, or reforms
to policing.) But over-all, I think any grand vision disappears in a welter of bullet points, vague
language, and a resolute unwillingness to present policies that would visibly benefit all
Americans, instead being tailored to the narrow constituencies of the sliced up version of America
so beloved by the political class.
Here's a random factoid you can use to frame whatever policy options a candidate presents. I keep
track of #BlackLivesMatter shootings on my Twitter feed, and most of them come with pictures of the
scene. The pictures come from all across the country, as we might expect, and I have started looked
at the backgrounds: Invariably, there are signs of a second- or third-world level of infrastructural
decay and destruction: Cracked sidewalks, potholed roads, sagging powerlines, weed-choked lots, empty
storefronts, dreary utilitarian architecture just as soul-sucking as anything the Soviets could have
produced.
... ... ...
ekstase, June 14, 2015 at 3:57 pm
"To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And
to give the poor a chance to work their way into it."
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their
way into it"? It is supposed to be a fair system, not one in which some people have been crippled
by cheaters, and therefore need to work their way out of the unfair position they have been put
in. The logic seems off.
tongorad, June 14, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"?
"Have a chance:" The old "skin in the game" routine. Everyone deserves the chance to risk their
skin. Nice, eh? "Work their way into it:" Divide and conquer. The deserving poor and middle class
vs undeserving.
jrs, June 14, 2015 at 11:53 pm
one also has a chance to win the lottery if one plays it. Well one does not a good chance but
a chance.
Lexington, June 15, 2015 at 1:26 am
Why are the middle class and the poor always invited to "have a chance"? Or to "work their way
into it"? Because in America some win and some lose, but the losers deserved it because they lack
ability, persistence, a strong work ethic, or otherwise have some serious character flaw that
prevents them from succeeding. In American everyone who deserves success gets it. Or in the shorthand
of American political discourse, it's about equalizing "opportunity", not "outcome".
Hillary isn't promising that under her presidency everyone in America will have economic security
and some basic allotment of human dignity – that would have after all be defiling the altar of
"meritocracy" at which America's elite worships – but those who deserve it will.
As for the others, well America will always need fast food workers, convenience store clerks
and Walmart greeters. In any case those sorts of people have no right to aspire to a station in
life higher than the one for which one providence suited them.
craazyboy, June 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Might be interesting to compare it to Senator Obama speeches. Many parts seem hauntingly familiar,
but 8 years and 500 plus days does overly tax my memory. Then maybe compare it to a Reagan speech.
Maybe it's my long term memory kicking in.
But that may be more work than it's worth.
Oh geez. Today is gym day. The Fox News TV is there. I can smell the fumes bubbling up from
the swamp pit already. Hillary Clinton has embraced FDR and gone bungee cord jumping completely
off the far, far, left cliff. Gawd help us.
Bernie, don't let Hillary sit in your lap. Let's try and keep this believable.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, June 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm
We have 1400 billionaires in this country (up from 700 when the "Crisis" began) and we can't
find one, NOT ONE, with a functioning moral compass who is willing to do the least little thing
for the actual *people* in this country by supporting a real alternative candidate to Fascist
War Monger 1 (Hilary) or Fascist War Monger 2 (Jeb).
Forget Grandpa Buffet and his homely homilies while he steals off with insider deals on Goldman
preferred, or BillG, who does some good things but then goes and leads the Better Than Cash Alliance
(an attempt to get everyone in the developing world to run up debts on a MasterCard). Mark, Elon,
Peter don't you have even one remaining moral bone left that will make you save us from these
charlatans?
David, June 14, 2015 at 6:49 pm
" hatchet-faced austerity enforcer.."
In the links this morning, you castigated someone for making sexist comments about Hillary.
You said,
"..it's dumb, because emphasizes the personal characteristics of candidates as opposed to their
political ones."
Other than that, I enjoyed the article.
Blue Guy Red State, June 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Bernie Sanders resonating with some very Tea Party friendly members of my extended family,
along with various traditional lefties like me (aging Boomer and former Independent who move right
to join Democratic Party in 1980s) and Millenial offspring. Summer family camping trip might get
interesting!
Sen. Sanders is making more sense to more people because we've tried trickle-down, tax-cutting
Reaganomics for 35 years, and it's been a disaster across the board unless you're filthy rich.
(And the filthy rich live on the same planet as the rest of us, breathe the same air and drink
the same water too.)
People are ready for REAL hope and REAL change; this will give Sen. Sanders a lot more traction
than the MSM and both GOP and Democratic bigwigs expect. Good.
Synoia, June 14, 2015 at 8:25 pm
S.S. Clinton, the beginning of a Titanic voyage.
I cannot perceive of anything concrete coming form a second Clinton presidency, except more
and more constituents thrown under the bus, the space already crowded with groups so discarded
by President Obama.
I'm for Bernie.
craazyman. June 14, 2015 at 8:48 pm
Now that Hillary is officially running for President, it's time to ask the tough questions.
The tough questions separate a vanity candidate who just want media attention from the hardened
policy field marshall who has to make the tough decisions in the face of strenuous opposition.
If Hillary is for real, she might get elected, so its not too early to think of the Top 10 Questions
for President H.R. Clinton at her first press conference.
... ... ...
Question #6: This is a multiple choice question!
How many hedge funds does it take to destroy society?
a) less than 100
b) just one
c) they can't take you anyway, you don't already know how to go
d) what kind of question is that?
Question #5: Are Republlcans completely crazy or do they just seem like it?
... ... ..
drum roll please . . . .
Is Bruce Jenner still a roll model for America's athletic youth and if not, why not?
^ ^ ^
Holy smokes those are tough questions for any body, much less a US president. but they need to
be clever if they're the President don't they!
Ed Walker, June 14, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Fun factoid. Sunday Paper has different headline than current article up on web. Here's the
headline from the paper:
Sounding Populist Themes, Clinton Pledges to Close Gap in Wealth.
And here's the headline from the web right now:
Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap
"Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said drug companies that would benefit
from a Pacific trade pact should sell their products to the U.S. government at a discount in her
strongest comments yet on an issue that has divided her party."
"Clinton's comments amount to an implicit rebuke of President Barack Obama's efforts to secure
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a nod toward liberal critics of the deal as she campaigns
to win the Democratic nomination for the November 2016 presidential election."
"I have held my peace because I thought it was important for the Congress to have a full debate
without thrusting presidential politics and candidates into it," she said at a campaign stop in
Burlington, Iowa. "But now I think the president and his team could have the chance to drive a
harder bargain."
"Clinton did not say whether she would support or reject the deal. But she criticized several
aspects of the agreement "
"Our drug companies, if they are going to get what they want, they should give more to America,"
Sanctuary, June 15, 2015 at 1:51 am
I was in Cuyahoga County in 2004 and I can tell you unequivocally, they (the Republicans) played
every dirty trick in the book and stole that election. They were calling people up and telling
them that Democrats vote the next day, Republicans vote on that day and/or calling people up and
"informing" them of the incorrect polling location to go to, closing down polling locations or
not starting them for several hours past the mandated time.
The 2000 morass I blame on Gore, since by no stretch of the imagination should that election
have even been close enough that a few million votes undercounted or prevented would have swung
the election. That he chose to buy into the Republican memes about Clinton, act guilty, and run
away from him, was his own bad judgment.
When you act guilty in the US, you ARE guilty. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Say what
you want about the Clinton's, that is one lesson they always understood.
Jerry Denim, June 15, 2015 at 2:55 am
"There's plenty to like in Clinton's speech at the talking point level."
Seriously?
"We need more from Clinton - more from all candidates. Much, much more. "
Really?
I know Hillary once again is the front runner, the presumed nominee and the only Democratic
candidate for "serious" respectable grown-ups and as such must receive her share of the horse
race coverage. I also know the tone of this post was basically critical and skeptic.
That said, I find such an earnest micro-parsing of Clinton's utterly meaningless, consequence-free
campaign rhetoric by a respected, important and principled site such as this does Clinton an undeserved
service by lending her legitimacy at a time when she should be shouted down and shamed for being
the lying, compromised, money-grubbing, scruple-less corporate sock puppet that she is.
If the political elites learned anything from Obama (a.k.a. Bush 3.0) it's that you can lie
through your teeth on a daily basis and along with some help from our red vs. blue propaganda
machine media still convince gullible voters who identify with team blue's brand to continue to
support a team blue Prez, and vote for him/her even if he/she betrays regular Americans and kicks
them on a daily basis as long as he/she smiles and says he/she is committed to popular and happy
things on camera. Hillary can say whatever the hell she wants right now and it doesn't mean a
thing. She doesn't hold elected or appointed office.
She can make socialist, FDR type promises till the cows come home while still raking in billions
in corporate money, foreign money, and libertarian billionaire asshole money because they know
just like Obama she will break every populist campaign promise before she's even sworn in as President.
A President Hillary and her entourage would continue business as usual because they has a proven
track record of being pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, Washington-consensus, Neo-con hawks.
Believing anything else is utter madness.
Save your analysis and commentary for a Socialist with a better track record like Bernie Sanders
or some other long-shot, third party candidate. Carefully parsing the words of a lying pol like
Clinton is about as sane and as useful as trying to divine meaning in a pile of dogshit and then
claiming you have a legal and binding contract with your bank. We don't need more from Clinton
we need less. Way less. We need her to shut up and go away, we know who and what she really is.
Since Clinton doesn't look like she plans on shutting up or going away anytime soon I think she
should either be – a.) Ignored, or (b.) Shouted down and shamed. Just like Obama I can't take
a single word she speaks seriously with her track record.
TedWa, June 15, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I just wish posters here would stop thinking about and posting about Bernie Sanders as if he's
a 3rd party candidate. I'm old enough to remember when progressive democrats like Bernie ran things.
He's more of a traditional democrat than Hillary can even dream about being. There is no throwing
the race to the Republicans by voting for and supporting Bernie – he's running as a democrat and
running as a challenger to neo-liberal Hillary and neo-liberal politics and only 1 of them can
make it to the final democratic nomination. Get it? Only one of them. This is not going to be
a 3rd party race! I know wrapping your head around Bernie as a democrat is hard for some of the
younger among us that don't remember a time when neo-liberalism didn't rule the roost, but that
is what he is and that is how he's running. There is no 3rd party candidate
Thank you for your time.
How does Hillary's level playing field rhetoric work in her own life? Let's look at how her
daughter has fared in her own struggles to live a middle class life.
Lord Butler of Brockwell, the Master of University College, said: "Her (Chelsea's) record at
Stanford shows that she is a very well-qualified and able student. The college is also pleased
to extend its link with the Clinton family."
In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City.
In the fall of 2006, she went to work for Avenue Capital Group, a global investment firm focusing
on distressed securities and private equity.
In 2010, she became Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation.
In November 2011, NBC announced that they hired Clinton as a special correspondent, paying
her $600,000 per year. Clinton memorably interviewed the Geico Gecko in April 2013.
Since 2011, she has also taken a dominant role at the family's Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton
Foundation, and has had a seat on its board.
Just thought I'd add a link to Professor Harvey Kaye talking to Bill Moyers about FDR's Four
Freedoms.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/fighting-for-the-four-freedoms/
So inspiring. The opposite of HRC. I appreciated this article very much I don't see how anyone
who watched or read the HRC text and has a passing familiarity to the Four Freedoms speech can
see any relationship between the two whatsoever except at the most superficial level, meaning
HRC used the word "Four".
"... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
"... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
"... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
"... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
"... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
"... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
"... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
"... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very
long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm,
Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and
magazines.
But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the
so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in
Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in
part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue
you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism
in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away
from the really interesting issues.
Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It
could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this
so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what
they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the
economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn
on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies
shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what
this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically
see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within
the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect
for commercial media.
Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case
of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening
(when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers
which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at
least in my opinion.
coldflame 1 day ago
philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing
cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate
that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things
even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance
abuses.
My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy
many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately
it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's
very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major
problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.
Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago
Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's
very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has
stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake
was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.
Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When
asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on
the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While
I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.
Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol,
without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature
and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.
Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago
Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians
are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression
principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction
are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and
the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an
anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation
is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.
The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why
does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?
One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished
people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress
and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations
to monopolize and move wealth to the top.
Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago
Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.
Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.
The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President
Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.
He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism,
and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion
on Donald Trump being a candidate .
EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)
"The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty
much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby
Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.
MY HERO!!!!!!!
Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)
10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out,
which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally.
There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to
be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises
and every time the public bails them out.
>>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these
corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be
bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get
cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because
if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.
>>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"
"... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised
Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.
And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what
happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?
I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including
the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?
When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.
We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds,
incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.
If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard
for the future.
Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.
Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries)
http://www.youtube.com/user ...
Prescott
Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist
Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...
A more comprehensive attempt at an answer to the question, why is populism on the
rise?, is suggested in the concluding chapter of the volume in an interview with Jurgen Habermas.
Habermas calls out several factors in the past twenty-five years that have led to a rising appeal
of right-wing populism among large segments of the populations of democratic countries in Europe
and the United States. First among these factors is the steep and continuing increase in
inequalities that neoliberal economies brought about since 1989. He believes that this trend
could only be offset by an active state policy of social welfare -- the policies of social
democracy -- and that advanced capitalist democracies have retreated from such policies.
Second, he highlights the deliberate politics and rhetoric of the right in both Europe and the
United States in pursuing a politics of division and resentment. People suffer; and politicians
aim their resentment at vulnerable others.
Third, Habermas emphasizes the fact that neoliberal globalization has not delivered on the
promises made on its behalf in the 1970s, that globalization will improve everyone's standard of
living. In fact, he argues that globalization has led to stagnation of living standards in many
countries and has led to an overall decline of the importance of the western capitalist economies
within the global system overall. This trend in turn has given new energy to the nationalistic
forces underlying right-wing populism.
So what advice does Habermas offer to the progressive parties in western democracies? He argues
that the progressive left needs to confront the root of the problem -- the increasing
inequalities that exist both nationally and internationally. Moreover, he argues that this will
require substantial international cooperation:
The question is why left-wing parties do not go on the offensive against social inequality by
embarking upon a co-ordinated and cross-border taming of unregulated markets. As a sensible
alternative – as much to the status quo of feral financial capitalism as to the agenda for a
völkisch
or left-nationalist retreat into the supposed sovereignty of long-since
hollowed-out nation states – I would suggest there is only a supranational form of
co-operation that pursues the goal of shaping a socially acceptable political reconfiguration
of economic globalisation. (Kindle Locations 566-569)
In Habermas's judgment, the fundamental impetus to right-wing populism was the cooptation of
"social-democrat" parties like the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour Party in
Britain by the siren song of neoliberalism:
Since Clinton, Blair and Schröder social democrats have swung over to the prevailing
neoliberal line in economic policies because that was or seemed to be promising in the
political sense: in the "battle for the middle ground" these political parties thought they
could win majorities only by adopting the neoliberal course of action. This meant taking on
board toleration of long-standing and growing social inequalities. Meantime, this price – the
economic and socio-cultural "hanging out to dry" of ever-greater parts of the populace – has
clearly risen so high that the reaction to it has gone over to the right. (Kindle Locations
573-578)
So what is the path to broad support for the progressive left? It is to be
progressive
-- to confront the root cause of the economic stagnation of the working class people whose lives
are increasingly precarious and whose standard of living has not advanced materially in
twenty-five years.
But this requires being willing to open up a completely different front in domestic politics
and doing so by making the above-mentioned problem the key point at issue: How do we regain
the political initiative vis-à-vis the destructive forces of unbridled capitalist
globalisation? Instead, the political scene is predominantly grey on grey, where, for example,
the left-wing pro-globalisation agenda of giving a political shape to a global society growing
together economically and digitally can no longer be distinguished from the neoliberal agenda
of political abdication to the blackmailing power of the banks and of the unregulated markets.
(Kindle Locations 590-595)
Princess Ivanka is just part of a cosmopolitan global aristocracy. She can change her mind
anytime she likes and what are you going to do about it? Zip. Same with the Lady Chelsea.
The Trump administration would double the
standard deduction, essentially eliminating
taxes on the first $24,000 of a couple's
earnings. It also called for the elimination of
most itemized tax deductions [drop dead, NY, CA
and IL] but would leave in place the popular
deductions for mortgage interest and charitable
contributions. The estate tax and the
alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Trump has
railed against for years [because, as David Cay
Johnston showed using DJT's 2005 return, it does
what it's supposed to do], would be repealed
under his plan.
The plan would include a special one-time tax
[just kidding – GWB did the same thing, with
predictable results that did not include a jobs
boom] to entice companies to repatriate cash
that they are parking overseas.
Mr. Trump also signaled support for changes
to the tax code that would help families with
child-care costs. His plan also would end the
3.8 percent tax on investment income [ka-ching!]
that was imposed by the Affordable Care Act.
Beyond cutting the tax rate to 15 percent for
large corporations, which now pay a rate of 35
percent, Mr. Trump also wants that rate for a
broad range of firms known as pass-through
entities - including hedge funds, real estate
concerns like Mr. Trump's and large partnerships
[i.e., working stiffs] - that currently pay
taxes at individual rates, which top off at 39.6
percent.
Acknowledging concerns that such a move could
potentially be used as a tax shelter, Mr.
Mnuchin insisted on Wednesday that the
administration's plan would not be used as a
loophole to allow people to pay less tax than
they should be paying. [And you can take Mr.
Mnuchin's word to the bank. Just ask the
customers
victims of OneWest.]
The concern would be that lawyers, doctors,
consultants or other wealthy people in
partnerships could structure much of their
personal income as business income, effectively
reducing their tax rate from 39.6 percent to 15
percent. [As could anybody else – just ask your
employer to fire you and hire you back as a
Chapter S corporation.]
The concern would be that lawyers,
doctors, consultants or other wealthy people
in partnerships could structure much of
their personal income as business income,
effectively reducing their tax rate from
39.6 percent to 15 percent.
I'm confused. I thought that S corporations
did not pay income taxes (they do pay FICA taxes
for employees, etc.), because they pass through
all profits to the individuals, trusts, or
charities that own the corporation. The
individuals then pay regular income tax at the
individual tax rate, not the corporate rate.
Have I misunderstood how this works?
"double the
standard deduction,
essentially
eliminating taxes on
the first $24,000 of
a couple's
earnings."
Now, if the first
$24,000 of earnings
were exempted from
FICA, with those
"earning" over
$200,000 paying
double FICA on
everything over
$24,000 just to keep
Social Security
well-funded and
healthy, you might
actually be talking
about a stimulus for
the economy. [I put
"earning" in quotes
because very, very
few people could
actually EARN more
than $200 grand in a
year.]
But I doubt
that's what Mnuchin
and company have in
mind.
You mean if Borders had become Barnes
& Noble? Well, B&N is struggling, too.
Just like Walmart, Amazon's business model ELIMINATES the competition.
In my view, every Amazon purchase is a rock thrown through the window of
a local retailer, large or small. Personally, if I ever throw rocks, they're
going to be aimed bigger and better targets than that.
B&N closed their Georgetown (DC)
store a couple of years ago, IIRC
right before the xmas season got
started. It was an oasis on a side
of town that would rather sell you a
$500 pair of pants dotted with
embroidered lobsters. The building
was a nicely reclaimed three-floor
warehouse space with coffee and
lounging areas, and it had become a
nice excuse to go into DC and hang
out.
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Just
as an example, a trade paperback I bought in
1998 for a cover price of $12.95 (Anne
Carson's
Eros the bittersweet
) now
has a cover price of $13.95, only a dollar
more. The BLS's CPI calculator says the book
should cost $19.54 in today's dollars.
That doesn't strike me as unaffordable.
It's possible that if I went out and bought
a copy of the book now, the printing might
be worse, or the paper of a lower quality,
but I cannot imagine it being much worse
than the copy I already own.
"... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine
free speech. ..."
"... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain
since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological
Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend
and foe alike. ..."
"... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the
CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but
for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their
own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
"... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them.
..."
"... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down
world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss
of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism
and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to
"predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing
local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it
appears to be a native development." ..."
"... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also
took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized
the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and
so on.' ..."
"... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged
the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
"... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its
covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging
Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
"... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD
served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According
to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ,"
"the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output
(i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists
who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well
as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties
in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means,
and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
"... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out
stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy.
Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own
intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others
that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
"... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International
experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet
Union. ..."
"... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan,
it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without
anyone being the wiser. ..."
"... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What
Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic
society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is
of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force
and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never
without fraud." ..."
Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig
called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon
takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read
Part 1 ,
Part 2 and
Part 3 .
The recent
assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false
narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan
Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war
launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep
roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before
deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.
Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy
at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the "
Countering Disinformation
and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December
2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only
to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred
to as " the Global Engagement
Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize,
understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The
real purpose of
this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges
Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or
jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's
firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for
a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.
This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back
to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots
are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from
Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of
the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's "
The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun
with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.
In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's
Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy
of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was
only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion,
terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back
wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and,
when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.
The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize
"truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for
genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto"
employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free
at all, but a concoction of the CIA's
Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare
program waged on friend and foe alike.
The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950
Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying
the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals,
but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans
from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know
it.
"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal
with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the
cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists
or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing
their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility
within the various intellectual professions."
Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was
the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in
the document
PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement,
to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion,
doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual
appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the
West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the
planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American
origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal
critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2
itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system"
that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields
of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology
and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded:
"That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."
Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document.
As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall
also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which
emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel,
Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in
his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when
PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully
to hand."
Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a
fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy.
With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old
Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.
The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism,
whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere.
Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the
emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.
Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research
Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.
Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the
IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977.
According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of "
Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole
aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies
and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies
and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available
channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which
might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit
the British Left."
IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right
wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and
distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered
story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established
with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte
Brian Rossiter
Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political
analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years
as one of Britain's top
propagandists and secret agents .
If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment
alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look
no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told
outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan
in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't
need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream
believer, a dangerous imperialist who
acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until
his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé
Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco
and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize
governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to
delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.
The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in
1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put
out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist
spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in
his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book
above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think
about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction
between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which
was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled
at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the
use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used
by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as
valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in
1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method.
Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or
the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more
of less absolute."
But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level
covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his
Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage
for rolling back the Soviet Union.
In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented
a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International
(6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of
the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be
caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen
"because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist
one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals.
In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "
Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers"
as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired
as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives.
When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam
in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the
Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.
As George Orwell wrote
in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned
to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed
and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical,
and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can
sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."
Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain
his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine
Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to
one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say
in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all
ye who enter here.
This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see
Obama was a bought president now he bought and paid president. Master
of "bait and switch" now got his silver coins.
Notable quotes:
"... Obama's real legacy also includes zero bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of Wall Street CEOs in 2009 , "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and proved an effective shield. ..."
"... For all of those efforts, those that succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs) and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP, Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation, the international love and acclaim. ..."
"... Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson, Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street. ..."
"... When he was president he called them "fat cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a huge payday. ..."
"... Former President Barack Obama, less than 100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000, which is nearly twice as much as Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016 Democratic Party candidate, charged private businesses for such events. ..."
"... And typical of Obama, the issue is words versus deeds . That "record of attacks" was entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is entirely to be expected given the level of funding Wall Street poured into making and keeping him president in the first place: ..."
"... One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports. ..."
"... Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That investment paid off over the eight years of his presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in profit and millions upon millions per year in executive compensation and bonuses. ..."
By
Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on
the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and
Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius
,
Tumblr
and
Facebook
. GP article archive
here
. Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
My words fly up, my deeds remain below.
Words without deeds never to heaven go.
-Barack, Prince of Denmark,
Act III
,
Scene 3
This is a story I didn't want to produce, but
fully expected to. For years I've been writing about
Barack Obama and his legacy, the one he wants to
have and the one he actually has. In
2013
I listed the four economic items Obama
wanted to achieve to complete what he considered his
legacy list before his presidency ended:
Privatized "Medicare expansion" (the ACA).
Benefits cuts for SS and Medicare. Keystone
[pipeline built]. TPP [passed]. If Obama gets
these four, he's a happy man, and in his mind he
goes out in glory.
He succeeded on the first; tried and tried and
tried on the second; bailed on the third only when
forced to by popular opposition; and pulled out all
the stops, every last one of them, to pass the
fourth in the last months of his last year, even as
his chosen Democratic successor, Hillary Clinton,
under pressure in the primary, finally came out as
opposed. (Obama's chosen DNC chair, Tom Perez, was
never opposed, nor was anyone else close to his
administration, though Perez doesn't talk about that
much these days.)
If it weren't for Tea Party and Freedom Caucus
Republicans, he'd have been three for four - Social
Security "reform" and TPP would have passed. Obama
didn't lose for lack of trying.
Obama's real legacy also includes zero
bankers jailed for fraud despite the rampant
criminal behavior of Wall Street in the run-up to
the 2008 economic devastation. As he told a group of
Wall Street CEOs
in 2009
, "My administration is the only thing
between you and the pitchforks." He was right, and
proved an effective shield.
For all of those efforts, those that
succeeded (passing ACA, protecting Wall Street CEOs)
and those that failed (cuts to SS and Medicare, TPP,
Keystone), he fully expected to be granted a "Bill
Clinton future" - the big money, the big foundation,
the international love and acclaim.
You can read about
his fundraising for the foundation here
. It's
quite a story in its own right. You can hear the
international acclaim grow stronger by the day,
thanks to the serendipitous contrast with his
successor, Donald Trump. And now the money is
starting to flow.
"Bill Clinton Money"
Fresh from his vacation on privately-owned
Necker Island with billionaire Richard Branson,
Obama has just inked his first lucrative speaking
deal. The fee: $400,000. The venue: Wall Street.
Former President Obama has agreed to speak at
a Wall Street conference for $400,000, according
to a new report.
Obama will appear at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's
healthcare conference in September, Fox Business
Network first reported
Monday
.
Fox Business said it confirmed Obama's
appearance with senior members at Cantor, a
financial services firm.
Obama will serve as the keynote speaker for
one day at the company's event, sources there
told Fox Business.
The following is from the underlying Fox Business
report
by Charlie Gasparino and Brian Schwartz,
who broke the story. Note the criticism that looks
to us like praise (my emphasis):
When he was president he called them "fat
cats," but now he's likely thanking them for a
huge payday.
Former President Barack Obama, less than
100 days out of office, has agreed to speak at a
Wall Street conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald
LP, senior people at the firm confirm to FOX
Business. His speaking fee will be $400,000,
which is nearly twice as much as Hillary
Clinton, his secretary of state, and the 2016
Democratic Party candidate, charged private
businesses for such events.
[ ]
News of Obama's speaking deal with Cantor,
which had yet to be reported, comes as the
former president made on Monday his first public
comments since leaving office after an extended
vacation. In those comments to college students
at the University of Chicago, the president
spoke broadly about the need for public service
and studiously avoided any mention of the
current president, Republican Donald Trump, or
how he intends to make a living now that he's a
private citizen.
It's also likely to be a source of criticism
against the former president given Obama's
record of attacks against Wall Street bankers
for making huge salaries while average Americans
were suffering from the ravages of the 2008
financial crisis.
Obama, a progressive
Democrat, spoke frequently about Wall Street
greed
during his eight years as
president, and now he's accepting a speaking fee
from the industry he singled out as the main
culprit of the banking collapse.
I'll return to the Fox piece in a moment. First,
about the timing, compare Obama's first
post-presidential days to Bill Clinton's immediate
post-presidential trajectory
(my emphasis):
On
December 21, 2000
,
President Bill Clinton signed a bill called the
Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This law
ensured that derivatives could not be regulated,
setting the stage for the financial crisis.
Just two months later, on
February 5,
2001
, Clinton
received
$125,000 from Morgan Stanley, in
the form of a payment for a speech Clinton gave
for the company in New York City. A few weeks
later, Credit Suisse also hired Clinton for a
speech, at a $125,000 speaking fee, also in New
York. It turns out, Bill Clinton could make a
lot of money, for not very much work.
Notice that just like Clinton was fresh off his
late December win for Wall Street deregulation,
Obama is fresh off his highly focused effort to pass
TPP in the final days of his own presidency. Unlike
Clinton, who won, Obama ultimately failed, but
Obama's win would have been much more monumental
than Clinton's. Commodities futures deregulation
enriched just one industry, though it did help wreck
the whole economy. TPP was truly "NAFTA on
steroids," a multi-industry monopoly protection
scheme, and nearly everyone in America with real
money would have benefited, not just the bankers.
By the way, if you compare Obama's speaking fee
with Clinton's early fees, you may notice the price
has gone up. (Clinton's later fees grew in line with
those prices. His 2015 fee was
$500,000 per speech
.) A good example of asset
inflation - and that's not sarcasm. Everything the
rich are buying these days is rocketing up in price.
See "
Art
and real estate are the new gold, says Blackrock CEO
."
Word and Deeds
I quoted Gasparino and Schwartz's piece for a
reason. In it you can see the double benefit Obama
gets - Wall Street reward money, plus undeserved
credit for opposing Wall Street while in office.
Fox, in hitting him for hypocrisy - "given
Obama's record of attacks against Wall Street
bankers for making huge salaries while average
Americans were suffering from the ravages of the
2008 financial crisis" - actually praises him as an
kind of "anti-Wall Street warrior" during his
presidency, something (a) he certainly was not, but
(b) something he desperately wants to be thought to
have been.
After all, you can't retire as a "champion of the
people" if you don't at least appear to champion the
people. And you can't be internationally loved in
your "retirement" years if the world sees you as a
quid-pro-quo greed head. Managing how the world sees
him will be crucial to Obama's success going
forward.
And typical of Obama, the issue is
words versus deeds
. That "record of attacks" was
entirely verbal. Obama's deeds were the opposite of
attacks; they were entirely supportive. Which is
entirely to be expected given the level of funding
Wall Street poured into
making and keeping him president
in the first
place:
Wall Street Responsible For One-Third
Of Obama's Campaign Funds
One-third of the Obama re-election
campaign's record-breaking second-quarter
fundraising came from sources associated with
the financial sector,
the Washington Post
reports.
That percentage is up from the 20% of
donations that came from Wall Street donors in
2008, and contradicts reports that a growing
Wall Street animosity towards the Obama
administration may jeopardize his re-election
bid.
And please don't forget that Obama's real legacy,
the one involving actual deeds, includes what
David Dayen called
"the greatest disintegration
of black wealth in recent memory." Of that I
wrote this
:
Occasionally, when there's justice in the
world, one is not just branded by the manicured
and curated image one tries to project. One is
branded instead by what one actually does in the
sight of others.
Will Obama see more justice than the millions
whose homelessness he caused? I guess that part
of the story is still being written.
One can hope. It will be interesting to watch
this unfold.
You Get What You Pay For
Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in
Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012. That
investment paid off over the eight years of his
presidency to the tune of billions upon billions in
profit and millions upon millions per year in
executive compensation and bonuses.
It would not be at all surprising if Wall Street
bankers were now saying "thank you" by giving him
money he can keep. In fact, it would be entirely
surprising if they weren't.
UPDATE:
I discussed this issue
and post on "The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen," WNHN-FM,
progressive radio on New Hampshire. You can
listen here
; start at 30:00 (or earlier to
listen to Garth Brooks sing "It Pays Big Money").
Madeleine
,
April 28, 2017 at 1:20 am
Honest question: what do banks get out of paying
a former president to lecture them?
Isn't it likely that Obama underregulated because
he agrees with the neoliberals, without the need for
quid pro quo/influence peddling? I'm sure he always
planned to cash in, but I read him as true believer
in markets anyway.
They are demonstrating to the next Obama that
good deeds go rewarded. Its the same reason why
so many ex politicians get insanely large book
deals for books nobody ever reads from media
companies. The point is not to give money to an
ex politician, its to remind the next generation
of politicians the rewards they can reap if they
are good boys and girls.
Exactly. They are telling the next President
so inclined to be of aid to them that there are
massive piles of cash waiting for them for
things like being "the only thing between [them]
and the pitchforks."
To make the conference attendees feel like
VIPs so they keep on believing in the importance
of networking with the .1%. Then, if they
believe in the game and in their special powers,
they will buy the financially engineered
products.
It's all about feeling as if you are part of
the winning group.
It would look very bad and send the wrong message
if those who have served you well didn't get
rewarded. Compared to the service they received it's
a real bargain.
He rented a house in DC that have rental market
price equivalent to his presidential pension.
Negotiations for the 60 million book remuneration
was probably already finished.
I always thought one of the goals of passing BS
healthcare reform was to use it as a bargaining chip
to get Democrats to accept Social Security and
Medicare cuts and privatization. It would have
worked but for that pesky Tea Party that couldn't
take yes for an answer from the Kenyan Muslim
atheist socialist. Despite his every effort to bend
over backward and kiss their asses
The French it seems are missing a trick by
relying on a candidate with all of the charisma of a
dead fish. I imagine it would not be too difficult
to find a popular game show host type who can sing a
little of the repertoire of a Gallic version of Al
Green, follow an autocue with a touch of pizazz &
generally charm all & sundry.
Judging from what I have read on my FB feed, the
man can do no wrong, especially it appears among the
female contingent, one of whom suggested it was
racist to criticise the cool cat for licking up the
presented cream. I have also noticed a similar
reaction from the females to one of the latest
additions to the Neoliberal crew, " Pretty Boy "
Trudeau.
Yes! and though the forgiveness is not
surprising, I am stunned by the furious reaction
at any attempt to criticize O for promptly
cashing in. It includes statements like, Oh
c'mon, you want the guy to work for free to be
morally pure?? Or, it's just like big name
artists who finally make it and then people
resent that they make good money. The litany of
excuses nearly always comes from people who find
Trump appallingly greedy, crude, vulgar,
corrupt, etc.
I probably should add that this is not
just a female phenomenon as from my
experience, many males have also been taken
in by the above tailor's dummies.
I am somehow reminded of the situation
that developed when that infamous smoothie,
Ted Bundy appeared in court.
You highlight something which I have been
thinking about recently and welcome suggestions
from the "Nakeds", if only so I can ask the
bookies for a quote at Newmarket next week-end.
After Obama, Trudeau and Macron, who are the
next pretty boys and girls the neo-liberals can
use to advance their interests? Are there any
empty suits with a USP out there? I was thinking
of Corporate Hooker, but we have just had Obama.
One of the twins from Texas or the pretty boys
from San Francisco? I can't think of any in the
UK apart from Chuka Umunna and Sadiq Khan.
Yes, but you do need the opposite for the
contrast & the hisses & boos from the
groundlings. For instance, that Neoliberal
hellhole Romania in a future election might
consist of a battle between some decorative
one time Eurovision song contest winner &
the equivalent of Vlad the Impaler.
I must admit though, that if Juliet
Binoche stood for the far right, the devil
would be whispering in my ear.
I saw one of Jeb's! kids give a speech
several years ago. Pretty boy, biracial,
smooth talker and a Bush. He's not that old
yet so if the clan can reinvigorate
themselves after the damage Trump did to the
Bush pedigree, watch out for that one.
I had forgotten about the little
brown one as George HW Bush called his
grandson George P Bush. One can get a
bet for George P Bush and Chelsea
Clinton to square up in 2024.
The difference between France and Canada is
that millions of French households are feeling
the negative impacts of neoliberalism and bad EU
policies while most Canadian households are
still clueless, basking in their home equity or
should I say home debt.
If you have a copy of Gordon Wood's "The
Radicalism of the American Revolution" pull it off
the shelf and reread Chapter 14: "Interests." He
adroitly describes the shift from
disinterest
to
self-interest
in that period.
I'd enjoin Obama to read that chapter, too, if I
could. He could learn something from non hip-hop
Hamilton.
Hamilton knew that many public officials were
using their connections to get rich, but he did
not want to be one of them. In 1795, at a time
when he was very much in need of money and out
of public office, his close friend Robert Troup
pleaded with him to get involved in business,
especially speculative land schemes. Everyone
else was doing it, said Troup. "Why should you
object to making a little money in a way that
cannot be reproachful? Is it not time for you to
think of putting yourself in a state of
independence?" Troup even joked to Hamilton that
such moneymaking schemes might be "instrumental
in making a man of fortune–I may say–a gentleman
of you.For such is the present insolence of the
World that hardly a man is treated like a
gentleman unless his fortune enables him to live
at his ease."
But Hamilton refused. "Saints," he said,
might get away with such profit-making, but he
knew that he would be denounced by his
Republican opponents as just another one of
those "speculators" and "peculators." He had to
refuse "because" as he sardonically put it,
"there must be some public fools who who
sacrifice private to public interest at the
certainty of ingratitude and obloquy–because my
vanity whispers I ought to be one of those fools
and ought to keep myself in a situation the best
calculated to render service." Hamilton clung as
long and as hard to the classical conception of
leadership as anyone in post-revolutionary
America. Unfortunately for the Federalists,
however, Hamilton's classical vision of
aristocratic leadership required more than just
himself and Washington, more than just a handful
of farsighted, cosmopolitan, and great-souled
gentlemen who remained virtuous and above the
concerns of crass moneymaking.
can anyone direct me to sources citing Obama
wanting to reform Medicare & SS?? This isn't
surprising, but I guess I was too busy trying to
make a living at the time.
"Bottom line - Wall Street invested millions in
Barack Obama's career in 2008 and 2012."
It started well before 2008. Even before Obama's
2004 speech at the Democratic convention he had
drawn the attention of the movers and shakers, and
after his speech Obama essentially entered into
their world, became friends with and an acolyte of
Pete Peterson and that whole circle.
Their investment paid off handsomely for Wall
Street and the Republican Party; America and the
Democratic Party are the worse for it.
"[Obama] just a few days ago went and met with
the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, the
leading newspaper out in that portion of Iowa, and
he had a discussion off the record, and emphasized
that because it was off the record he could be more
blunt, and said that his first course of business,
and one that he believed he could get done very
quickly should he be reelected, would be to strike a
grand bargain. And he described the grand bargain,
and there would be $2 in budget cuts for every
dollar in increased taxes.
So this grand bargain is: we will weight this
much more heavily towards killing social programs,
or at least cutting them back significantly and
raising taxes on the rich."
"... By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here . Originally published at The Exiled ..."
"... Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry masses? ..."
"... Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. ..."
"... 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" ..."
Posted on
April 27, 2017 by
Yves
Smith Yves here. At the end, Ames explains why this sudden handwringing
about Russian inequality is newsworthy:
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
As anyone who knows a smidge about this sordid history could tell you, the
US's neoliberal reforms set the stage for a plutocratic land grab, with members
of the Harvard team advising the State Department feeding at the trough in a
big way. As we've written, the fact that Harvard paid $26.5 million in fines,
yet Larry Summer not merely failed to sanction the professor who headed the
team, his personal friend Andrei Shleifer, but actually protected him
was the proximate cause of the ouster of Summers as Harvard president .
The Guardian just published a piece on
Russia's inequality problem - first and worst in the world, according to
a new
Credit Suisse report . Funny to see Credit Suisse wringing its hands over
Russian inequality, given that bank's active complicity in designing and profiting
off the privatization of Russia in the early-mid 1990s. Shortly before Credit
Suisse arrived in Russia, it was the most equal country on the planet; a few
years after Credit Suisse arrived and pocketed up to hundreds of millions in
profits, Russia was the most unequal country on earth, and it's pretty much
been that way since.
Credit Suisse's new Russia branch was set up in 1992, and it was led by a
young twenty-something American banker named Boris Jordan, the grandson of wealthy
White Russian emigres. Jordan was key to the bank's success, thanks to his cozy
relationships with Russia's neoliberal "young reformers" in charge of privatizing
the former Communist country. In the first wave of voucher privatization-when
all Russians were issued vouchers which they could then either convert into
shares in a newly-privatized company, or sell off-Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan
gobbled up
17 million of Russia's privatization vouchers, over 10 percent of the total.
Inside connections were the key. While working for Credit Suisse, Jordan
advised the Yeltsin government on how to implement its Russia's disastrous voucher
privatization scheme. Jordan worked together with the two of the most powerful
US-backed Russian free-marketeers: Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, architect of
the shock therapy program that led to the mass impoverishment of tens of millions
of Russians; and Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia's privatization program,
which created Russia's new billionaire oligarch class. Gaidar's shock therapy
confiscated wealth from the masses; Chubais' privatization concentrated wealth
in a few hands. And Jordan's Credit Suisse advised, traded off, and profited
from this wealth transfer. This was the trio that played a central role in creating
the inequality that Credit Suisse is now wringing its hands over. (You can read
an
interview with Jordan about how he co-advised the voucher implementation
in 1992, which is stunning for a lot of reasons- he admits they sped up its
implementation of voucher privatization to make sure that Russia's parliament,
i.e. representative democracy, couldn't interfere with it. Democracy was not
something anyone involved in Russia's privatization in the 1990s gave a shit
about.)
The conflicts-of-interest here were so over-the-top, they were almost impossible
to wrap your head around: Credit Suisse banker Boris Jordan helped implement
the voucher privatization scheme with Russia's top political figures; and Credit
Suisse massively profited off this same privatization scheme. And it was all
done with the full backing and support of the US Treasury Department and the
IMF.
(Another major beneficiary of Russian privatization vouchers was a murky
hedge fund run by the billionaire Chandler brothers. They made a killing snapping
up vouchers cheap, converting them into stakes in key Russian industries, and
selling their stakes for huge profits. I
wrote about them a couple of years ago because one of the Chandler brothers
plowed some of his Russia loot into something called the
Legatum Institute -a Dubai-based neocon front group that's been bankrolling
the
"Russia disinformation panic!" for
several years now, issuing
report after
report after
report on the Kremlin disinformation scare by their protege
Peter Pomerantsev . You have to let these vulture-capitalist billionaires
wet their beaks a little, or they'll raise an army of human rights activists
to regime-change your ass.)
Shock therapy, first implemented in 1992 and not really ended until Russia's
devastating financial crash in 1998, was politically useful in that by confiscating
the Russian middle-class's and lower-class's savings, it created a massively
unequal society. And that alone drove Russia further from its Communist recent
past, which was the political goal that justified everything.
In 1994, this same young Credit Suisse banker, Boris Jordan,
told Forbes' Paul Khlebnikov about a scheme he was trying to sell to the
Yeltsin regime. It was called "loans-for-shares" and when it was finally adopted
at the end of 1995, it resulted in what many considered the single largest plunder
of public wealth in recorded history: The crown jewels of Russian industry-oil,
gas, natural resources, telecoms, state banks-given away to a tiny group of
connected bankers. It was this scheme, first devised by a Credit Suisse banker,
that created Russia's world-famous oligarchy.
The scheme went something like this: The Yeltsin regime announced in late
1995 auctions under which bankers would lend the government money in exchange
for "temporary" control over the revenue streams of Russia's largest and most
valuable companies. After a period, the government would "repay" the "loans"
and the banks would give the their large stakes back to the government.
In reality, every single "auction" was rigged by the winning bank, which
paid next to nothing for its control over an oil company/nickel company/etc.
Even the little money paid by this bank was often stolen from the state. That's
because Russia used a handful of private banks as authorized treasury institutions
to transfer government salaries and other funds around the country. This allowed
the same bankers who were authorized as state treasury banks to keep those funds
for themseles rather than distribute them to the teachers, doctors and scientists
as salaries-so they did what was in their rational self-interest and kept the
money, delaying salary payments for months or even years at a time, while they
used the funds for themselves to speculate, or to buy up assets in auctions
they rigged for themselves. It was pure libertarian paradise on earth-everything
von Hayek and von Mises dreamed of-in practice.
By the time the loans-for-shares was actually put into effect in late 1995,
Credit Suisse's Boris Jordan joined up with an anointed banker-oligarch, Vladimir
Potanin, to set up their own investment bank, Renaissance Capital. They raised
their first private equity fund, Sputnik Capital-with George Soros and Harvard
University as co-investors-and Sputnik Capital went on to take advantage of
the loans-for-shares investment opportunities, which had even more help from
the fact that Yeltsin made Potanin his Finance Minister in 1996.
This sudden mass wealth transfer from the many to the few had a devastating
effect on Russia's population. Inflation in the first two years of shock therapy
and voucher privatization ran at 1,354% in 1992, and 896% in 1993, while real
incomes plunged 42% in 1992 alone; real wages in 1995 were half of where they
were in 1990 (pensions in 1995 were only a quarter in real terms of where they
were in 1990). According to very conservative official Russian statistics, GDP
plunged 44% from 1992-1998 - others put the GDP crash even higher, 50% or more.
By comparison the Soviet GDP fell 24% during its war with Nazi Germany, and
the US's GDP fell 30% during the Great Depression. So what happened in the 1990s
was unprecedented for a major developed country-by the end of the decade and
all of the Washington/financial industry-backed reforms, Russia was a basket
case, a third-rate country with an even bleaker future. Capital investment had
collapsed 85% during that decade-everyone was stripping assets, not investing
in them. Domestic food production collapsed to half the levels during perestroika;
and by 1999, anywhere from a third to half of Russians relied on food grown
in their own gardens to eat. They'd reverted to subsistence farming after a
decade of free market medicine.
All of this had a catastrophic effect on Russians' health and lives. Male
Russian life expectancy dropped from 68 years during the late Soviet era, to
56 in the mid-1990s, about where it had been a century earlier under the Tsar.
Meanwhile, as births plunged and child poverty and malnutrition soared, Russia's
death-to-birth ratio reached levels not seen in the 20th century. According
to Amherst economist David Kotz, over 6 million Russians died prematurely during
the US-backed free-market reforms in the 1990s. What's odd is how little pity
or empathy has ever been shown for those Russians who were destroyed by the
reforms we backed, advised funded, bribed, coerced, and were accessory to in
every way. They weren't entirely America's fault; Yeltsin and his US-backed
"market bolsheviks" had their own cynical, ideological and political reasons
to restructure Russia's political economy in the most elitist, hierarchical
unequal manner possible. But if the US had acted differently, given how much
influence the Clinton Administration had with the Yeltsin regime, things could
certainly have turned out differently. The point is-they didn't. The inequality
was the surest sign of success. It only became something to wring our hands
about later, a soft-power weapon to smack them with, now that we have little
to zero influence over Russia.
It's interesting that our literature is filled with plenty of official empathy
for Weimar German victims of that country's hyperinflation, but nothing of the
sort for Russians of the 1990s, who were, it was argued, being ennobled and
lifted up by the linear thread of liberal history-they were heading towards
the bright market-based future, can't let a few knocks and scratches distract
us! Can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs, as the West's Stalin apologists
used to say.
Here, for example, is a typical cheerleader story about the new Russian inequality,
published in
Businessweek in 1996-a fluff job on Boris Jordan's Russian backer, Vladimir
Potanin. Notice how the headline/subheader make clear that the hero of this
narrative is the Russian billionaire, and the villains are the "angry masses"
of poor envious Russians:
The Battle for Russia's Wealth
Can hugely rich new capitalists weather a backlash from the angry
masses?
Russia's answer to J.P. Morgan could not be less like the eccentric,
bulbous-nosed original. Vladimir O. Potanin is a shy, athletic man of
35. Holding court in his rosewood-paneled office on Moscow's Masha Poryvaeva
Street, the president of Oneximbank quietly gives instructions to two
strapping bodyguards at his door. Cool and controlled, Potanin is a
standout in a group of dynamic businessmen who have seized huge slices
of the economy.
Which reads a lot like this fluff job in the Los Angeles Times, published
around the same time, headlined
"Whiz-Kid Banker Named to Russian Cabinet" . Which reads a lot like
a Businessweek followup up with even more shameless hagiography, headlined
"The Most Powerful Man in Russia" . You can try reading that last one
if you want, but I recommend keeping a vomit bag close by-and a cyanide
pill for good measure.
So this is the sordid and depressing backstory to the Credit Suisse report
on Russian inequality-the story you definitely won't and don't read about
in Credit Suisse's own account. They're a bank; their reports, while perhaps
truthful, are far from The Truth-more like marketing pamphlets than serious
scholarship.
Credit Suisse made a killing in Russia in the early-mid 1990s,
dominating two-thirds of Russia's capital markets deals-while tens of
millions sank into desperate poverty. That too is inequality.
Jordan himself remained a
powerful celebrity-investor through the early Putin era. In 1997, Boris
Jordan was caught up in a major scandal surrounding the privatization of
the national telecoms concern, Svyazinvest-which was won by a consortium
that included Soros, Harvard, and a bank owned by Finance Minister Potanin
and his partner, Mikhail Prokhanov, who today owns the Brooklyn Nets. The
scandal was this: The government official in charge of auctioning off the
telecoms to Soros-Harvard-Potanin-Jordan consortium, Alfred Kokh, had been
given a shady $100,000 book advance by a shady Swiss company connected to
Potanin's bank. The book had not been written; the advance was unusually
high; and the Swiss "publisher" which had never published a book before
was itself incorporated and led by none other than Boris Jordan's cousin,
Tikhon Troyanos.
The revelations led to scandals, and Yeltsin was forced to fire his privatization
chief Alfred Kokh, along with a handful of other corrupt US-backed "young
reformers" caught getting paid on the eve of a rigged auction.
But what did it really matter? What really mattered to everyone who matters
was the political structure of Russia's economy. No longer egalitarian,
no longer a threat to the neoliberal order-it now had the world's most unequal
society, and that was a good thing, because the new elites would identify
their interests more with the interests of their Davos counterparts than
with the interests of the "backwards" Russian masses, whose fate was their
problem, not ours. This is when racist caricatures of the "backwards" Russian
masses help-you don't have to empathize with them, history is sending them
to the trash heap of history, not you. The world was safe for business,
and that was all the affirmation anyone needed to hear.
At the end of the Yeltsin era, I visited the sprawling suburban Moscow
"compound" owned by Potanin and his banking partner, Mikhail Prokhorov,
as well as Renaissance Capital-the bank first founded with Boris Jordan
in the mid-1990s. It was a huge gated compound with several buildings, a
mini-hotel, and a nightclub/concert hall. One of the first things I saw
entering the gaming hall building was two familiar-looking men in track
suits playing backgammon: Vladimir Potanin, billionaire oligarch; and Alfred
Kokh, the fired, disgraced head of Yeltsin's privatization committee.
The financial crisis of 1998 left Russia's in complete tatters, and Boris
Jordan was never the big shot that he had been before. His real value was
providing cover for the new boss Vladimir Putin as he re-centralized power
under Kremlin control. The first upstart oligarch that Putin took down was
Vladimir Gusinsky. He was briefly jailed and then exiled to Israel. His
once-respected opposition TV station, NTV, was "bought" by Gazprom, and
Gazprom, needing a western-friendly face for its hostile takeover,
hired Boris Jordan as the new general director of the network-and his
old partner-in-crime, Alfred Kokh, the disgraced ex-privatization chief,
as chairman of NTV's board. Almost immediately, 25 NTV journalists- half
the staff-
"resigned" . Jordan's job was to blunt western criticism of the Kremlin
as it destroyed the lone critical voice on Russian television, and two years
later, his job done, he moved on.
Without any of this context, it's as though Russia's extremes of inequality
that Credit Suisse just reported on suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as
a manifestation of Vladimir Putin's innate evil. As though nothing preceded
him-the 1990s had never happened, and our Establishment has always sincerely
cared about how Russians must suffer from inequality and corruption. Erasing
history like this has a funny way of making America look exceptionally good,
and Russia look exceptionally bad.
Great piece. Mark Ames and his former eXile comrades Yasha Levine and
Matt Taibbi write some of the most honest and ideologically neutral critiques
of the current political and economic clusterfuck. The Guardian, OTOH, is
pure neoliberal establishment propaganda. It really went downhill after
Katherine Viner replaced Allan Rusbridger as chief editor. If the Snowden
affair happened today they would probably be loudly calling for his arrest.
Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being resurrected to
manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?" When it happened
in Russia, the Russians ended up with Vladimir Vladimirovitch rising to
stem the tide of officially sanctioned criminality. One could say that Russia
has had precious little experience with "representational" governance, and
thus a return to some form of autocracy was understandable. America, on
the other hand, has, supposedly, a storied history of representative governance.
So far, that "story" isn't showing signs of turning out so well for the
"angry masses" of the Homeland. What, then, will America "put up with" to
see the mere appearance of social justice? This is where the supposed "opposition"
party, the Democrats, have fallen down. They aren't even "talking" a good
game today. The longer these tensions continue, and increase, the greater
the damage from the eventual unwinding will be.
The job of the Dems is to herd the sheep in the right direction. They
do this by pretending to be lefties while keeping the true alternative,
socialism, in its box. One could argue the whole history of the 20th century
after WW1 was about keeping socialism in its box. Funny how the end of the
Evil Empire–at least notionally committed to socialism–has made the situation
in the West so much worse. It's almost a though those 20th century progressive
reforms were only intended to keep the commies at bay. Now the plutocrats
don't have to pretend any more.
Ambrit wrote: 'Why do I get the feeling that this "playbook" is being
resurrected to manage a "privatization" of the American "safety net?"
Because many of the same sociopaths who learned how to loot a collapsing
empire after the fall of the USSR took the lessons learned and applied them
over here.
Well this is to be expected isn't it. The same banks that go around the
world selling their brand of "market based reforms" then turn around and
wring their hands when the post-reform economy has been stratified in favour
of the 1%. It's almost as if registering their concern about the inequality
levels they had a hand in creating somehow assuages their guilt. In my own
country South Africa, one of the most unequal societies in the world, we
are drowning in a constant, ad nauseum barrage of media commentary about
how orthodox neoliberal thinking is the only thing that will save the country.
Such stories of how orthodoxy itself plunged a country like Russia into
economic anarchy are sadly lacking, in fact speaking ill of orthodoxy is
anathema and one suspects that journalists are either infected with terminal
gullibility vis a vis neoliberal thinking or are towing the line to stay
in their jobs
Thanks for this great article It looks like Popper's positivism did
wonders for George Soros. As he would say: "I made a killing". Sure nothing
a couple of his humanitarian NGO's can not fix!
I suppose we'll never forgive the Russians for how bad they let neoliberal
capitalism look.
I think that in some circles there's a deeply seated viral antagonism
toward Russia and Russians that goes far beyond, and is far more deeply
laid, than the liberal-v-not-liberal clash of civilizations du jour. Like
herpes, this particular disease bubbles to the surface under certain conditions,
such as a the Ukraine coup. Perhaps the virus first broke out around the
time of the Venetian
Sack of Constantinople ?
Ask a Russian. If you ask a Western liberal and you'll get nothing but
a blank stare. Of course Russia bad . That's all we need to known.
Full stop. My Western liberal conscience is clean.
The rank hypocrisy involved reminds one of Obama's
gratuitous Russia bashing . And who is more iconically Western, more
iconically liberal, than President Obama? Obama is nothing if not cool,
and Western liberalism is coolness itself.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
The obvious alternative way would be the various routes followed by the
former Iron Curtain countries. Most had some form of shock therapy, if none
as extreme as that in Russia, probably because they don't have the easy
to grab mineral resources. None have done as well as hoped, but some have
been moderately successful by steering a middle course – The Czech Republic
and Poland have done reasonably well over the past 20 years. In general,
I would say that those which opted for slower and gentler market reform
did better than the 'get it over quick' ones. The one country that tried
not to change – Belarus – is still standing, if a bit of a basket case.
Keep in mind the EU played a much more constructive role back then. The
elites at the time really wanted integration and modernization to work,
especially in the Central European countries like those ones you listed.
Not directly related, but for wider context, very similar programs happened
in Mexico during the Salinas administration (1988-1994) around the same
time. NAFTA in 1994 was the 'reward' for the Mexican elites doing as they
were told.
Here's an old NYT article which aims for a tone of 'cheerleading with
reservations', but does give you a sense of the corruption involved during
the biddings, especially around TelMex and the resulting problems.
Of course, we know how the story ends in Mexico with the 1994-5 Tequila
Crisis, much like the story ended in Russia with the 1998 default which
crushed the LTCM hedgies.
I've wondered what a better alternative would have looked like – instead
of looting and refitting Russia to join a neoliberal capitalist world. Wasn't
it Jeffrey Sachs, now reformed, who said shock therapy would be the fastest
and least painful way to get Russia up and running? And Putin has been a
tightrope walker all along and seems to be very sensible. Almost too sensible.
He has his nationalist opponents on one side (the late, great Boris Nemtsov
was one) who say he is giving Russian wealth away to the West and his western-neoliberal
detractors one the other side who call him a nationalist tyrant. In between
he has the backing of the Russian people. Very agile.
My one minor quibble is the assertion that those in the West put the
blame of the downfall of the Russian masses on the masses themselves. Most
of those in the West are either ignorant, or in denial, of how bad it got
for the average Russian in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were taught that the USSR was a hellhole where everyone lived in horrific
poverty except for the party leaders. So they saw the horrible conditions
under Yeltsin and company as a continuation of how things had always been.
Some even argue it got better, painting any report showing things were better
under the USSR as communist propaganda.
Pleasantly surprised to see this research article
on the need to combat rising income inequality and the
death of the American dream in the AAAS journal Science:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/398
I don't know why everyone is calling the Raise the
Wage Act "Bernie Sanders' Minimum Wage Act," since the
bill was introduced by Patty Murray. Further, the Act
doesn't have anyone receiving $15 until 2024. If you
live in Seattle and work for a large employer (over
500 employees), you will receive $15 per hour minimum
either in 2017 or 2018, depending on whether or not
the company provides health insurance as a benefit.
People are hurting
now
. They need $15 per hour
now
. Once again, the Dems are "fighting" but
not trying to win.
With four times as many Democratic co-sponsors as he had just two years
ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday morning re-introduced a bill
to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
In 2015, Sanders introduced similar legislation with just five co-sponsors.
On Wednesday, he boasted 21, in addition to lead co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray
(D-Wash.). They are:
Actually, Patty Murray introduced the bill
on April 30, 2015, which would have raised the
minimum wage gradually to $12 by 2020. There
were 32 original co-sponsors, all Dems. Bernie
introduced a similar bill on July 22, 2015,
with Ed Markey as the original co-sponsor, which
would have raised the minimum wage to
$15
dollars by 2020. Members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus introduced a companion bill
in the House. The most recent bill is a re-introduction
of Murray's bill, with Sanders now supporting
$15 by 2024.
I know that many here continue to wish to believe that Sanders hasn't
sold out to the Dems, but the evidence becomes clearer that he is no longer
the fighter he was when he ran for President.
I hope you're wrong. But the wind did
go out of his sails when he lost NY, before
that he was still hoping.
I continue to see him as fighting for us,
but the dems keep kicking him
the only way to kick back is third party,
but a monumental effort for an older fellow.
Imagine MSM, Mic, dems, reps, insurance,
banks, the 1% and then the challenge to
register in even a majority of states
Easier to take over greens and convert to
functional, but no indication he's thinking
that.
The fact of the matter is that too many Trump supporters do not hold the president responsible for his mistakes or erratic behavior because they are incapable of recognizing them as mistakes. They lack the foundational knowledge and basic political engagement required to know the difference between facts and errors, or even between truth and lies.
Shattered depicts a calamity of a campaign. While on the surface, Hillary
Clinton's team were far more unified and capable than their counterparts
in 2008 had been, behind the scenes there was utter discord. The senior
staff engaged in constant backstabbing and intrigue, jockeying for access
to the candidate and selectively keeping information from one another. Clinton
herself never made it exactly clear who had responsibility for what, meaning
that staff were in a constant competition to take control. Worse, Clinton
was so sealed off from her own campaign that many senior team members had
only met her briefly, and interacted with her only when she held conference
calls to berate them for their failures. Allen and Parnes call the situation
"an unholy mess, fraught with tangled lines of authority, petty jealousies,
distorted priorities, and no sense of general purpose," in which "no one
was in charge."
If you want a good definition / description of the Deep State you just
have to watch the old Thatcher-era BBC comedy Yes, Minister – the whole
show is more or less entirely about friction between elected representatives
and the UK Deep State.
Short, short version: the Deep State is the set of people (government
officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are
not affected by election results. Nothing particularly secret about it.
As a former government employee, I'm trying to figure out who "the set
of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power
but whose positions are not affected by election results" are. I hear about
them all the time, particularly on right wing blogs, but I've never actually
seen one
The power in a government agency is held by political appointees ("politicos"
in guvspeak) and those political appointees are the only ones that speak
for or direct the agency. And they change every time there is a change in
the Presidency. Most agencies have more than one political appointee. My
last job was with a small agency (less than two hundred employees) that
had five. If a senior staff member is not immediately in line with the politicos'
policies, that person is removed (demoted, sidelined, or transferred to
another agency). Those governmental employees that stay year after year
(the "weebees") just do the work, they have no power, and they definitely
cannot make any decisions for the agency.
In some government agencies, the high ranking career employees seem to
be rather good at manipulating the political appointees. This does not apply
to all agencies; the primary examples are in the military, intelligence,
financial, and justice realms. Unsurprisingly, these are the agencies that
are the heaviest users of secrecy. There's also a lot of cross pollination
between portions of the private sector (completely unelected, of course),
and the murky deep state. Some of this involves the "revolving door", but
some is just shadowy cooperation, such as we see among the NSA and various
giants in telecommunications and Silicon Valley, or among Wall Street, the
Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve. The public does not elect
those people.
I don't think there is much "manipulation" needed. After all the politicos
come from the lobby/contractor/donor class, whether they be Democrat or
Republican and they are already unwilling to change anything that they perceive
as giving them power and control ..
But I guess it is easier to believe in a "Deep State" than realize that
those shiny new politicians we just elected really do not want to change
anything
"The phrase "deep state" derives from the Turkish "derin devlet",
which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked
the Turkish deep state. It has experienced a surge of use in 2017, though
often not in keeping with the meaning attributed by the diplomat who
coined the phrase.
As powerful and self-interest groups ( probably even more dominated
by psychopaths and sociopaths than other large hierarchies ), deep
states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve
their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast
to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less
secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority.
Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective
preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively.
In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA With
the apparatus of nation states under their control, their subterfuges
can be elaborate and complex. The deep states of the world have a natural
common interest in hiding their existence, which predisposes them to
mutual assistance. As a Turkish cartoon put it in 1997 "Deep state protects
its own."[5] "
I think the term "deep state" is closely connected with the notion of
"national security state" and by extension with the term "military industrial
complex". And the core of deep state are always intelligence agencies which
tend to escape the control of the governments and in turn attempt to control
the government that should control them. There are certain requirement for
such agencies that very few agencies outside intelligence agencies meet.
1. Institualized ability to collect dirt of politicians, or access to
such information collected by other agencies.
2. The veil of secrecy over the actions and funding. Access to some "non-controlled"
or "semi-controlled" funding for "special operations" and "actions"
3. Set of people trained for conducting covert operations, especially
false flag operations.
4. Experience with covert operations abroad that can be transferred to
the "home territory" in case of necessity. Peter Dale Scott refers in a
recent essay to "A Supranational Deep State", noting how their international
integration effectively allows intelligence agencies to evade even the limited
control national governments had on them in the first half of the 20th century.
5. Infiltrated, or at lease "influencable" on the level of "useful contacts"
with publishers and top journalists media. Deep state generally controls
corporate media as Church commission established long ago.
Any agency that meets whose three criteria is "by definition" belongs
to deep state. That means that outside Pentagon and three letter agencies
only State Department (which now performs a part of functions of CIA as
for color revolutions preparation) and Energy Department can qualify.
The Deep State is fundamentally the public-private centralized nodes
that collect, archive and curate dominant narratives and their supporting
evidence, and disseminate these narratives (and their implicit teleologies)
to the public via the media and to the state agencies via formal and
informal inter-departmental communication channels.
In other words, the people who, in the public mind, define and legitimize
(or delegitimize) the agenda and the members and objectives of the ideal
power structure you describe, which, contrary to almost any anecdotal observation
of office politics in general, seems to contain no dotted lines, no stovepipes,
perfect subordination, no split allegiances or conflicting interests, and
no other indirect pressures from within or without. Sounds more liberal
than progressive, tbh.
Years ago, while working in an Australian state public service department,
we considered 'Yes Minister' to be a documentary, and used it amongst ourselves
as training material.
With such friends like Paul Wolfowitz Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster belong to Hillary team. And Trump are strongly advised to perform sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report: ..."
"... If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013 ..."
"... Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience. ..."
"... If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? ..."
President Trump has yet to provide any credible evidence that the gas attack in Syria earlier
this month was carried out by Assad, and in the meantime very serious questions about the veracity
of White House claims are arising from very credible experts. Yet the Administration seems ever more
determined now that it has done a 180 degree turn and demanded regime change for Syria. Late last
week the White House announced sanctions on 271 Syrian scientists who Trump claims are working on
chemical weapons. The proof? None.
How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be
telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz,
is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Virtually all those in USGov leadership roles are not interested in peace; MIC makes for favors
to dispense & $contributions for re-election. But wars can't be waged if few are willing to join
military & work for Dept of Defense (what a truth-twisted name!). Depopularize both military participation
& "support the troops" mania.
Take a day off from sanity and watch TV all day. The advertising for just about every commercial
product is being taken over by militarism. Toys, breakfast cereals, restaurants, cars, beer commercials,
good thing we don't have tobacco commercials anymore, or we'll have a campaign like Lucky Strike
GREEN is going to War! (the tobacco company changed the color on the packets because the red dye
had a lot of chromium in it and chromium was needed for aircraft parts) Rice Krispies cereal was
touted as "Shot from Guns!" (Let's get the kids involved!) That last one was courtesy of my Mom
and her sisters, they were kids at the time. The Recruiters are getting worse.
If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed
blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the
situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.
I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled
and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump
to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd
at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were
mistaken.
I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official
narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt
that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack.
It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make.
The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post
a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack
in Khan Sheikhoun.
Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under
one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that
former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience.
The truth about the gas attack might take some time to wiggle to the surface, especially if
claims made by the administration turn out bankrupt. They will likely bury it as long as possible.
The media will likely be reticent to dig, having all thrown roses at Trump's feet for a little
"shock and awe". Never underestimate either the willful ignorance or the ignominious glorification
(by the media) of reckless bombing under the guise of humanitarian concerns. It seems they learned
not a damned thing from the debacle of Iraq. They have simply gone back to sleep since then.
Paul talks about "sensibility and a better policy". It seems he was yet another "believer"
who was duped by a man who tells lies faster than his lips can move. They had about 16 months
to watch Trump put truth in a dumpster fire, and yet they STILL believed that his election would
herald some utopian, isolationist, wet-dream fantasy-land where the MIC would fold up overnight
and bring all the boys back home. How's that working out for the "believers"? Trust a man with
no core at your own peril. The messiah complex (as a projection) really needs to die in this country...before
we do some REAL damage to ourselves.
Nice post. In defense of Paul, I never saw any statement of his that he was a supporter of
Trump. He did say he liked SOME of the things he was saying on the campaign trail (like bring
the troops home). Also, it didn't take him long to publicly criticize Trump. Contrast these critical/skeptical
statements to those of other public figures. I suspect Paul's attacks on Trump will accelerate
(they already have).
Also, Paul did cite "red flags" about Trump during the campaign. I saw him on one interview
criticize the proclivity of Trump to propose executive actions that seemed imperial in nature,
certainly outside of the confines of a president's Constitutional role.
Ron Paul's voice and views are more important than mine as they get heard and read by far more
people. Thank goodness he is still around to offer his contrarian views.
I'm sure Trump already doesn't like Ron Paul, and that Trump's antagonism for Paul will only
grow as events transpire.
For all those deluded conspiracy theorists out there -- The mainstream news almost without exception
supports accusations that Syria uses Sarin gas and that Assad kills his own citizens --
They all agree that the 'moderate' opposition, 'free speech' community service activists, with
only peaceful intentions, as they are deserve both our support and protection - but I am beginning
to wonder who it is doing the fighting ? Oh, sorry -- Assad -- Sorry for my foolish mistake !
If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic
Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the
Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? Just
pass the hymn-sheet around -- Please feel welcome to join in the singing --
"... it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula ..."
"... 'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.' ..."
"... sixty-four ..."
"... - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those. ..."
"... Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem? ..."
Yves here. Even though some may try arguing that
Hillary Clinton was discussing China's view of North
and South Korea in her Goldman speech, it is naive
to think that it is actually different from ours,
despite the regular histrionics. As an anonymous
reader at DownWithTyranny pointed out:
Again, if you review our (and their) policies
since '50 and think about it for only a minute,
you realize both we and the Chinese want a split
Korea. And we want it for much the same reasons.
The North provides an annoyance to the US which
inspires fear and stupidity AND billions spent
on weapons to keep certain sectors rich and
occupied.
Now that the south has emerged as an economic
and manufacturing behemoth, the need to keep
them separate is even more pronounced, for just
the reasons enunciated.
By
Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on
the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and
Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius
,
Tumblr
and
Facebook
. GP article archive
here
. Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"We don't want a unified Korean peninsula
We [also] don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb."
Our policy toward North Korea is not what most
people think it is. We don't want the North Koreans
to go away. In fact, we like them doing what they're
doing; we just want less of it than they've been
doing lately. If this sounds confusing, it's because
this policy is unlike what the public has been led
to assume. Thanks to something uncovered by
WikiLeaks, the American public has a chance to be
unconfused about what's really going on with respect
to our policies in Korea.
This piece isn't intended to criticize that
policy; it may be an excellent one. I'm just want to
help us understand it better.
Our source for the U.S. government's actual
Korean policy - going back decades really - is
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She
resigned that position in
February 2013
, and on June 4, 2013 she gave a
speech at Goldman Sachs with Lloyd Blankfein present
(perhaps on stage with her) in which she discussed
in what sounds like a very frank manner, among many
other things, the U.S. policy toward the two Korea
and the relationship of that policy to China.
That speech and two others were sent by
Tony Carrk
of the Clinton campaign to a number
of others in the campaign, including John Podesta.
WikiLeaks subsequently released that email as part
of its release of other Podesta emails (source email
with attachments
here
). In that speech, Clinton spoke
confidentially and, I believe, honestly. What she
said in that speech, I take her as meaning
truthfully. There's certainly no reason for her to
lie to her peers, and in some cases her betters, at
Goldman Sachs. The entire speech reads like elites
talking with elites in a space reserved just for
them.
I'm not trying to impugn Clinton or WikiLeaks by
writing this - that's not my intention at all. I
just want to learn from what she has to say - from a
position of knowledge - about the real U.S. policy
toward North Korea. After all, if Goldman Sachs
executives can be told this, it can't be that big a
secret. We should be able to know it as well.
What Clinton's Speech Tells Us about U.S.
Korea Policy
The WikiLeaks tweet is above. The entire speech,
contained in the attachment to the email, is
here
. I've reprinted some of the relevant
portions below, first quoting Ms. Clinton with some
interspersed comments from me. Then, adding some
thoughts about what this seems to imply about our
approach to and relations with South Korea.
The Korea section of the Goldman Sachs speech
starts with a discussion of China, and then
Blankfein pivots to Korea. Blankfein's whole
question that leads to the Clinton quote tweeted by
WikiLeaks above (my emphasis throughout):
MR. BLANKFEIN: The Japanese - I was more
surprised that it wasn't like that when you
think of - all these different things. It's such
a part of who they are, their response to Japan.
If you bump into the Filipino fishing boats,
then I think you really - while we're in the
neighborhood [i.e., discussing Asia], the
Chinese is going to help us or help themselves -
what is helping themselves? North Korea?
On
the one hand they [the Chinese] wouldn't want -
they don't want to unify Korea, but they can't
really like a nutty nuclear power on their
border. What is their interests and what are
they going to help us do?
Clinton's whole answer is reprinted in the
WikiLeaks tweet attachment (click through to the
tweet and expand the embedded image to read it all).
The relevant portions, for my purposes, are printed
below. From the rest of her remarks, the context of
Blankfein's question and Clinton's answer is the
threat posed by a North Korean ICBM, not unlike the
situation our government faces today.
MS. CLINTON: Well, I think [Chinese]
traditional policy has been close to what you've
described.
We don't want a unified Korean
peninsula, because if there were one South Korea
would be dominant for the obvious economic and
political reasons.
We [also]
don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb
.
So we've got a pretty good thing going with the
previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and
Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young
leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult
the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations
coming from them. He engages in all kinds of
both public and private rhetoric, which seems to
suggest that he is preparing himself to stand
against not only the South Koreans and the
Japanese and the Americans, but also the
Chinese.
Translation - three points:
The U.S. prefers that Korea stay divided. If
Korea were to unite, South Korea would be in
charge, and we don't want South Korea to become
any more powerful than it already is.
We also don't want the trouble North Korea
causes South Korea to extend beyond the region.
We want it to stay within previously defined
bounds.
Our arrangement with the two previous North
Korean leaders met both of those objectives.
North Korea's new leader, ,Kim Jung-un, is
threatening that arrangement.
It appears that China has the same interest in
keeping this situation as-is that we do. That is,
they want South Korea (and us) to have a Korean
adversary, but they don't want the adversary acting
out of acceptable bounds - coloring outside the
lines laid down by the Chinese (and the U.S.), as it
were. Clinton:
So the new [Chinese] leadership basically
calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. And
a
high ranking North Korean military official has
just finished a visit in Beijing and basically
told [him, as a message from the Chinese]: Cut
it out.
Just stop it. Who do you think you
are? And you are dependent on us [the Chinese],
and you know it. And we expect you to
demonstrate the respect that your father and
your grandfather [Kim Jung-il, Kim Il-sung]
showed toward us, and there will be a price to
pay if you do not.
Now, that looks back to an important
connection of what I said before. The biggest
supporters of a provocative North Korea has been
the PLA [the Chinese People's Liberation Army].
The deep connections between the military
leadership in China and in North Korea has
really been the mainstay of the relationship.
So
now all of a sudden new leadership with Xi and
his team, and they're saying to the North
Koreans - and by extension to the PLA - no. It
is not acceptable. We don't need this [trouble]
right now. We've got other things going on. So
you're going to have to pull back from your
provocative actions,
start talking to South
Koreans again about the free trade zones, the
business zones on the border, and get back to
regular order
and do it quickly.
Now,
we don't care if you occasionally
shoot off a missile. That's good. That upsets
the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you
can't keep going down a path that is
unpredictable
. We don't like that. That is
not acceptable to us.
So I think they're trying to reign Kim Jong
in. I think they're trying to send a clear
message to the North Korean military.
They
also have a very significant trade relationship
with Seoul and they're trying to reassure Seoul
that, you know, we're now on the case.
Clinton ends with a fourth point:
From the U.S. standpoint, the current
problem is now on the Chinese to fix.
Clinton:
So they want to keep North Korea within their
orbit. They want to keep it predictable in their
view. They have made some rather significant
statements recently that they would very much
like to see the North Koreans pull back from
their nuclear program. Because I and everybody
else - and I know you had Leon Panetta here this
morning. You know, we all have told the Chinese
if they continue to develop this missile program
and they get an ICBM that has the capacity to
carry a small nuclear weapon on it, which is
what they're aiming to do, we cannot abide that.
Because they could not only do damage to our
treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea,
but they could actually reach Hawaii and the
west coast theoretically, and we're going to
ring China with missile defense
. We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area.
So China, come on. You either control them
or we're going to have to defend against them
.
The four bullets above (three, and then one) give
a very clear definition of longstanding U.S. policy
toward the two Koreas. I think the only surprise in
this, for us civilians, is that the U.S. doesn't
want the Korean peninsula unified. So two questions:
Why not? And, do the South Koreans know this? I'll
offer brief answers below.
The "Great Game" In East Asia - Keeping the
Korean "Tiger" in Check
South Korea is one of the great emerging nations
in East Asia, one of the "Asian tigers," a
manufacturing and economic powerhouse that's lately
been turning into a technological and innovative
powerhouse as well.
Why South Korea Will Be The Next Global
Hub For Tech Startups
American business has long led the way in
high tech density
or the proportion of
businesses that engage in activities such as
Internet software and services, hardware and
semiconductors.
The US is fertile ground for
tech start-ups with access to capital
and a
culture that celebrates risk taking. Other
countries have made their mark on the world
stage, competing to be prominent tech and
innovation hubs. Israel has been lauded as a
start-up nation with several hundred companies
getting funded by venture capital each year. A
number of these companies are now being acquired
by the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google.
Finland and Sweden have attracted notice by
bringing us Angry Birds and Spotify among
others.
But a new start-up powerhouse is on
the horizon – South Korea
. [ ]
In other words, South Korea has leaped beyond
being a country that keeps U.S. tech CEOs wealthy -
it's now taking steps that threaten that wealth
itself. And not just in electronics; the biological
research field - think cloning - is an area the
South Koreans are trying to take a lead in as well.
It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the
business-captured American government's - interest
in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further
threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity
of the South Korean government and economy. Let them
(the Koreans) manufacture to their heart's content,
our policy seems to say; but to threaten our lead in
billionaire-producing entrepreneurship that's a
bridge too far.
Again, this is Clinton speaking, I'm absolutely
certain, on behalf of U.S. government policy makers
and the elites they serve:
We don't want a
unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one,
an already-strong South Korea would be dominant for
obvious economic reasons.
As to whether the South Koreans know that this is
our policy, I'd have to say, very likely yes. After
all, if Clinton is saying this to meetings of
Goldman Sachs executives, it can't be that big a
secret. It's just that the South Korea leadership
knows better than the North Korean leader how to
handle it.
Weren't we scared shitless of the Japanese in the
80s, thinking they were gonna clean our clocks? Try
not to get too worked up and overestimate the
ability of a conformist society to bury us.
It's a lot more complicated than that. You
forget that Japan was and is a military
protectorate of the US. For instance, in the
1987 crash, the Fed called the Bank of Japan and
told it to buy Treasuries. The BoJ told the
Japanese banks to comply and they did.
The US ran the yen up via the Plaza Accords
in 1985. Way up. They did succeed in denting
Japanese exports to the US but it did squat for
increasing US exports to Japan.
The US also forced rapid bank deregulation on
Japan. It was like telling someone who ran a
drayage company that they were really in the
transportation business, giving them a 747, and
telling them to fly it. I had Sumitomo Bank as a
client when the deregulation was starting. They
were (correctly) considered the best run bank in
Japan. They didn't even have modern
asset-liability management adequate to handle
traditional retail and wholesale banking, let
alone capital markets operations. The Japanese
bubble and bust was in no small measure our
doing.
While I certainly understand all of that
about Japan, is it not the same case with
South Korea? My understanding is that we
have between 25-30,000 troops constantly
stationed along the DMZ and within South
Korea. I would presume we're also gladly
selling the South Koreans military
technology. And let's say that magically
North and South Korea do reunite, what
happens then with the Chinese border? Won't
the Koreans still want to remain essentially
a military protectorate during what would
certainly be a messy reunification period so
as to not have to worry about China working
to undermine the process? I would say the US
would have a major role in shaping how the
reunification were to go and do it's best to
keep the billionaire classes happy as can
be.
> I would presume we're also gladly
selling the South Koreans military
technology.
There's a big govt-sponsored push to
develop an indigenous Korean
defense/aerospace industry. It's 0.5 – 1
generation behind the US (on paper), but
more than sophisticated enough for
export to developing nations.
>won't the Koreans still want to
remain essentially a military
protectorate
Not necessarily. Koreans don't view
China as an existential threat/rival as
US neocons do. China is Korea's #1
export market. And Korea has no
existential threats in its neighborhood
(ex. North Korea).
historically, the only invaders that
came from the North were the Mongols and
Khitans (a Manchurian tribe) not Han
Chinese. (if i recall correctly)
The Koreans have a very
sophisticated domestic defence
industry – and its already started
to annoy the US as weapons like the
T-50 trainer (a sort of cheap
knock-off of the F-16) is attracting
sales US companies were hoping for
(it might even be in with a chance
of winning the competition to supply
the US with new supersonic
trainers). They've a new tank
purpose built for fighting in
mountainous regions and is probably
the best in the world for that role.
But most of their weaponry is still
US made.
Korea is the Poland of Asia – a
country forever plagued by being
sandwiched between two larger,
nastier neighbours. In theory they
should be friends with Japan, but
old wounds haven't healed, and they
are not particularly pro-Chinese
historically either. They currently
have a very delicate relationship
with China – in theory very good, in
practice, the Chinese are fond of
reminding them of their weaker
position, as with the current
economic-boycott-in-all-but-name
over the siting of THAAD missiles in
Korea. I don't think they would look
forward at all to the decisions
required if they found themselves
sharing a border with China. Like
Japan, they find delegating hard
geopolitical decisions to the US to
be comfortable, it avoids having to
face up to hard issues.
What is not mentioned is that
Japan is a bigger threat in terms of
military aggression or economic
competition to Korea. Plenty of
Koreans still have 1st hand
knowledge of how they were treated
by invading Japanese troops.
It is dumb and frankly, quite racist to
assume the Japanese are conformist. Many of the
top materials sciences areas are now dominated
by Japan. The US continues to run a deficit on
Japan.
Oh and Japanese culture has its own
following. Pokemon, Japanese anime, and a few
things like Sushi are their own inventions.
Eh. This post is very much 'Department of
Breaking News: Rain is Wet.'
Two points -
[1] The bolded quote from Forbes -
But a
new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South
Korea.
[ ] - very much understates the
situation. For instance, some tech cognoscenti like
to talk about the stacks. See forex this book -
The stacks are Amazon, Google, Amazon, Microsoft,
Facebook and Apple. There is only one non-American
stack and that's Samsung. That's not a small deal.
South Korea has arrived.
[2] Gaius Publius claims: 'It's easy to
understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured
American government's - interest in making sure that
the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a
potential doubling of the capacity of the South
Korean government and economy.'
No. If Mrs. Clinton and the U.S. CEO class are
threatened, then the one thing they won't mind is
the re-unification of the two Koreas.
That's because
conservative
estimates
are that modernizing North Korea's economy could
cost South Korea at least $500 billion. Per capita
GDP in North Korea today is roughly $1,000-$1,200.
Whereas South Korea's per capita GDP is $33,062,
according to the World Bank.
The cost of German reunification was a trifle by
comparison.
With regard to reunification and its cost,
around the time of Kim Il Sung's passing and the
mass outpouring of grief, it was suggested that
the Northerners had psychological issues and
were not of a type that could fit into the
South's economy / society, so reunification was
best kicked permanently into the long grass.
This sort of view has often been expressed
about Ossis by Wessis in Germany. There is a
joke that Wessis would like to rebuild the wall,
but higher.
If Stuxnet could wreak havoc with Iranian
nuclear infrastructure I wonder what strange and
delightful memetic goodies our tech-spook chefs
could cook up against an Apple rival like
Samsung. The Galaxy Note S7 debacle was WEIRD.
I don't think the Galaxy Note fiasco was
weird at all. The stories that emerged in
the aftermath indicated that Samsung saw a
gap to exploit in Apple's iPhone update
cycle and they rushed their product to
market with substandard QC. The battery was
ultimately under physical stress that
destabilized the Li batteries cells and
leading to spontaneous combustion. Rushing
substandard products to market to grab
market isn't unique to Samsung by any
stretch, but to think that America had
anything to do with it is just pure
speculation that ignores the reported facts.
Yes, I was thinking that too, a fear of a
united Korea as some sort of global competitor
to the US doesn't really make sense in the short
to medium term. It would certainly take up most
of Koreas energies and spare resources at least
10 years to deal with it. And its hard to see
how Korea's big companies would benefit so much,
as they already have access to cheap
manufacturing zones all over Asia. Anyway, a
unified Korea would still be significantly
smaller than in terms of population and economy
than Japan.
If the US establishment is really against
unification (I have to say, that my
interpretation of whats written is that HRC was
talking more about China's views), I'd say it
would have more to do with it probably leading
to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean
peninsula, as a unified Korea would likely
pursue a more independent foreign policy.
I agree with you that Clinton was
summarizing China's view, not the U.S. view,
when she said, "We don't want a unified
Korean peninsula, because if there were one
South Korea would be dominant for the
obvious economic and political reasons." I
suspect U.S. strategists would prefer a
unified, South-dominated Korea on China's
border, to help contain China better. The
Pentagon could hope for even more military
sales to a unified Korea pressed right up
against China.
That said, getting from here to there
would be so disruptive I doubt any U.S.
administration would try to accomplish it.
Though with Trump, who knows?
it would have more to do with it
probably leading to the US having a
weaker hold over the Korean peninsula
South Korea has a technologically
advanced economy and a modern army. It
increasingly designs and produces its own
fighting equipment (e.g. tanks) instead of
buying them from, crucially, the USA. In
several decades of hard work, it built
entire industries that can provide
everything that is needed: steel industry,
naval yards, automobile industry,
electronics, telecommunications, software,
etc.
A reunification would endow the fully
up-to-date South Korean army backed by a
roaring advanced economy with the one weapon
it does not have: the atomic bomb.
Neither China, nor the USA, nor Japan,
nor Russia want that.
This nails the situation IMHO.
Everyone subjected to US imperialism
dreams of nuclear power because the
bargaining power it gives against US
power. The US is doing more to promote
other nations gaining nuclear weapons
than it is in slowing it.
Other countries have had nuclear
weapons and given them up. No reason to
believe it couldn't happen in Korea if
the South ended up with the whole thing.
'A reunification would endow the
fully up-to-date South Korean army
backed by a roaring advanced economy
with the one weapon it does not have:
the atomic bomb.'
No. The Norkean nukes are simple
fission weapons that would provide no
real technological or strategic
advantage to any future re-unified
Republic of both Koreas.
Despite what you've heard, no
nation-state that seriously tried to
build simple fission weapons ever failed
to do so. This includes the likes of
South Africa, which dismantled its
weapons. Ukraine also gave up its
weapons and other countries, like Sweden
have curtailed such nuclear bomb
programs.
These countries did this because it's
not clear that in general nukes provide
a strategic advantage in international
relations, unless you're in a situation
where you're surrounded by enemies like
Israel or Pyongyang.
Fission weapons are simple once
you've acquired the enriched uranium and
plutonium. How simple can they be? So
simple that in the case of the Fat Man
device dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S.
bomber crew kept the fissile components
disassembled till they approached the
target because the potential existed
otherwise to go critical if there was,
say, excessive air turbulence that shook
the plane on the way to the target.
Basically, the Norkeans seem to be at
the stage of boosted fission weapons,
where (to simplify) some fusion fuel
(deuterium) is wrapped around a fission
device - what Edward Teller called an
"Alarm Clock" type of bomb, and Andrei
Sakharov a "Sloika" or "Layer Cake"
device. In other words, the Norkeans
have gotten no further than pre-1953
U.S. nuclear boosted fission technology
- that is, no further than the U.S.
sixty-four
years ago.
Not that you want such weapons in
Pyongyang's hands. Also, what makes a
difference is that they can access 2017
rocket and computer guidance technology,
so they can put these relatively bulky
bombs atop rockets. But if you really
want serious nuclear warheads of all
sizes and capabilities, you need staged
fusion devices - H-bomb technology, and
it took minds of the caliber of von
Neumann and Teller a decade to work out
how to make those.
To sum up: if South Korea wanted to
build mere fission weapons of the type
that Pyongyang has it could do so
immediately. So could Japan and others.
- H-bomb technology, and it
took minds of the caliber of von
Neumann and Teller a decade to work
out how to make those.
Just a footnote: S Ulam
should get at least equal
billing with Teller. This is a
notorious case of not giving
credit where credit is due. Or
discredit-when the future of
humanity is at stake?
(Is it clear how much v
Neumann had a hand in on that
key problem?)
Is it clear how much v
Neumann had a hand in on that
key problem?
In the sense that all the
other guys ran their maths and
theories by von Neumann, and
Ulam in particular was best
buddies with him. When it came
time in 1953, post-Ivy Mike, to
do the road show presentation to
the U.S. Air Force to tell them
that in future H-bombs could be
built small enough to make ICBMs
feasible, it was von Neumann and
Teller who made the
presentation.
Von Neumann also had the
clout on the AEC and elsewhere
by then to make it happen, too.
Thank you for this clarification, Yves. Splendid,
as always.
This issue reminds me of attitudes towards
Germany in / around 1989 – 90. You may recall
Thatcher's trip / plea to Moscow to prevent
unification. France came up with a different way of
"containing" Germany I remember particular comments
about the combination of wirtschaftwunder West
Germany and what was then considered the Warsaw Pact
/ Comecon's best performer, including in
intelligence, East Germany. The musings also
stretched to sport, West Germany being good at
football and East Germany at athletics, and, again,
what a pairing that would be.
With regard to Sumitomo, former colleagues who
worked there (in the 1990s) say similar, but don't
mention US interference. Did not Sumitomo and
Hawai'i's Kamehameha, ahem, bail out Goldman Sachs
soon after the Tequila crisis?
German reunification was a threat to the
other states of Europe, and history has shown
that the threat was real. Look at their economic
domination of the EU. I don't think a unified
Korea is a threat to anyone. Perhaps the US
laments that it is losing a semi-client state,
and they prefer the "let's bribe the North
Koreans every five years" strategy that worked
with the previous regime.
I am surprised that Russia does get more
involved; there is a shared border with North
Korea. Maybe they don't care if it is a Chinese
client state or a neutral reunified Korea next
door.
From 1919 right up to Germany's blitz across
Europe, Churchill was maneuvering to turn
Germany's aggression eastward. I find it
interesting that no one is analyzing Russia's
reaction to NK's aggressiveness because it could
well be that anti-Russian sentiment here in the
US has considered turning NK inland, against
eastern Siberia. It could also be that NK's
nuclear capabilities are already neutered by
Russian jamming technology. But still, the
Russian have been very quiet. Allowing the
reunification of the Koreas would entail a new
constitution and new international treaties and
agreements which would all serve to tame NK.
It's just a piddly little state.
Long-term, however, German reunification also
provided the new Germany with cheap labor which was
used to discipline its own workers and boost exports
in order to undercut its neighbors/competitors,
something I bet South Korean chaebol wouldn't mind.
Reunification also brings into play proliferation
issues. The ROK for many years had a nuclear arms
program (enriching uranium as recently as 2000), and
DPRK tech, however stone age it is in comparison,
adds considerable weight to this issue. A reunified
Korea with nukes is absolutely not something China
or the US wants.
Thatcher was concerned that German unification
would threaten Gorbachev's political survival. Page
315, 'The President, The Pope and The Prime
Minister'.
This is explained in more details in published
parts of Horst Telchuk diary (advisor to Helmut
Kohl). make sure democracy takes hold in Eastern
Europe before Germany unites otherwise push back on
and or by the Soviet Union
Further along in the book it says Mitterrand was
passionately opposed to German unification in
private but much more circumspect in public.
When Clinton said "We don't want a unified Korean
Peninsula" and "We don't want the North Koreans to
cause more trouble than the system can absorb," she
was speaking as the Chinese, not the U.S. Clinton
switched to the third person "the Chinese" in the
same paragraph, which may explain the confusion. The
U.S. may fear economic competition from a unified
Korea, but the main concern of the U.S. is losing a
pretext for military bases on China's (and Russia's)
border.
Interesting stuff, but yeah this is pretty
obviously Clinton talking about China not wanting a
united Korea. Maybe she / other US policymakers have
that same preference, but there's no evidence they
do in this speech. It's obvious why China wouldn't
want a strong American allied Korea on its border.
American tech companies being concerned about South
Korean competition being more of a threat if they
absorbed the North is much less plausible.
ok then what do clinton and goldman sachs
want if she's telling the chinese view? American
tech companies, indeed all american companies
want to be protected from competition the world
over, see the TPP, see ISDS Clinton defenders
seem to be unable to see past her smartly
pragmatic views into the fact that she carries
water for the aforementioned goldman sachs, who
if you haven't noticed basically run the gov't
for both parties, and what they want is to make
the most money with the least risk and they have
no qualms about creating conflict, nurturing
conflict, and sowing conflict if it means there
is an easy competition free path to profit.
Couldn't we just stop with the reading of tea
leaves with clinton? All of the parsing about
how she said something but that wasn't what she
meant, especially when what she says is power is
the most important thing, we don't care who gets
hurt, unless it's one of us, the acceptable
elite, who eat babies with their oatmeal. If you
want to tell me what clinton thinks with
citations that ould be great, but spare me the
malarkey that you know what she didn't mean in
her statements. Probably the main reason she
lost is because she and her supporters could not
say what she stood for. What does she stand for
in this case?
I think this sort policy – the policy of "Lets
you and him fight" has parallels in domestic policy.
Often referred to as "Wedge " issues. The center
can much more easily control things if the proper
buttons are pushed –
This of any issue – guns, women's health,
welfare, food stamps (SNAP), and so on – the list is
long –
Each side has proponents who can easily be
influenced much like Pavlov's dog, to vote,
contribute, and so forth. And these are deliberate
manipulations to keep the center in power – nothing
more.
The elites use this power to continue the
looting.
Good article- thanks for posting this. I don't
fault the strategy here, but I think that our
leaders need to do more to be this open with the
American public and not just bankers.
This seems like a strained reading of the plain
text of the statements:
Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy
has been close to what you've described. We
don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because
if there were one South Korea would be dominant
for the obvious economic and political reasons.
The We here clearly refers to China - China
doesn't want a unified Korea because it thinks it
would be one big South Korea. This is exactly the
sort of groundbreaking revelation that we have all
come to expect from Hillary Clinton. Then later on
in that same quote, she talks about We don't mind if
you shoot off the occasional missile and that's
good, again, using the same rhetorical technique
(where "We" is the PLA).
Finding basically no support for your thesis in
the quotes, you then tack on some nonsense about how
the US elites need North Korea because Google is
afraid of Naver or whatever. Japan is within missile
range, has over 2x as many people and a 50% higher
GDP per capita, and seems not to be much of a
threat. It just doesn't make sense that the US as
afraid of the competition from a unified Korea,
which would have only 25m more people than South
Korea, basically all of whom are starving and crazy.
Look what it cost Germany to unify, with much less
of a disparity.
There are a lot of reasons why the US might favor
a divided Korea: an excuse to maintain a massive
military base a few hundred miles from Beijing, or
military spending and warmongering generally. But
none of them are supported by this primary source,
which is just a bland recitation of conventional
wisdom, which, along with fealty, is all you get for
$250,000.
Well, I've seen it all. When people say Hillary
meant China when she said "we" and there is no clear
indication that "we" doesn't refer to the USA, when
the actions of the last 50 years support the
interpretation that "we" means the USA and not
China, when "we" as in China would point away from
the misdeeds of Hillary as SecState, then I've seen
it all.
Posted on
April 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The article makes a comment in passing
that bears teasing out. The inflation that started
in the later 1960s was substantially if not entirely
the result of Lyndon Johnson refusing to raise taxes
because it would be perceived to be to pay for the
unpopular Vietnam War. Richard Nixon followed that
approach.
By Michael Bordo, Professor
of Economics, Rutgers University. Originally
published at
VoxEU
Scholars and policymakers interested in the
reform of the international financial system have
always looked back to the Bretton Woods system as an
example of a man-made system that brought both
exemplary and stable economic performance to the
world in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet Bretton Woods was
short-lived, undone by both flaws in its basic
structure and the unwillingness of key sovereign
members to follow its rules. Many commentators hark
back to the lessons of Bretton Woods as an example
to possibly restore greater order and stability to
the present international monetary system. In a
recent paper, I revisit these issues from over a
half century ago (Bordo 2017).
The Bretton Woods system was created by the 1944
Articles of Agreement at a global conference
organised by the US Treasury at the Mount Washington
Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, at the height
of WWII. It was established to design a new
international monetary order for the post war, and
to avoid the perceived problems of the interwar
period: protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbour
devaluations, hot money flows, and unstable exchange
rates. It also sought to provide a framework of
monetary and financial stability to foster global
economic growth and the growth of international
trade.
The system was a compromise between the fixed
exchange rates of the gold standard, seen as
conducive to rebuilding the network of global trade
and finance, and the greater flexibility to which
countries had resorted in the 1930s to restore and
maintain domestic economic and financial stability.
The Articles represented a compromise between the
American plan of Harry Dexter White and the British
plan of John Maynard Keynes. The compromise created
an adjustable peg system based on the US dollar
convertible into gold at $35 per ounce along with
capital controls. The compromise gave members both
exchange rate stability and the independence for
their monetary authorities to maintain full
employment. The IMF, based on the principle of a
credit union, whereby members could withdraw more
than their original gold quotas, was established to
provide relief for temporary current account
shortfalls.
It took close to 15 years to get the Bretton
Woods system fully operating. As it evolved into a
gold dollar standard, the three big problems of the
interwar gold exchange standard re-emerged:
adjustment, confidence, and liquidity problems.
The
adjustment
problem in Bretton Woods
reflected downward rigidity in wages and prices
which prevented the normal price adjustment of the
gold standard price specie flow mechanism to
operate. Consequently, payment deficits would be
associated with rising unemployment and recessions.
This was the problem faced by the UK, which
alternated between expansionary monetary and fiscal
policy, and then in the face of a currency crisis,
austerity – a policy referred to as 'stop-go'. For
countries in surplus, inflationary pressure would
ensure, which they would try to block by
sterilisation and capital controls.
A second aspect of the adjustment problem was
asymmetric adjustment between the US and the rest of
the world. In the pegged exchange rate system, the
US served as central reserve country and did not
have to adjust to its balance of payments deficit.
It was the
n-1th
currency in the system of
n
currencies (Mundell 1969). This asymmetry
of adjustment was resented by the Europeans.
The US monetary authorities began to worry about
the balance of payments deficit because of its
effect on
confidence
. As official dollar
liabilities held abroad mounted with successive
deficits, the likelihood increased that these
dollars would be converted into gold and that the US
monetary gold stock would eventually reach a point
low enough to trigger a run. Indeed by 1959, the US
monetary gold stock equalled total external dollar
liabilities, and the rest of the world's monetary
gold stock exceeded that of the US. By 1964,
official dollar liabilities held by foreign monetary
authorities exceeded that of the US monetary gold
stock (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
US gold stock and
external liabilities, 1951-1975
Source
: Banking and Monetary
Statistics 1941‐1970, Washington DC Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September
1976, Table 14.1, 15.1.
A second source of concern was the dollar's role
in providing
liquidity
to the rest of the
world. Elimination of the US balance of payments
deficits (as the French and Germans were urging)
could create a global liquidity shortage. There was
much concern through the 1960s as to how to provide
this liquidity.
Robert Triffin (1960) captured the problems in
his famous dilemma. Because the Bretton Woods
parities, which were declared in the 1940s, had
undervalued the price of gold, gold production would
be insufficient to provide the resources to finance
the growth of global trade. The shortfall would be
met by capital outflows from the US, manifest in its
balance of payments deficit. Triffin posited that as
outstanding US dollar liabilities mounted, they
would increase the likelihood of a classic bank run
when the rest of the world's monetary authorities
would convert their dollar holdings into gold
(Garber 1993). According to Triffin when the tipping
point occurred, the US monetary authorities would
tighten monetary policy and this would lead to
global deflationary pressure. Triffin's solution was
to create a form of global liquidity like Keynes'
(1943) bancor to act as a substitute for US dollars
in international reserves.
Policies to Shore Up the System
The problems of the Bretton Woods system were
dealt with by the IMF, the G10 plus Switzerland, and
by US monetary authorities. The remedies that
followed often worked in the short run but not in
the long run. The main threat to the system as a
whole was the Triffin problem, which was exacerbated
after 1965 by expansionary US monetary and fiscal
policy which led to rising inflation.
After a spike in the London price of gold to
$40.50 in October 1960 – based on fears that John F
Kennedy, if elected, would pursue inflationary
policies – led the Treasury to develop policies to
discourage Europeans from conversing dollars into
gold. These included:
Moral suasion on Germany with the threat of
pulling out US troops;
The creation of the Gold Pool in 1961, in
which eight central banks pooled their gold
reserves in order to keep the London price of
gold close to the $35 per ounce parity price;
The issue of Roosa bonds (foreign currency
denominated bonds);
The General Arrangements to Borrow in 1961,
which was an IMF facility large enough to offer
substantial credit to the US;
Operation Twist in 1962, in which the US
Treasury bought long term debt to lower long
term interest rates and encourage investment,
while the Federal Reserve simultaneously sold
short-term Treasury bills to raise short-term
rates and attract capital inflows; and
The Interest Equalization Tax in 1963, which
imposed a tax on capital outflows.
The US Treasury, aided by the Federal Reserve,
also engaged in sterilised exchange market
intervention.
The main instrument used by the Fed to protect
the gold stock was the swap network. It was designed
to protect the US gold stock by temporarily
providing an alternative to foreign central bank
conversion of their dollar holdings into gold. In a
typical swap transaction, the Federal Reserve and a
foreign central bank would undertake simultaneous
and offsetting spot and forward exchange
transactions, typically at the same exchange rate
and equal interest rate. The Federal Reserve swap
line increased from $900 million to $11.2 billion
between March 1962 and the closing of the gold
window in August 1971 (see Figure 2 and Bordo et al.
2015)
Figure 2.
Federal Reserve swap
lines, 1962 –1973
Source
: Federal Reserve System.
The swaps and ancillary Treasury policies
protected the US gold reserves until the mid-1960s,
and were viewed at the time as a successful policy.
The Breakdown of Bretton Woods, 1968 to 1971
A key force that led to the breakdown of Bretton
Woods was the rise in inflation in the US that began
in 1965. Until that year, the Federal Reserve
Chairman, William McChesney Martin, had maintained
low inflation. The Fed also attached high importance
to the balance of payments deficit and the US
monetary gold stock in its deliberations (Bordo and
Eichengreen 2013). Beginning in 1965 the Martin Fed
shifted to an inflationary policy which continued
until the early 1980s, and in the 1970s became known
as the Great Inflation (see figure 3).
Figure 3
. Inflation rates
Source
: US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, IMF (various issues).
The shift in policy mirrored the accommodation of
fiscal deficits reflecting the increasing expense of
the Vietnam War and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
The Federal Reserve shifted its stance in the
mid-1960s away from monetary orthodoxy in response
to the growing influence of Keynesian economics in
the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, with its
emphasis on the primary objective of full employment
and the belief that the Fed could manage the
Phillips Curve trade-off between inflation and
unemployment (Meltzer 2010).
Increasing US monetary growth led to rising
inflation, which spread to the rest of the world
through growing US balance of payments deficits.
This led to growing balance of payments surpluses in
Germany and other countries. The German monetary
authorities (and other surplus countries) attempted
to sterilise the inflows but were eventually
unsuccessful, leading to growing inflationary
pressure (Darby et al. 1983).
After the devaluation of sterling in November
1967, pressure mounted against the dollar via the
London gold market. In the face of this pressure,
the Gold Pool was disbanded on 17 March 1968 and a
two-tier arrangement put in its place. In the
following three years, the US put considerable
pressure on other monetary authorities to refrain
from converting their dollars into gold.
The decision to suspend gold convertibility by
President Richard Nixon on 15 August 1971 was
triggered by French and British intentions to
convert dollars into gold in early August. The US
decision to suspend gold convertibility ended a key
aspect of the Bretton Woods system. The remaining
part of the System, the adjustable peg disappeared
by March 1973.
A key reason for Bretton Woods' collapse was the
inflationary monetary policy that was inappropriate
for the key currency country of the system. The
Bretton Woods system was based on rules, the most
important of which was to follow monetary and fiscal
policies consistent with the official peg. The US
violated this rule after 1965 (Bordo 1993).
Conclusion
The collapse of the Bretton Woods system between
1971 and 1973 led to the general adoption by
advanced countries of a managed floating exchange
rate system, which is still with us. Yet this
outcome (at least at the time) was not inevitable.
As was argued by Despres et al. (1966) in
contradistinction to Triffin, the ongoing US balance
of payments deficit was not really a problem. The
rest of the world voluntarily held dollar balances
because of their valuable service flow – the deficit
was demand-determined. In their view, the Bretton
Woods system could have continued indefinitely. This
of course was not the case, but although the par
value system ended in 1973 the dollar standard
without gold is still with us, as McKinnon (1969,
1988, 2014) has long argued.
The dollar standard was resented by the French in
the 1960s and referred to as conferring "the
exorbitant privilege" on the US, and the same
argument was made in 2010 by the Governor of the
Central Bank of China. However, the likelihood that
the dollar will be replaced as the dominant
international currency in the foreseeable future
remains remote. The dollar standard and the legacy
of the Bretton Woods system will be with us for a
long time.
'Because the Bretton Woods parities, which
were declared in the 1940s, had undervalued the
price of gold, gold production would be insufficient
to provide the resources to finance the growth of
global trade.'
Twenty years on from Britain's "lost decade" of
the 1920s - caused by repegging sterling to gold at
the pre-World War I parity - the same mistake was
repeated at Bretton Woods. (The US had made the
identical error in 1871, which required 25 years of
relentless deflation to sweat out Civil War
greenback inflation.)
Even as the Bretton Woods conference was underway
in 1944, it went unnoticed that the US Federal
Reserve had embarked on a vast buying spree of US
Treasuries. This was done to peg their yield at 2.5%
or below, in order to finance WW II at negative real
yields. By 1945, US Treasuries (shown in blue and
orange on this chart) loomed larger in the Fed's
balance sheet than gold (shown in chartreuse):
Obviously a fixed gold price is utterly
incompatible with a central bank expanding its
balance sheet with government debt, reducing its
gold holdings to the tiny residual that they
constitute today.
Bretton Woods might have worked by limiting
central banks' ability to monetize gov't securities.
Or it might have worked with the gold price allowed
to float with expanding central bank assets,
according to a formula.
What was lost with Bretton Woods was fixed
exchange rates, which are conducive to trade. Armies
of traders seeking to extract rents from
fluctuations between fiat currencies are a pure
deadweight loss to the global economy.
In North America, sharp depreciations of the
Mexican and Canadian currencies against the USD are
fanning US protectionism, in forms ranging from a
proposed border wall to countervailing duties on
Canadian lumber and dairy products. What a mess.
Irredeemable fiat currencies are a tribulation
visited on humanity. When the central bank blown
Bubble III explodes in our fool faces, this insight
will be more widely appreciated.
Fiat currency is a tribulation visited on
capitalist trade advocates and their financial
backers.
International trade, which is hobbled by fiat
currencies as you say, was a rounding error in
most peoples lives until the Thatcher/Reagan
neoliberal innovations.
Since then that rounding error has rounded
away most of the distributive properties of the
economic systems so distorted to facilitate
capital profits through long distance trade that
they are impoverishing enough people that Brits
vote Brexit, Yanks vote Trump and French vote Le
Pen.
Bretton Woods would have worked a lot better
if Keynes had won the argument in favor of
"bancor", but he was arguing from a position of
weakness and lost out.
And yes, when this blows, as it will, it will
all become more widely appreciated.
missing from the article is the decision to
raise the price of oil in order to put most of
the 3rd world into debt slavery. This
exasperated the inflation mentioned, caused by
US deficits. Because the US was still a
manufacturing leader and the Unions were strong
– we had the wage price stagflation of the
70's,. The elites solution – Nixon went to China
– not to open up a market of a billion people
but to make use of a disciplined labor force
that would work for cheap – breaking the power
of the unions with globalisation aided by
computers. The Republicans in the US and
Thatcher in England broke the unions in the
80s.Clinton went along in the 90s. Was that plan
a factor in the decision to leave the gold
standard?
This was most interesting for its lack of regret
for losing a dollar pegged to $35 oz. gold. It is
almost a rationale for letting inflation and deficit
spending occur because in the end the system using a
reserve currency works as good as anything. I do
think the expense of the Vietnam war and the obvious
policy that it was necessary to allow inflation
(from the 70s onward) was incomplete, looking at
everything today, because it was based on an
assumption that we humans could just aggressively
keep growing our way into the future like we had
always done. Already in 1970 there were
environmental concerns, well-reasoned ones, and
global warming was being anticipated. If it had been
possible to use a hard gold standard we might not be
in this ecological disaster today, but there would
have been some serious poverty, etc. The obvious
policy today is to put our money into the
environment and fix it and by doing that put people
to work for a good and urgent cause. As opposed to
bombing North Korea; building a Wall to nowhere;
giving money to corporations which do not contribute
to repairing the planet; and impoverishing people
unnecessarily, etc. Money, in the end, is only as
valuable as the things it accomplishes.
Wrong on your poverty concept. It is the
inflation associated with a reckless fiat
monetary system that causes much of the poverty.
Prior the fiat era there was minimal inflation.
As Keynes explained in his prophetic criticism
of the Treaty of Versailles, The Economic
Consequences of the Peace, when he called
attention to Lenin, of all people:
"By a continuing process of inflation,
governments can confiscate, secretly and
unobserved, an important part of the wealth of
their citizens. By this method, they not only
confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily;
and, while the process impoverishes many, it
actually enriches some. The sight of this
arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not
only at security, but at confidence in the
equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls . . .
become 'profiteers', who are the object of the
hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism
has impoverished not less than the proletariat.
As the inflation proceeds . . . all permanent
relations between debtors and creditors, which
form the ultimate foundation of capitalism,
become so utterly disordered as to be almost
meaningless.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no
subtler, nor surer means of overturning the
existing basis of society that to debauch the
currency. The process engages all the hidden
forces of economic law on the side of
destruction, and does it in a manner which not
one man in a million is able to diagnose."
The core problem with hard currency is
the power asymmetry of the fixed interest
contract in whatever form.
Because costs are constant and growing
under such contracts, income requirements
become "sticky": in a market reverse, wage
earners, renters, mortgage holders etc are
obligated by these contracts and cannot
accept a cut in their wage unless they have
adequate financial reserves. Recessions soak
these reserves from debtors to creditors
despite the loose underwriting of creditors
in the speculative and ponzi phases of the
Minsky cycle being the root cause of the
business cycle, not profligacy or
irresponsibility by wage earners and small
business people. In a depression, this
liquidationist dynamic starts working its
way up the the industrial supply chain,
dismantling the actual means of production.
The main potential public benefit of fiat
currency is that in such conditions it costs
the state nothing to preserve the wealth of
those not implicated in causing the collapse
and to preserve those means of production.
Unfortunately, what we saw in 2008 was
Bush/Obama using the innocent victims of the
business cycle to "foam the runway" for the
institutions that caused it.
Poverty is a simple result of being cut
off from possible income sources. To the
extent that inflation is managed with what
Keynes called "a reserve army of the
unemployed", high levels of poverty are
assured. In the high wage, high cost era of
the New Deal, the intent was take what
burden of financial risk could be taken off
of workers and small producers and to
provide good paying opportunities for one
cycle's economic losers to get back on their
feet in the next cycle. But this only works
with full employment where labor has the
power to bid for a share of the overall
returns on investments.
I found this fascinating and quite
persuasive.
But unless you can posit the existence
of a state that will reliably act to
"preserve the wealth of those not
implicated in causing the collapse and
to preserve those means of production"
it is just a useless academic exercise.
I do not see any such state anywhere in
view, with the possible exception of the
Chinese, who seem to understand
"preserving the means of production" as
a state priority. For the West however
that idea is a real howler.
If it had been possible to use a hard
gold standard we might not be in this
ecological disaster today, but there would
have been some serious poverty, etc.
Some serious poverty only if because the
elites would have been even more neoliberal.
The last gold-standard-free 50 years of
innovation and growth have made extinct
1. Shoes that last more than a few months
2. Clothes that you can pass on to future
generations
3. Likewise, furniture
4. Milk or Coke in glass bottles
etc.
Isn't that because we have evicted
competition from our global commercial model
and replaced it with planned production so
every factory knows the size of its likely
market?
At what point would China, for example, be able
to assert more of a reserve currency, or at least
alternative, role based on its economic and trade
power and build-up of hard and financial assets? Or
is their near-term internal surplus recycling
through uneconomic lending enough to keep them
off-balance for quite a while on the world financial
stage? Many in the West are watching the development
of the One Belt/One Road infrastructure and shifting
country linkages and alliances with grave concern.
The key to reserve status is large external
holdings of your monetary instruments: for
foreigners to transact in your currency they
must have it. China, thus far, fails profoundly
on this count, no one has its currency.
The inverse of this is that the best way for
the US to end the dollars reserve status is to
eliminate the "National Debt", which is in fact
nothing other than the inventory if dollar
instruments the rest of the world holds in order
to be able to spend dollars into our system:
eliminate that inventory and the dollar will no
longer be a reserve currency.
This raises the large question of whether
"reserve status" is actually beneficial.
Apparently it consists largely of being
enormously in debt – and in fact, it's been
a way for Japanese and Chinese to buy up
large chunks of our "means of production."
The prosperity of my original home town,
Columbus, IN, rests on Japanese
"investment." It does mean some good
Japanese restaurants in town.
To me the question is, who benefits
from it? It has been of great benefit to
a very particular set of people here in
the US and quite destructive since the
70s to most everyone else.
It is a power relationship that has
been used for imperial aims rather than
for the good of citizens. It needn't be
that way, but as US power has become
increasingly unaccountable its abuse of
this particular tool has grown.
First, the US could just as easily
deficit spend. We are not "in debt"
because the US can always create more
dollars to retire Treasury bonds.
The requirement for being a reserve
currency is running trade deficits. That
does require that furriners take and
hold your paper. They prefer bonds or
other investments to cash to get some
yield.
Running ongoing trade deficits also
means that you are using your domestic
demand to support jobs overseas. That is
the problematic feature, not all of this
other noise.
The concept of a reserve currency came
about from resolution 9 of the Genoa
Monetary Conference of 1922. The idea was
that any currency that was convertible to
gold was de facto equivalent to gold and
therefore an acceptable central bank reserve
asset. In other words there is really no
such thing as an international reserve
currency without gold in the system
according to the very reasoning that
established the idea. The U.S. pulled off
the greatest bait and switch in history when
it "suspended" the gold window in 1971. The
whole system because an enormous debt based
Ponzi scheme after that and we are now
dealing with the consequences.
And yes the key to reserve status: is
large external holdings of your monetary
instruments for foreigners to transact in".
But what incentive do they have to hold such
a currency and transact in it? Remember they
don't need it since they generally run trade
surpluses. The answer was, because that
currency was convertible to gold. What about
now when it is not tied to gold? Why hold
the currency of profligate debtor nation?
Answer provided in post below.
And anyone who thinks that running large
trade and budget deficits is the secret to
reserve currency status is a moron.
Argentina or Paraguay could just as easily
produce the necessary surplus liquidity
under that logic.
" But what incentive do they have to
hold such a currency and transact in it?
Remember they don't need it since they
generally run trade surpluses. "
Restart back at the very beginning,
forget everything you know, and try
again.
"They" got foreign reserve currency
by selling to the US and getting paid in
dollars. Their banks then traded the
dollars to the PBoC central bank for
freshly printed renimbi.
yes, but why would the central
bank endlessly collect another
country's debt?
And you inadvertently point out
one of the key frauds in the system.
The dollar supports a double pyramid
of credit, one domestic and the
other foreign. There is also a third
pyramid of credit, the euro dollar
market, which is built on top of the
U.S. domestic pyramid of credit, but
lets ignore that for now.
So "they" give us real stuff made
of raw material and labor inputs and
we give them wampum!!! Greatest scam
in history.
"The dollar supports a double
pyramid of credit, one domestic
and the other foreign. "
Except the PBoC prints the
Many Yuan to buy dollars from
the Chinese banking system. The
value of the Many Yuan is backed
by sales of exports, in that
case. A tiny little subset where
MMT (The imaginary version) is
actually in force. Then the PBoC
buys our debt with these foreign
reserves, which we wisely spend
on our country and citizens.
Next, the Chinese banking
system, thru the power of The
Money Multiplier, uses that base
money to make loans and expand
credit to Chinese.
" The value of the Many
Yuan is backed by sales of
exports, in that case."
WTF? The value the "Many
Yuan" is backed by the sale
of exports which yields
wampum, uh I mean dollars,
and they purchase the
dollars with the many yuan
they created. The PBoC
expands its balance sheet to
buy those dollars with yuan
created from nothing, hence
the double pyramid of
credit. The dollars get lent
back to us in the form of
U.S. government securities
because we issue the word's
"boomerang" currency.
And yes you can run a
system like this; for how
long? That is the big
question.
And you have misunderstood
what those reserves are for. The
Fed also can't spend all of
those US assets it holds on its
balance sheet either, now can
it?
The use of foreign currency
reserves is to defend the
currency and keep the IMF away.
Having a currency depreciate
rapidly leads to a big inflation
spike (unless you are close to
being an autarky) due to the
prices of foreign goods, in
particular commodities, going up
in your currency.
China is not self sufficient
in a whole bunch of things,
including in particular energy.
It had a spell last year when
it was running through its FX
reserves at such a rate that it
would have breached the IMF
trouble level for an economy of
its size if it had persisted for
4-6 months more.
A chemist, a physicist and
economist are ship wrecked on a
deserted island with only some
canned goods for food. They sit down
to figure out how they are going to
open the cans. To which the
economist says: "assume we have a
can opener"
Three MMT Economists are
stranded on a desert island.
They say, "WTF's a can
opener? That sounds like work!"
and live 3 months and are then
rescued by Skipper, Gillian,
Mary Ann and the Perfesser too,
on an Easter Break Tour. Ginger
and Mr. Howe are downstairs busy
downstairs knocking up.
They are living happily ever
after in Kansas City, Mo.
Seems to me the dollar system will work until
it doesn't. And those who run it have been doing
all within their power for about 15 years to
encourage anyone who can to come up with an
alternative.
None look viable, and they won't until
suddenly one is.
The euro isn't one due to the mess its
banking system is in. Japan doesn't want the
job and in any event is a military
protectorate of the US.
China is a minimum of 20 years away. Even
though it would like the status of being the
reserve currency, it most decidedly does not
want the attendant obligations, which are
running ongoing trade deficits, which is
tantamount to exporting jobs. Maintaining
high levels of employment and wage growth
are the paramount goals for China's leaders.
There are underreported riots pretty much
all the time in China due to dissatisfaction
over labor conditions now. The officialdom
is not going to commit political suicide.
Domestic needs always trump foreign goals.
Just getting around to reading Piketty's
doorstopper and was struck by his argument that
prior to WWI there had been very little inflation
worldwide for centuries. It was the need to pay off
all the war debt that shook things up.
Graeber's book on debt also makes the argument
that money as physical circulating metal currency
came about because of the need to pay for wars.
Something similar seems to have been going on
with the Bretton Woods agreement.
I know it's crazy but I'm just going to throw it
out there – maybe if we'd like a more stable economy
we could try starting fewer very destabilizing,
extremely expensive wars???
That is exactly my thought. There is a
disturbing cycle of war, monetary expansion to
pay for the war, post-war deflation leading to
political instability, leading to a repeat of
the cycle, at least in Europe and the U.S.
One can see this even in the period between
the creation of the Bank of England through the
end of the Napoleonic wars.
It is evident as well in the United States
pre- and post-Civil war.
Deficit hawks never seem to have a problem
with war-time deficit spending, only general
welfare deficit spending.
We could have a system where the fiscal power
of the state is fully harnessed for the general
welfare, but that would threaten the current
system which allows a small minority to
overwhelmingly reap the benefits of the money
creation power of the state and private banks.
This renders the issue a political one more
than a purely economic one. If history is any
guide, we will continue to have the kind of
political uncertainty we've experienced until
there has been enough war spending to start the
cycle over again. :(
" The inflation that started in the later 1960s
was substantially if not entirely the result of
Lyndon Johnson refusing to raise taxes "
I'm almost afraid to ask, but how does this make
sense? Any increase in taxes will be passed on to
the consumer to increase prices even more. If you
doubt this, watch what Trump's import taxes do to
prices.
No, you have been propagandized by the right
wing anti tax people.
Taxes drains demand from the economy. Lower
demand means more slack, more merchants having
to compete with each other, some headcount cuts,
etc.
By deficit spending in an economy that was
already at full employment, Johnson basically
guaranteed inflation. Both his own former
economist, Walter Heller, and Milton Friedman
warned against it. But because Heller was a Dem
and an outlier (most Dems weren't gonna
challenge their own party's policies), it was
Friedman's warnings that were publicized.
Another subject that is relevant to the current
post 2008 collapse and FED shenanigans to save the
day. i.e. save their cronies. And what it is
completely missing in this piece written by the
insiders is exactly that Bretton Woods; Cui
Bono:namely US ruling elite and new world order
after WWII.
Bretton Woods was a monetary session of the
overall conference 1944-1945 of new world order
namely a formal switch from British empire global
dominance system into American global dominance
system and trade/monetary policies were just an
important but small part of overall new global
political and military arrangement.
Global pound was killed, global dollar has been
created and blessed by western sphere of influence
and defended by supposedly the most powerful US
militarily in the world, [as was British navy
before] US military of global reach via US navy and
air force.
The political symbolism of Bretton Woods
conference correlated with invasion of Normandy in
June 1944, the last step in defeating Nazism in
Europe cannot be understated.
Also the dominance of two figures of White and
Keynes in this conference is an exemplification of
closing era of British empire as a world [decaying
at that time] leader which was accelerated by the
role of Japanese and German/Italian aggression in
colonial Asia, Africa [also helped by French
surrender to Nazis that spurred western support for
independent French colony of Algeria] and ME boosted
up the anti-colonial movements and political
parties, which like in Vietnam even US supported
during WWII.
Little known fact is that Nazis championed
themselves as anti-colonial force in ME while they
attempted to colonize eastern Europe.The many Arabs
fell for this propaganda siding with Nazis against
British colonialism in Palestine setting themselves
against Jews vehemently anti Nazi at that time.
In other words Bretton Woods was a consequence of
the fact that British empire was collapsing fast
ironically with the help of its allies and that
Included Soviets. Also helped that British were
broke and all the British Gold was already in the US
as a payment for bankrolling British defenses in
Europe since 1940 and elsewhere, so were Soviet gold
payments for military technology and materiel they
received from US and allies.
The political void had to be filled or it would
have been filled by Soviets, and hence the Bretton
Woods system was not based on unfettered
exploitation of slaves of newly expanded US empire
what US Oligarchy would have liked and was freely
practicing before 1929, but for ideological reason
was aimed for economic improvements in order to stem
massive anti-capitalist, communist and anti-colonist
movements that threatened western hegemony over the
world and hence the dreaded anti-capitalist words
used by in Bretton Woods system like fixed exchange
rate or blasphemous capital controls, things the
would crucify you if you utter them today during a
seminar in any Ivy league economy department.
Bretton Woods was primarily a tool into an
ideological war west and Soviets knew they would
have to fight, cold or hot.
This [economic dominance] war ended in mid
nineteen sixties when seeds of collapse of Soviet
Union and betrayal of leftist ideals and
socialist/communists movements all over the world
were sawed and hence Bretton Woods was no longer
needed and brutality of unfettered capitalist could
begin to return starting with Kennedy tax cut
freeing capital in private hands and then FED going
full fiat in later 1960-ties, capital flow
deregulation, free floating currencies, all that for
benefit of oligarchic class and of colossal
detriment to American workers, devastating result of
which we are experiencing now.
One of the great ironies of Bretton Woods is
that Harry Dexter White, the US rep at the talks
was in fact a Soviet agent. I wonder if he
understood monetary economics enough to hope
that the Bretton Woods gold standard system, as
opposed to Keynes bancor proposal, would self
immolate with a run on US gold stocks and take
the West down with it.
Let's think of "root causes", both Keynes
and White were big fans of Soviet-style
command and control top-down planned
economies ("I have seen the future and it
works!"). So that's what they divined and
devised for money: a top-down price-fixing
regime.
So while people would laugh themselves
silly if you told them we were going to
price things the way the Soviets did ("we'll
raise X number of cows because we'll need Y
quantity of shoe leather"), we somehow
accept central planning for the price of the
most important item of all: money itself.
The supreme geniuses at the Fed et al, with
their supreme formulae, can divine at any
moment precisely what the price of money
should be. This, of course, is folly.
And people should understand that the
gold standard (not the gold-exchange
standard it is often confused with) was not
designed, was not somehow imposed, and was
not agreed upon by some collective body. It
simply arose organically because time and
again through painful experience throughout
history it was shown that any system where
people can simply vote themselves more money
ends in tears. Not usually, but always.
You'd think that a 100% historical failure
rate would clue people in to rethink the
head-hammer-hitting approach.
And as Dr. Haygood points out above,
"everything floating against everything
else" is nothing but a colossal waste of
time and money. You wouldn't attempt to
build or make something without an agreed
and immutable unit of measure.
Completely untrue of Keynes. He ran
the UK Treasury twice very pointedly in
the interests of industrial capitalists.
He was however very opposed to financial
rents, a real classicist in that regard.
Keynes ran the UK treasury twice more
or less along classical lines: in favor
of industrial capitalism and against
financial rents. Not top down, not
Soviet. Its not clear where you get your
facts, fiat systems have lasted hundreds
of years many times. They tend to arise
in empires with secure borders. They
depend on the productive relations of
their societies for the value of their
money rather than a commodity hedge.
Warfare favors the commodity hedge
because the productive relations in a
society are frequently destroyed by war.
Because of the stickyness of wages, hard
currency tends to choke economic growth
because a fixed money supply has to be
spread increasingly thin as more real
wealth is created to be denominated with
a fixed quantity of specie, requiring
wages to drop because there is more
stuff to purchase.
Each has benefits and costs, both are
tools and while the one favors growth
and the other war, neither must be used
for either. A representative system will
use either as its constituencies direct,
an authoritarian one according to the
intent of the authority. It isn't tools
that make the problems, though some are
better for some purposes than others. It
is the intent of the powerful that is
expressed and from which others suffer.
@jsn " fiat systems have lasted
hundreds of years many times."
what? can you please back that
statement up. Only major fiat system
in history that I have ever seen
written about is the one that
existed in China several hundred
years ago. If there were others you
need to give some examples.
I think you objected to my
comments without actually refuting
them:
1. We have a top-down price fixing
money system;
2. Keynes and White were a big fans
of Soviet central planning (see The
Battle for Bretton Woods for chapter
and verse);
3. And I've never understood the
"fixed quantity of specie" argument.
Surely it's about price, not
physical quantity. You could easily
run the world economy on 100 tons of
gold if it was priced accordingly.
Michael Hudson's book Superimperialism, published
astonishingly in 1972, nailed it. Details some great
history of FDR's economic diplomacy during the late
Depression and WW2 period that preceded the Bretton
Woods settlement. Worth a read.
yes Michael Hudson is great, but that is why
he must be marginalized/ignored. Can't maintain
control of the official narrative if people like
Hudson were to ever be taken seriously..
"However, the likelihood that the dollar will be
replaced as the dominant international currency in
the foreseeable future remains remote. The dollar
standard and the legacy of the Bretton Woods system
will be with us for a long time."
That is the BIG question and the answer remains
to be seen. I for one don't believe it will continue
much longer, but then again nobody knows. Bordo also
leaves out a critical part of the narrative, i.e.,
the U.S. secret deal with Saudi Arabia in 1974 to
officially tie the dollar to oil. See link below for
details. Without this secret arrangement the dollar
would have never survived as the international
reserve currency. The Saudis reportedly pushed for
greater use of the SDR, but the U.S. made them a
deal they couldn't refuse and the Saudi royal family
realized that if they didn't go along with U.S.
demands the CIA would find some other branch of the
family that would.
The system is a mess and it is retarded to allow
one country's currency to serve as the main reserve
asset for the system. That is the ultimate free
lunch and the equivalent to believing in a perpetual
motion machine. It is hard to believe in can
continue much longer despite of Bordo's view that it
will. It has reached a point where it has created
massive problems that can not continue.
So in a sense when China and Russia are
forced to hold dollars for global trade,
they're essentially paying for the Pentagon
to do what it's doing. You can see why
they'd be mad.
It is almost a gift from heaven when fixing a
single problem offers the chance to fix a whole
bunch of them. This IMHO is very possibly one of
those gifts. Without this "ultimate free lunch"
the globalization scam of allowing this
country's and the world's 1% to keep adding
zeros to their bank accounts ("to keep score" as
Pres. Trump puts it) would not have been
possible. Without countries like Saudi Arabia
willing to keep accepting more "debt that can't
be repaid (and) won't be", the US military
industrial complex would not be able to keep
increasing its threat to world peace and
threatening the survival of humanity. Without
the Saudi stranglehold over politics and US
Middle Eastern policy the US could stop killing
Muslims in its bogus 'war on terror'. It could
get busy replacing its fossil fuel energy
sources with renewable ones and its oil-powered
transportation system with an electrified one
(yes, maybe even a few EVs)
It is hard to believe in can continue
much longer despite of Bordo's view that it
will.
And yet where is the dollar's replacement?
If you'd told me ten years that the
petrodollar as an institution enforcing
compliance w. the dollar as global reserve
currency could end and yet the dollar would
continue with that status, I'd have laughed at
you. However, that increasingly looks like it
might happen.
Yes, yes, I know - we await the basket of
currencies solution pushed by China and Russia,
and others sick of the situation. We've been
waiting for a while now.
I'm thinking globalization has something
to do with the dollar's longevity. Strip a
country of the ability to support itself by
exporting its jobs and it's people become
dependent on a strong military to insure
it's money continues to be "accepted" even
when it's people no longer have anything to
trade for what they really need.
@Moneta, these numbers are
roughly correct. The U.S. defense
budget is about $600 billion, the
trade deficit is about $600 billion
and last year we issued $1.4
trillion in incremental debt.
Foreigners own about 40% of U.S.
debt. 40% of of $1.4 trillion is
$560 billion so yes there is a
pretty strong correlation. Massive
defense budget wouldn't be possible
without reserve currency scam.
I'm completely confused. Anything available in
plain English for laypeople?
"The adjustment problem in Bretton Woods
reflected downward rigidity in wages and prices
which prevented the normal price adjustment of the
gold standard price specie flow mechanism to
operate"
Canada which was one of the founding members of
Bretton Woods pulled out as early as 1949 in order
to move to a floating exchange rate and full capital
mobility. Bretton Woods was dead before it ever
began.
"... By Ignacio Portes, formerly the economy editor of the English-speaking daily Buenos Aires Herald. He has also published at Pando Daily and NSFWcorp ..."
"... Folha de Săo Paulo ..."
"... "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.'" ..."
"... Her response of a Greek-style, slow austerity plan during the next two years only helped her lose a large part of her harder-core electoral base. ..."
"... mierda de toro ..."
"... O Globo ..."
"... Globo ..."
"... While these economic own-goals are definitely the key, ..."
Posted on
April 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. I wanted to emphhsize a factor to
consider in the difficulties Latin American (and
developing) countries have had in trying to manage
their affairs, namely, the impact of advanced
central bank monetary operations on them. Our guest
writer Ignacio Portes mentions it in his post below,
but it is worth discussing at greater length.
Remember how for at least 18 months before the
2014 Bernanke "taper tantrum" that markets around
the world were following a "risk on/risk off" trade,
with reactions based largely on the latest central
bank oracle reading? And that emerging economies
were the ones most whipsawed by these trades?
None other than that card-carrying Communist,
former IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan complained
about it when he was the head of the Central Bank of
India.
From a 2014 post
in which we first quote a Rajan
interview with Bloomberg and then add further
comments:
Rajan is blunt by the standards of official
discourse Some of his key points:
Emerging markets were hurt both by the
easy money which flowed into their economies
and made it easier to forget about the
necessary reforms, the necessary fiscal
actions that had to be taken, on top of the
fact that emerging markets tried to support
global growth by huge fiscal and monetary
stimulus across the emerging markets. This
easy money, which overlaid already strong
fiscal stimulus from these countries. The
reason emerging markets were unhappy with
this easy money is "This is going to make it
difficult for us to do the necessary
adjustment." And the industrial countries at
this point said, "What do you want us to do,
we have weak economies, we'll do whatever we
need to do. Let the money flow."
Now when they are withdrawing that money,
they are saying, "You complained when it
went in. Why should you complain when it
went out?" And we complain for the same
reason when it goes out as when it goes in:
it distorts our economies, and the money
coming in made it more difficult for us to
do the adjustment we need for the
sustainable growth and to prepare for the
money going out
International monetary cooperation has
broken down. Industrial countries have to
play a part in restoring that, and they
can't at this point wash their hands off and
say we'll do what we need to and you do the
adjustment. .Fortunately the IMF has
stopped giving this as its mantra, but you
hear from the industrial countries: We'll do
what we have to do, the markets will adjust
and you can decide what you want to do . We
need better cooperation and unfortunately
that's not been forthcoming so far.
Narrowly, Rajan is correct, but the
underlying problem is much bigger and most
orthodox economists are unwilling to confront it
because it conflicts with their free markets
religion. Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, in an
analysis that got much less attention that their
work on debt levels and growth, looked
at 800 years of history of crises
and found
a strong correlation between the level of
international capital flows and the frequency
and severity of financial crises. That's
implicit in his discussion of the impact of hot
money flowing in and out. The Reinhart/Rogoff
finding was confirmed by
a 2010 paper by Claudio Borio and Piti Disyatat
of the BIS
that argued that what drives
financial crises is not net capital flows
("global imbalances") but gross capital flows
(too much financial "elasticity" as they called
it, or what most of us would describe as too
much speculation). But Rajan may in fact be
referring to remedies like capital controls when
he says, basically, that the industrial
economies may not like the remedies that
emerging economies implement.
Back to the present post. Voters in countries in
Latin America hold their officials accountable for
economic performance. Yet the destabilizing impact
of hot money in and outflows, brought to them by the
tender ministrations of neoliberal orthodoxy, means
that the degree of control is limited.
By Ignacio Portes, formerly the
economy editor of the English-speaking daily Buenos
Aires Herald. He has also published at Pando Daily
and NSFWcorp
The world's attention over the last few months
has been focused on the rise of right-wing movements
across the first world, and the struggle of the
previously-ruling liberal establishment to
understand the nature of what hit them. Somewhat
buried below those news, however, one can also read
about what seem to be the last pangs of another
regional alliance going haywire, though with
somewhat different protagonists.
It wasn't long ago that South American
governments were seen as the biggest political
alternative in a world moving mostly to the right,
as parties backed by unemployed and landless
movements, trade unions, indigenous groups and
socialist organizations took power and pushed for
certain re-distributive policies.
Now, the continent's two biggest economies,
Argentina and Brazil, are ruled by coalitions packed
with center-right businessmen. And in Venezuela -
the country which arguably started to turn the
continental political tide to the left back in 1998
- Hugo Chávez's heir Nicolás Maduro is barely
holding to the presidency, losing by a landslide in
the last mid-term elections amid frightening levels
of social disarray.
Unpacking what went wrong for them will be key
for whoever ends up being the next leftist movement
to have a shot at power. And much of what went wrong
was about the economy.
The fact that those three collapses took place
almost simultaneously had a lot to do with the end
of the commodity price supercycle that made life so
much easier for governments across Latin America
throughout the 2000s. But it wasn't simply a stroke
of bad luck with the region's primary exports.
Wherever you looked, voters also had the growing
perception that the malaise was also explained by
local policy. And that was much harder to accept
both for officials and for their most ardent
supporters, who preferred to focus on outside
factors, be them the global economy or some kind of
internal or external political conspiracy.
Not that some degree of conspiracy couldn't be a
factor. Dilma Rousseff's ousting in Brazil was
largely an exercise in hypocrisy from a political
opposition mired in corruption scandals and with
several past episodes of embellishing the budget's
figures. Yet it accused the government of exactly
those two things, first to switch sides from
congressional allies to staunch enemies and then to
impeach Rousseff.
But none of that would have worked hadn't
Rousseff's government also been under growing
popular pressure since the country fell into a
recession in 2014. Rousseff had already lost most of
the middle class before that. Her response of a
Greek-style, slow austerity plan during the next two
years only helped her lose a large part of her
harder-core electoral base. With the recession
deepening and unemployment soaring, Rousseff's
approval ratings plunged below 20%. Her former
allies turned on her and there was no way back from
there.
Brazil's Workers' Party fell into the classic
emerging market boom and bust. The capital that had
flown into the country with the commodities at high
prices made it easy for the government and the
private sector to take on debt and finance a larger
expansion. The hype made Brazil an easy sale. In
2009, The Economist famously printed Jesus' statue
at the top of Rio de Janeiro's Corcovado mountain
taking off from the ground as if it were a rocket,
illustrating a story about the country's supposed
transformation. The government seemed to believe it
too, embarking into grandiose, costly projects to
host the 2014 football World Cup and the 2016 summer
Olympic Games announcing Brazil's arrival into the
global center stage, while also playing up the
significance of the massive (but hard to reach) oil
deposits discovered off the Brazilian coast.
But the foundations of the boom weren't really
solid. The country's currency, the real, appreciated
beyond what many local industries could resist in
the long run due to the sudden influx of foreign
capital. Protectionism and subsidies to some of
Brazil's top business owners tried to compensate for
that, but the costs of doing so started to mount.
When commodity prices stopped helping, the
underlying problems surfaced. By 2013, The Economist
ran exactly the opposite cover than in 2009, with
Jesus' statue crashing down after a failed launch.
Short-term investors panicked and moved their cash
elsewhere. Suddenly, re-financing public and private
debt became much harder. Millions of Brazilians
started struggling with defaulted loans for the
consumer goods they had recently purchased, and
repayments only got harder when the Central Bank
also raised interest rates to try cut inflation.
Subsidies to companies became hard to sustain too,
while basic services and infrastructure, which never
improved much, started suffering even more, with the
tightening budgets focused on completing the
billionaire Olympic and World Cup stadiums and
luxury hotels. Even oil failed to deliver, both due
to the plunge in international prices and the
massive corruption schemes uncovered in the
state-run Petrobras, which threw the company into
disarray.
The question, then, is why did the Workers' Party
go for policies that would end up destroying its
popularity and its grip on power?
A tentative answer, unglamorous as it might be,
is that they didn't know what else to do. Their
problem could be seen as another manifestation of a
general failing of the post Cold War left: the lack
of a trusted economic programme of its own, which
forced them to borrow from here and there as
circumstances presented themselves.
They used a bit of orthodoxy to avoid "scaring"
the markets when they first took office in 2003,
tried to take advantage of those first moves by
leveraging the credit they were given as a result,
and added some re-distributive policies when there
seemed to be room for them, all of that almost
inevitably mixed with the endemic corruption schemes
and inefficiency troubles that seem to mar all of
the region's politics (but that hardly came to the
surface during the boom times).
When the crises came, the government tried some
countercyclical moves at first, but Brazilian laws
made them less effective than normally expected, as
private and public debt could not be diluted due to
indexation clauses written into contracts, keeping
the burden high despite some stimulus. So they
resumed the international bond market appeasing as a
(failed) last-ditch effort, with political scandals
erupting in the background as capital flight and
coalition disbanding made the end increasingly
inevitable.
Brazil's elites decided for a transition behind
the backs of the electorate, backing Rousseff's
former VP Michel Temer, a man from the ideologically
flexible PMDB party, to take her place after a
largely ridiculous impeachment process where the
charges against the President were barely even
mentioned. Unconcerned about his lower-than-Dilma
popularity, the possibility of re-election or the
need to be loyal to his voting base, Temer is now
enacting a much more thorough austerity program that
has slightly turned markets around, but which has
seen unemployment continue to skyrocket, now
reaching 13% percent, up from 7% just a couple of
years ago.
Could it have gone differently? In the most
short-termist of views, it's hard to see how the
Workers Party could have held on. Falling
governments are the norm amid huge economic crises
with no seemingly end in sight, and this was
Brazil's largest recession on record. In a
European-like parliamentary system, the situation
would surely have led to a vote of no confidence,
used in similar circumstances to oust Prime
Ministers in more democratically-friendly fashion.
But as we'll see in parts II and III, the
multiple roads taken by other left-of-centre
coalitions in Latin America showed that the Workers
Party's long-term approach was just one of many
possibilities.
Actually I think the critical strategic mistake
here was made by the Brazilian right, which had the
option of just waiting until 2018 and then taking
power in a normal election. They may have been
spooked by the prospect of running against Lula
again (though they have beaten Lula in the past
several times). Or there may have been behind the
scenes US pressure for a color revolution, due to
Brazil's previous closeness to Russia.
But not just waiting until the election and then
taking power on the normal pendulum swing will blow
up in their faces.
The overall Workers' Party strategy was
appropriate for the situation they were in. My only
real criticism is political, they should have made
winning statehouses more of a priority and less so
the presidency, but you have to run a presidential
candidate, and when you have a candidate like Lula
you are going to try to capitalize.
I hope you're right that it was a mistake.
Every poll I have seen shows Lula easily winning
any election, and the Brazilian capitalist class
was well aware of this. In fact there was the
pathetic incident where
Folha de Săo Paulo
intentionally
obfuscated poll data
showing that 62 percent
of Brazilians want new elections and they would
have voted for Lula. The stunning speed and
extent of the destruction
wrought by Temer
(and Macri) shows that the right wing is
convinced that this may be their only shot at
power, so they need to get in and obliterate as
much of the welfare state as quickly as
possible, like vandals who know the security
guards will arrive any second.
That said, I agree that the impeachment
debacle shows that PT needs a far bigger
presence in congress and in the governorships,
otherwise it is vulnerable to another
constitutional coup. However, I disagree that
"the overall Workers' Party strategy was
appropriate": they were gravely wrong to
implement austerity in an economic downturn.
The Brazilian right had no choice. If Dilma
had been left in charge she might have chosen to
sacrifice a whole bunch of corrupt businessman
and politicians to placate the middle class.
Someone was going down. The only question was
who.
Well, I guess I will wait for parts 2 and 3. Thus
far in the story, it is hard to see how Brazil,
Argentina and Venezuela represent three cases of the
same phenomenon.
Nah, their approaches were different for
sure, I think it will become clear in far more
detail starting in the second post. Part of the
point of the series is to show that the
governments fell into different failure modes,
despite some common themes such as international
economics (commodity prices first helping a lot,
then not so much) or the fact they were all part
of a regional political alliance.
I think this represents a clear example of the
failure of 3rd way politics again. The jackals on
the right in Latin America do not and will not
respect parties of the left, no matter if they stick
with orthodoxy. They must be confronted and beaten
with deeper reforms and a well-organized base.
Ecuador's recent election shows what can be done.
Correa's party has achieved its best result ever and
still won even though the opposition was united this
election.
But Rousseff did use the stick of orthodoxy,
and she was overthrown nonetheless!
"'I know your works: you are neither cold
nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my
mouth.'"
"But Rousseff did use the stick of
orthodoxy, and she was overthrown
nonetheless!" – Exactly! The lesson for
parties of the left is not to trust the
right. They are not your friends. They will
stick the knife in your back at the first
chance!
As far as the question of "how", Yves intro and
2014 post was more insightful. Parsing relevant
facts from irrelevant facts seems always a grind,
and discerning facts from opinion seems even more
so. Context always matters, and proportionality
often seems distorted or missing, imO. I've
gravitated towards the opinion that "capital" seems
a euphemism for power, "capitalism" seems a
euphemism for a network of unaccountable, unelected
"Davos" insiders(aka tPtb) , and "capitalists" seem
to be the gatekeepers that keep the outsiders
outside the power to shape, re-shape, form, re-form,
structure, re-structure, structurally adjust and
re-adjust etc., a social order that willingly or
unwittingly serves these insiders as the highest
priority and loftiest of purposes, at the expense of
anything and everything else. Which is why I've also
gravitated towards the opinion that "capitalism" and
"democracy" are not only antithetical to each other,
but irreconcilable a neoliberal project that
facilitates a virtual-parliament, where "governance"
is done through "capital" flows, by and at the
behest of unseen, unaccountable, unelected insiders.
Anecdote: When I was in Brazil last December I
asked everyone I could why Dilma was impeached. The
near unanimous answer was "por corrupçăo" (the
outliers were two responders who, interestingly,
said it was because she was unpopular). While
Ignacio's excellent post does hint at this, I think
it's important to stress the battle for "hearts and
minds" currently underway in LatAm that, in the case
of Brazil, has led to Rousseff losing her base and
the far right returning to power.
Yves and Ignacio look at two important aspects,
with Yves focusing on deleterious capital flows and
Ignacio on the resulting fiscal policy. Ignacio's
point is particularly salient, and one that often
gets lost among leftist pundits prone to ideological
Manichaeism:
Her response of a Greek-style, slow
austerity plan during the next two years only
helped her lose a large part of her harder-core
electoral base.
This, IMO, is the number one reason that led to
Rousseff's overthrow: Dilma inflicted austerity on
the working class and it abandoned her, leaving her
vulnerable to a rightwing attack. But how can I say
that when it goes against the findings of my (highly
unscientific, anecdotal) survey? Let me answer that
with yet more anecdotal evidence.
Here in Latin America there is an almost
universal narrative as to why we have so much
poverty, that goes as follows: "we live in a
resource rich region, but we are plagued by
'corruption', which means politicians with their
hands in the till. We wish we could have safe roads,
sewers, transportation, hospitals but the state
always ends up bankrupt because the politicians
steal all the money". (At this point the narrative
gets taken over by political allegiances and media
memes: "what we need to do is throw these corrupt
bums out of office and bring in [enter name of
political party supported by the media]".
This narrative is, of course, total
mierda de
toro
. First the state cannot go bankrupt, so
that should be BS tell n° 1. When Rousseff's base
saw their infrastructure, pensions and jobs cut, it
was not because Rousseff is a corrupt politician
with her hand in the till, bankrupting the state.
Even in Brazil, which has a particularly corrupt
political elite, they rob millions when the economy
is a matter of hundreds of billions. Yet like so
many revolutionaries of her generation, Rousseff is
solid on socialist ideology when it comes to
politics, but when it comes to economic
understanding, not so much. So when the
international economic crisis came to Brazil, she
appointed the Finance Minister who seemed to know
something about that economics stuff: Washington
Consensus Superstar Joachim Levy. Levy sold her the
usual neoliberal BS line that "the state is broke,
TINA, we need to cut social programmes", yadda
yadda. And austerity was suddenly on the menu.
Meanwhile, the monopolist media conglomerate
O Globo
broadcasted everywhere 24/7 that Dilma
was corrupt with the usual narrative. If you're in a
favela and you see your life getting worse because
of budget cuts and you hear the non-stop
"Corrupçăo!" narrative from the media, in the
absence of a media and education system that tell
the truth about economics, there is no way you stick
your neck out to support Rousseff. Here the media
and its oligarchical overlords ensure that people
have a hard time differing between millions and
trillions, between microeconomy and macroeconomy.
The TV is full non-stop with caterwauling that this
or that politician might have stolen $10m and they
incorrectly associate that with the macroeconomic
situation caused by the government's bad fiscal
policy.
In sum, yes the QE/ZIRP capital flows play a
role. Yes this was used to push the PT to make bad
fiscal decisions. But there is also an ideological
battle on in Latin America, where the
oligarchic-dominated media are pushing a false
'corruption' narrative to take advantage of the
fiscal missteps of ostensibly left-wing governments.
While these economic own-goals are definitely the
key, if it were not for this false narrative, the
PT, Kirchnerism, Chavism even Lugo in Paraguay
would still be in the drivers seat.
Personally, yes, the media is rotten and
that's a tremendous problem. The plunging
economy (caused by int'l capital tidal flows +
austerity) + media narrative of scapegoating is,
of course, how the script goes to throw
left-leaning govts out of power. However, I
don't think that gets you ALL the way there.
Otherwise, how to explain Venezuela and
Ecuador? The oligarchs ran the same playbook in
all countries in LatAm. But it doesn't always
work.
1) Venezuela is arguably MORE vulnerable to
capital flows and commodity prices than in
Brazil. The government has been handicapped by
its own incompetence (especially with regard to
the currency, as Comrade Haygood will tell you
any chance he gets!). The Chavista government
has also had plenty of corruption problems, at
least somewhat linked to those bad currency
policies. Yet, somehow, the government is still
hanging in there. In fact, its popularity seems
to be on the rebound as the population gets
tired of the violent, extremist idiots that seem
to be leading the opposition. In my view,
they've kept a core of supporters, who have
stayed loyal and haven't been sold out by their
government. Those core supporters are organized
and actively pushing back against the hard-right
in the country. This seems to be enough to
endure the turbulence.
2) Ecuador's example is also telling.
Correa's party, Allianza Pais, just hauled in
its largest ever vote total. They seem less
corrupt and incompetent than the Chavista party
in Venezuela, but face the same problems of
tumultuous capital flows and rabidly hostile
media with the constant accusations of
corruption that are present in Venezuela and
Brazil. Yet, in spite of this, they continue to
increase their support and expand their base.
From where I stand the lessons seem clear for
lefty parties of Lat Am:
No compromise with the right or with
orthodoxy. They hate you and will slit your
throat if you let them. Do not abandon your base
(and they won't abandon you). Organize your base
and be prepared for crisis. These things let you
survive as a political force. If you show
competence and reduce corruption (in reality,
not according to the media narrative), then
you'll get even stronger and do even better at
the ballot box.
Thanks Johnny, likewise. With regard to
"ALL the way there", I tried to be clear
that the main reason for Rousseff's fall was
her austerity policies, with the media
playing a crucial role thereafter. With
regard to Ecuador vs. Venezuela, BOTH made
currency missteps, as Correa's biggest
failure was that he was never able to wean
Ecuador off the USD. The main difference I
see between the two countries' leftist
governments is that Correa was
somewhat more successful at diversifying the
economy
whereas Venezuela is still far
too dependent on oil rents. In all the South
American economies, the key is developing an
internal market by bringing the excluded
masses into the economy and ditching the
commodity exporter model. Nevertheless I
agree with your point about the Venezuelan
right: they are overplaying their hand and
Maduro is gaining strength (eg, yesterday's
poor turnout opposition march).
I'd also point out that the last
elections in the countries in question (Ecu
2017, Bol 2016, Arg 2015, Bra 2014, Ven
2013) were all photo finishes (with ≈2%
margins), where the slightest tweeks could
have reversed the outcome completely, so it
is hard to talk about mandates or "what the
people want".
Lastly you discuss corruption as being a
factor for the Maduro and Correa
administrations. Does that mean you disagree
with my point that "corruption!" is just a
rightwing meme that has little to do with
most people's household economies?
Sorry, squishing too many thoughts
into my comments with limited time to
write (at work).
To clarify my addition to your point
about austerity being the real Rousseff
killer, I'd say, "Yes, that's absolutely
the proximate cause. However, there are
underlying reasons that are just as
important that shouldn't be left out of
the story".
Perry Anderson's article in LRB is a
real must read on what has happened in
Brazil. He covers a wide range of
issues, including why the PT has failed
in a broader political context.
If you're interested, read the part
that starts: "Half-hidden, the roots of
this debacle lay in the soil of the PT's
model of growth itself. From the outset,
its success relied on two kinds of
nutrient: a super-cycle of commodity
prices, and a domestic consumption
boom."
Anderson goes on to discuss how the
PT failed to improve public services,
only relying on the private sector.
Finance Minister Mantega tried to
stimulate private investment and also
attempted to split off industrial
interests away from big finance. That
attempt failed spectacularly. Again,
here's Anderson's money quote: "In the
belief that this must rally
manufacturers to its side, the
government confronted the banks by
forcing interest rates down to an
unprecedented real level of 2 per cent
by the end of 2012. In Săo Paulo the
Employers Federation briefly expressed
its appreciation of the change, before
hanging out flags in support of the
anti-statist marchers of June 2013."
Re: Ecuador election, yes it was
close. However, I think the margin of
victory doesn't tell the full story.
Allianza Pais keeps building its vote
totals every election since 2006. Check
wikipedia on this. Correa had a big
breakthrough from 2009 to 2013, but
Moreno didn't lose votes, he got more. I
could be wrong, but that makes me thing
they're building something more lasting
than what PT did.
Just looking, Rousseff couldn't match
Lula's vote totals, neither could Maduro
match Chavez's. Somehow, Moreno beat
Correa's numbers from previous
elections. That might be a real sign, or
might not.
Lastly, regarding this, "Does that
mean you disagree with my point that
"corruption!" is just a rightwing meme
that has little to do with most people's
household economies?" - No, I think
you're right. But I do think corruption
is more of a problem in Venezuela.
Unless you've got some other explanation
for why they won't fix the screwy
currency policy that seems to magnify
problems, rather than dampen them (as a
well managed currency should do)?
I can only guess that someone fairly
important is making a lot of money in
cross-border smuggling to Colombia.
I think Ecuador seems to have done
better on corruption, the best the media
could do was drum up a scandal that
sounded ridiculous on its face. I don't
recall the details, but it seemed like
they were really desperate to latch onto
something.
Corruption is important, just not
in the way of the simplistic media
spin that you mentioned – obviously
what a President might take home is
irrelevant when compared to a
national budget or a GDP. (and
Dilma, by the way, doesn't seen to
have been personally corrupt at all;
even if there was obviously
corruption at her party, I have
never seen any hint that it might
have help line up her pockets)
A topic that I have never read
anyone write about in depth is how
left political alternatives can
finance their campaigns. Obviously,
if you are a business candidate
you'll find it easier to get donors,
but if you want to build a working
class or socialist party then it
gets tougher. And in Latin America,
this has often led to all kinds of
shady deals with the underworld,
with public works contracts and so
on. And the problem is the economic
distortions that this brings: to
keep those dirty schemes that
finance your party going, you have
to create infrastructure programmes
not where they are most needed but
where it's easier to take a cut off
without anyone noticing it (this
happened a lot in Argentina), you
have to take part in corruption
schemes with the country's oligarchs
(see Brazil), you have to make deals
with murderous criminal cartels and
so on. This can be incredibly
damaging: it weakens the economy for
starters, but it ultimately even
derails the point of the political
project completely, turning a
political party into a bureaucracy
whose main goal is just
self-perpetuation. Venezuela's
military trying to hang on to power
and to its failed economic policies
no matter how in order to keep its
power over black market deals is
part of the explanation for that
country's crisis, for sure, and
another example of this.
Example 1: Upon assuming the
presidency, the Macri
administration immediately
embarks on a plan to devalue the
peso. Four of Macri's ministers,
including
éminence grise
Marcos Peña buy dollar futures
before the devaluation and make
out like bandits when the peso
plummets.
Example 2: Upon Macri taking
office as Buenos Aires Mayor,
his cousin's construction firm,
IECSA, suddenly jumps from
virtual anonymity to being the
third largest recipient of
public works contracts.
Are these examples of
corruption the same? I would
argue no. In example 2– which is
the type you mention and which
is the type most screamed about
in the press– the damage is that
favouritism may have led to not
the best postulant winning the
bid, thus providing the public
with inferior infrastructure.
But there is a general good that
occurs: insofar as Calcaterra
hires local workers and uses
domestic materials, the economy
will grow from the multiplier
effect. (Of course insofar as
the money is not used for
construction and instead gets
parked in Miami, there is a net
loss.) While I agree
infrastructure does not get well
distributed– I burn with rage
when I see stupid multi-million
peso overpasses in Buenos Aires
while my neighbourhood doesn't
even have proper sewers– there
is no reason why both can't be
built; Argentina has plenty of
people and materials just
waiting to be employed.
Example 1 on the other hand
is the type of corruption we
should worry about. It involves
politicians making
decisions not based on the
public good, but rather to
benefit themselves and/or a
small group of powerful people.
The devaluation of the peso
immediately went to the supply
chain and inflation skyrocketed,
resulting in a 12% loss in real
wages. This less-publicised
corruption affected the
pocketbook of everyone in the
country, whereas the eternally
repeated infrastructure issue–
be it Calcaterra or Baéz or
whoever– is not even noticeable
in the average citizen's
economy. Nevertheless, when
Globo
shows the latest
accused in Lava Joto, the public
inevitably gets angry because
they think that the suspect's
alleged crime cost them money
personally; that he is the
reason why there is no money for
housing or pensions. No, the
reason why there are housing and
pension cuts is because it was a
political decision by the
Dilma/Temer governments; Lava
Joto has nothing to do with it.
______
Secondly, with regard to
campaign financing here's my two
cents: I think it is less of an
issue here then it is up north.
First because mandatory voting
makes GOTV largely unnecessary,
thus greatly reducing the amount
of money needed. Secondly,
because (for better or worse)
all the Mercosur countries have
very strong party apparatuses
that perform much of the
campaigning work. And thirdly
because of (partially) public
funded elections. In this
regard, politics here is not as
much about fundraising as it is
about lining up all the unions
and social movements. But this
system giveth and taketh. On one
hand it often involves mass
mobilisations that are largely
based on individuals' political
motivation and organising
efforts; but on the other hand
it entails party patronage
systems that often fund goons
who carry out ratf*cking
operations and small-scale
political violence (the mafias
you mentioned? eg, the AAA in
the 70s; or more recently the
thugs who stormed the Santa Cruz
Governer's House, etc.). This is
not to say that there is not a
growing trend toward expensive
marketing campaigns and black
money, but for now at least it
is more subdued. And lastly, in
the case the left needs campaign
money, I think the Sanders 2016
campaign provided an excellent,
viable model.
While these economic own-goals are
definitely the key,
Rabid G: could you expound on which own-goals
were problematic, what could or should have been
done differently? There seems to be an argument
that:
1. Rousseff mis-steps led to lack of support
among people who were, and apparently still are,
Lula supporters. Presumably the argument is that
she could have run large fiscal deficits and
targeted spending to poor? Or canceled the
Olympics?
2. This lack of support made possible soft coup.
From what I know of what happened, I am
skeptical of both claims. And seems to
completely absolve hot money of any
responsibility, which I took as the main point
of the post. But I claim no expertise.
Yes that is the argument: Rousseff
implemented two rounds of austerity,
cutting pensions and capping spending
when Brazil's economy was already
retracting. As readers here well know, these
pro-cyclical measures always have the same
result: throwing the country into deeper
recession. Each round of austerity
coincided with steep drops in Rousseff's top
approval rating
(Optimal/Good).
Meanwhile, Lula– who never cut pensions and
spending– remains the most popular
politician in the country.
And as I made clear in my post (as
Ignacio did in the OP), these factors are
just part of what led to Rousseff's
impeachment; no one is "completely absolving
hot money" which is certainly another part
of the equation. That said, given mainstream
economists' monetarist bent, there is a
tendency to see everything that happens in
Latin America through a capital
flow/commodity lens (cough *Haygood* cough).
But this only holds true to the degree that
these countries are dependent on finance and
commodities. And the whole mantra of these
leftist governments has been to supplant
finance/commodity dependency with an
internal market. So with all respect to Yves
(and I think she might agree), to the degree
to which they have been successful at
creating this internal market, the hot money
argument does not come into play.
We never get ahead of the problem. In the early
70s Nixon was advised by Sec. Treas John Conally, of
Dallas fame, that we could go off the gold standard
bec we could basically do anything we wanted to
generate growth in our own economy and that the
imbalances that would follow for other countries
"were their problem." This attitude preceded the
free-market mania that followed, thinking that the
market would balance it all out. So, starting with
Breton Woods and an incomplete monetary system which
did not address the real world, we have come to 2017
wherein candidates are running for office without a
party and sovereign states don't understand the
power of their own sovereignty. We need a "peg" – a
new rational one. Gold has always been irrational,
but the environment is as rational as you can get.
And every sovereign country has an environment. The
environment is everywhere! Whereas the nutty
obsession with gold made it valuable and it was
arbitrarily priced at some "standard" to which all
else was valued (insane, right?) we could do it the
rational way and price the environment at some value
and thereby eliminate inflation altogether (because
you can't inflate a currency that is both ubiquitous
and invaluable already) and at the same time have a
resourceful, healthy world. Everywhere. This would
get rid of all the neoliberal money hoarding and all
sorts of ills. But, I'm dreaming again.
Another great discussion set up by Yves but the
article, probably because of limited length, could
only scratch the surface of what is and was brewing
in Latin America in last decade or so and Obama's
policies of global color revolutions having a lot to
do with it.
Moreover, it is hard in English speaking media to
figure out what is going on in Latin America
especially recently in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia
even Brazil or Argentina but one thing in my
opinion, is sure there is no socialism there, nor
ever was.
Instead there were more or less social-democratic
governments trying to elevate horrible poverty of
the peoples due to extreme exploitation by local
oligarchs, while in all cases leaving intact
capitalist/neo-feudal system and social structures
including reactionary religious organizations as it
was there before. Now all those governments are
under a direct attack from Global oligarchy.
It may sound harsh but the main problem is that
Maduro and other "people's" leaders in Latin America
were being heavily influenced or down right
corrupted by western money. Yes, leftist leaders
directly or due to their global policies withd USD
dominated financial system are in Wall Street
pockets already. Too many friends of Lula, Chavez
and now Maduro revolution have bank accounts in New
York to appropriately respond to this blatant
aggression we are witnessing in a revolutionary
manner, as they should if they did not betray their
people.
Those South American springs we are witnessing in
Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador,
and soon Cuba etc., are not due to lack of
cooperation between popular South American leaders
and US.gov and Wall Street but that they cooperate
to little to win approval of Washington hegemons,
namely they do not exploit and betray their people
hard enough.
It is a world oligarch's quarrel and those who do
not heed the warnings are expelled from the cushy
country club of globalists, and that's why they are
so polite, yes polite, facing Washington economic
aggression. But there is deeper reason for it.
Former radicals, communists, worker trade
unionists or native populists and other leftist such
as Lula-Rousseff, Chavez,(Maduro), Corea, Morales
etc., after being brought to power, via peoples
popular movements spawned by catastrophe of raging
neoliberalism in previous decades , not on their own
merits as a true leftists since they later betrayed
the true left, but on the wave of global capital
instigated booms of commodity demand from China
itself stimulated to the brink of orgasm via Wall
Street money changers and now is awaiting eruption
anytime and following by a long secular economic
flaccidity which will turn this mockery of workers'
led Chinese government into openly
fascistic/regional imperial regime as it already is.
One must realize that those recent South American
leftist revolutions, including Chavez revolution,
were underwritten by Wall Street bubbles, one might
have asserted wrongly, that they were being
skillfully exploited by leftist leaders while in
truth they fell into a trap that ultimately doomed
and condemned truly leftist Marxian or even
Maoist/Leninist revolutionary political movements in
South America into political oblivion for decades to
come.
And hence sweeping counterrevolutionary wind of
Washington doing, blowing across the South American
continent.
And that seems to be the plan to discredit any
political left as a vital and even viable or
effective political force in South America, Europe
and elsewhere.
It took him eight years but Obama Mission was
Accomplished. And that's his legacy few wants to
talk about.
"Let's not dance around. Your first steps will be
breaking the power of current economic and political
elites who are not willing to convincingly join you
or at least let you rule without trying to sabotage
you.
You must do this all at once. When it happens, it
happens to everyone it is going to happen to. This
is Machiavelli's dictum, and he was right. After it
has happened, those who weren't broken know they're
safe as long as they don't get in your way."
Break up the banks and the media, have competent
administrators ready to step in, and insulate
yourself from foreign cash flows as much as you can.
Otherwise you will be sabotaged.
I am transmitting from Brazil, having witnessed
in situ the last 15 years of surreal economics.
The current 'crisis' has nothing to do with
politics, ideology, government policy, corruption,
etc.
In fact, there's no crisis at all happening in
Brazil.
From 2003-2014, Brazil went through a surreal
bubble of credit (and corresponding debt), equally
divided amongst families and corporations.
The total debt stock went from 25% to 56% of GDP,
in eleven years. That's roughly 3% of cocaine-like
GDP injected into the veins of the economy, over
quasi-eternal 11 years.
The debt bubble is now gloriously bursting. Two
years of bubble deflation already checked, my guess
is that the Brazilian economy should return to its
natural size around 4Q 2017 / 1Q 2018.
From there on, there's slow growth in the works.
We Brazilians do not know how to grow via investment
and innovation. And everyone is vaxxed against
diving into debt again.
Without digging into details of your numbers,
I don't think what you wrote is factually
incorrect. However, the tone of what you wrote
gives no agency to any person or institution.
Big debt bubbles don't just 'happpen' like bad
weather. They happen because of policy decisions
made by people, individually and as groups.
Why those decisions were made and how they
succeeded or failed is the part worth
discussing.
MOSCOW - The American and European sanctions against the Russian
oil industry
have dashed, at least for now, the Western oil majors' ambitions to
drill in the Arctic Ocean.
But drilling will continue all the same, Russian government and state oil company
officials have been taking pains to point out, ever since
the sanctions
took effect over the summer.
"We will do it on our own," Igor I. Sechin, the president of Russia's
state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, told journalists in October. "We'll continue
drilling here next year and the years after that."
Rather than throw in the towel in the face of Western sanctions intended to halt
Russia's Arctic oil ambitions by stopping technology transfers, the Russians have
responded with plans to "Russify" the technology to be deployed in the world's
largest effort to date to extract oil from the thawing Arctic Ocean.
The solution to tapping the Arctic, Yevgeny Primakov, a former prime minister, told a
group of high officials in October, "is found first of all in our own industrial
base."
A major hurdle is already cleared: An Exxon-led joint venture discovered oil in the
Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean in September, proving the region holds
commercially viable volumes of oil.
Rosneft is already laying plans to drill without Western oil major cooperation. Along
with Exxon, Eni of Italy and Statoil of Norway had joint ventures to work with
Rosneft in the Kara, Laptev, and Chukchi seas above Russia.
After the September sanctions
suspended those deals
, Rosneft negotiated to rent from Gazprom four Russian
ice-class drilling rigs for next season's exploration work, should Exxon still be
sanction-barred from doing the work next summer.
Rosneft has also booked six rigs from North Atlantic Drilling, a unit of Seadrill of
Norway, under contracts signed in July and grandfathered in under the sanctions.
The Russians are in early talks with the Chinese over sailing rigs from the South
China Sea to the Arctic Ocean, industry executives say.
This spring as the threat of sanctions loomed, Rosneft bought the Russian and
Venezuelan well-drilling business of Weatherford, adding to its in-house
capabilities.
A further "Russification" of the industry seems inevitable. In October, President
Vladimir V. Putin approved the creation of a state-owned oil services company, RBC, a
Russian business newspaper reported. The intention is to duplicate, as well as
possible, the services purveyed now by Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger.
Certainly, some in the oil industry see the Russian official response as bluff,
asserting Rosneft has neither the skills nor the capital to drill for oil in its 42
offshore licenses blocks. Under the joint ventures, the Western companies financed
and managed the exploration work.
The three companies, Exxon, Eni and Statoil, were to invest $20 billion in
exploration, and the company has been mute on how it will replace that. Just this
summer, Exxon paid $700 million to drill the Universitetskaya-1 well in the Kara Sea.
Russia, meanwhile, does not even manufacture subsea hardware like well heads.
Rosneft's finances are restricted to 30-day loans under sanctions.
Yet the company and the Russian industry are already tooling up for just such an
effort.
The sheer uncertainty of sanctions is pushing the Russian industry to turn inward.
Russian companies, even those who prefer to work with U.S. oilfield equipment or
services providers because the cost or quality is better, can never know when new
sanctions might scuttle a deal.
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the
conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
"The client looks at you and says 'I like you, I like your product, but you are not
dependable,' " Alexis Rodzianko, the director of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia said in an interview.
Russia now has a "hierarchy of procurement" placing domestic and Asian companies
first, U.S. companies last.
"The consensus in Russia is this is not a one-off, short-term problem," Ildar
Davletshin, an oil analyst at Renaissance Capital in Moscow, said in an interview, of
the Russian effort to pivot to domestic and Asian suppliers.
"Nobody will just sit and wait" for sanctions to be lifted, he said.
Whether Russian technology can fill the gap left by Western oil majors as the country
prepares for the extraordinary engineering challenge of oil drilling under the Arctic
ice remains an unsettled question within the industry.
Russia brings Soviet legacy technologies, including the world's only fleet of nuclear
icebreakers, awesome machines of immense power, with names like 50 Years of Victory
and Yamal, which sail year-round in the Arctic Ocean.
"Let's not underestimate them," said one oil company executive who visited Exxon's
West Alpha rig this summer, but could not speak publicly because of company policy.
Russians are no strangers to the north, and the cold. "They are determined to do it.
They might do it on their own."
The Russian intention to do just that became clear out on the Arctic Ocean at the end
of the short drilling window this summer.
Ice floes were already creeping down from the polar ice cap in tongues when the U.S.
government announced Sept. 12 that Exxon was to halt all assistance to Rosneft by
Sept. 26, in response to Russian military assistance to a rebel counteroffensive
against the Ukrainian Army in late August.
The Exxon crew stopped drilling, though the well was only about 75 percent complete.
In an early indication of the Russians' intentions to go it alone after sanctions,
Rosneft executives told Exxon they would not allow the
West Alpha rig
to leave Russian waters without finishing the well, according to
the oil company executive familiar with events on the platform in September.
If Exxon withdrew American engineers, Rosneft would fly out a Russian replacement
crew, putting the localization plan into immediate action, the executive said.
Rosneft's press service contested this characterization of the company's position,
calling it a "fiction."
In the end, Exxon obtained an extension on its waiver to the sanction from the U.S.
Treasury Department, stretching the window for work with Rosneft in the Arctic until
Oct. 10.
The Arctic Ocean, Mr. Sechin said later that month in the interview with Bloomberg
News at the drilling site in the Kara Sea, is Russia's "Saudi Arabia" of oil, vast
and pivotal to Russia's national interests.
Rosneft's website estimates the Kara Sea's reservoirs hold about 87 billion barrels
of oil and the equivalent in
natural gas
, calling this more than the deposits of the Gulf of Mexico, the
Brazilian shelf or the offshore potential north of Alaska and Canada.
After a daylong pause on Sept. 12 to Sept. 13, the Russian brinkmanship worked: The
American crew continued drilling and about a week later, in mid-September, discovered
a vast oil deposit, holding about 750 million barrels of oil. Mr. Sechin thanked
Western partners for the find, and named the field Pobeda, or Victory.
HOUSTON - The Trump administration delivered a setback to Exxon Mobil on Friday, announcing that
it would not grant the oil giant a waiver from sanctions against Russia that would allow drilling
in the Black Sea.
The decision, reinforcing barriers erected by the United States over Russia's intervention in
Ukraine, was another sign that President Trump has been unwilling or unable to improve relations
with the Kremlin early in his term, after pledging as a candidate that he would seek a thaw.
"In consultation with President Donald J. Trump," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a
terse, prepared statement, "the Treasury Department will not be issuing waivers to U.S. companies,
including Exxon, authorizing drilling prohibited by current Russian sanctions."
The prospect of a waiver had drawn denunciations from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
When news of Exxon Mobil's proposal
emerged this week , Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
wrote in a
Twitter post , "Are they crazy?"
The matter was complicated by the continuing congressional scrutiny of reports of Russian intervention
in support of Mr. Trump in last year's election, and by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson's role
as Exxon Mobil's chief executive until the president nominated him for his current position.
Exxon Mobil applied for the waiver in 2015, arguing that it could lose its exploration rights
in the Black Sea if it did not begin drilling operations by the end of 2017 under its contract with
the Russian state oil company Rosneft.
The Obama administration did not act on the application, but Exxon Mobil hoped that the Trump
administration would take a favorable view.
The company released a brief statement on Friday that did not express regret but explained its
argument in favor of the waiver.
"We understand the statement today by Secretary Mnuchin in consultation with President Trump,"
the statement said. "Our 2015 application for a license under the provisions outlined in the U.S.
sanctions was made to enable our company to meet its contractual obligations under a joint venture
agreement in Russia, where competitor companies are authorized to undertake such work under European
sanctions."
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the conversation. Delivered weekday mornings
and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are
already subscribed to this email.
United States and European sanctions were first imposed on Russia in March 2014 in response to
Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Exxon Mobil signed an expansion of its joint venture
projects anyway, even after Igor I. Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive, was personally blacklisted
in connection with the sanctions.
The deal was legal, but Exxon Mobil was more fully constrained when tighter sanctions were imposed
after Russia was implicated that summer in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over
eastern Ukraine.
It has become increasingly clear in recent days that relations between the United States and Russia
are unlikely to improve any time soon. Mr. Tillerson has used increasingly tough talk to highlight
the Trump administration's differences with Russia over its alliance with the Syrian government.
He has not suggested that any sanctions be lifted, and the administration has affirmed its commitment
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European security.
Exxon Mobil's hopes to produce new oil in Arctic waters and in Siberian shale fields were delayed
indefinitely by the toughened sanctions, which prohibited transfers of drilling technology capable
of reaching oil in fields that previously had been virtually inaccessible. The company received a
few exceptions to the sanctions, including a waiver in late 2014 that allowed it complete drilling
of one exploration well in the frigid Kara Sea that it said would be unsafe to leave half finished.
A big oil field was confirmed, but no new oil was produced and exported.
Exxon Mobil has long argued that it was being put at a disadvantage against some of its European
competitors operating in Russia. ENI, the Italian oil giant, plans to drill this year in the Black
Sea, a largely untapped area with enormous oil reserve potential.
European sanctions are somewhat weaker than those imposed by the United States since they exempted
some contracts signed before the sanctions were put in place. The American sanctions drew a harder
line.
Exxon Mobil's drilling rights in the Black Sea were part of a sweeping strategic partnership Exxon
Mobil developed with Rosneft in 2011 while Mr. Tillerson was in charge of the American company. The
agreement came at a time when the Obama administration was seeking to improve relations with Russia,
and several Western oil companies expanded their operations.
Wells Fargo
's board and management are scheduled to meet shareholders at the
company's annual meeting Tuesday in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. With the phony
account-opening scandal still making
headlines
, and the
company's stock
underperforming its peers, it's a good bet the bank's brass will
have some explaining to do.
How could such pernicious practices at the bank be allowed for so long? Why didn't
the board do more to stop the scheme or the incentive programs that encouraged it?
And where, oh where, were the regulators?
Wells Fargo's management has conceded making multiple mistakes over many years; it
also says it has learned from them. In a meeting this week with reporters at The New
York Times, Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo's chief executive, said the bank had made
substantive changes to its structure and culture to ensure that dubious practices
won't take hold again.
But there's a deeper explanation for why Wells Fargo's corrosive sales practices came
about and continued for years. And it has everything to do with the bank-friendly
regulatory regime in Washington and the immense sway that institutions like Wells
Fargo have there. This poisonous combination contributes to a sense among giant
banking institutions that they answer to no one.
The capture of our regulatory and political system by big and powerful corporations
is real. And it is a central and disturbing theme in the new
book
by Senator
Elizabeth Warren
, Democrat of Massachusetts.
"This Fight Is Our Fight" contains juicy but depressing anecdotes about how our most
trusted institutions have let us down. It also shows why, years after the financial
crisis, big banks are still large, in charge and, basically, unaccountable for their
actions.
"In too many of these organizations, there are rewards for cheating and punishments
for calling out the cheaters," Ms. Warren said in an interview Wednesday. "As long as
that's the case, the biggest financial institutions will continue to put their
customers and the economy at risk."
Ms. Warren's no-nonsense views are bracing. But they are also informed by a thorough
understanding of how dysfunctional Washington now is. This failure has cost Main
Street dearly, she said, but has benefited the powerful.
Wells Fargo got a lot of criticism from Ms. Warren, both in her book and in my
interview - and on live television during the Senate Banking Committee hearing on the
account-opening mess in September. She was among the harshest cross-examiners
encountered by John G. Stumpf, who was Wells Fargo's chief executive at the time.
"You should resign,"
she told him
, "and you should be criminally investigated." (Mr. Stumpf retired
the next month.)
This week, Ms. Warren called for the ouster of the company's directors and a criminal
inquiry into the bank.
"Yes, the board should be removed, but that's not enough," she told me. "There still
needs to be a criminal investigation. The expertise is in the regulatory agencies,
but the power to prosecute lies mostly with the Justice Department, and if they don't
have either the energy or the talent - or the backbone - to go after the big banks,
then there will never be any real accountability."
Banks are not the only targets in Ms. Warren's book. Others include Wal-Mart, for its
treatment of employees; for-profit education companies, for the way they pile debt on
unsuspecting students; the Chamber of Commerce, for battling Main Street; and
prestigious think tanks, for their undisclosed conflicts of interest.
My favorite moments in the book involve the phenomenon of regulatory capture: the
pernicious condition in which institutions that are supposed to police the nation's
financial behemoths actually come to view them as clients or pals.
One telling moment took place in 2005, when Ms. Warren, then a Harvard law professor,
was invited to address the staff at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a
top regulator charged with monitoring the activities of big banks.
She was thrilled by the invitation, she recalled in the book. After years of tracking
various problems consumers experienced with their banks - predatory lending, sky-high
interest rates and dubious fees - Ms. Warren felt that, finally, she'd be able to
persuade the regulators to crack down.
Her host for the meeting was Julie L. Williams, then the acting comptroller of the
currency. In a conference room filled with economists and bank supervisors, Ms.
Warren presented her findings: Banks were tricking and cheating their consumers.
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the
conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
After the meeting ended and Ms. Williams was escorting her guest to the elevator, she
told Ms. Warren that she had made a "compelling case," Ms. Warren writes. When she
pushed Ms. Williams to have her agency do something about the dubious practices, the
regulator balked.
"No, we just can't do that," Ms. Williams said, according to the book. "The banks
wouldn't like it."
Ms. Warren was not invited back.
Ms. Williams left the agency in 2012 and is a managing director at
Promontory
, a
regulatory-compliance consulting firm specializing in the financial services
industry. When I asked about her conversation with Ms. Warren, she said she had a
different recollection.
"I told her I agreed with her concerns," Ms. Williams wrote in an email, "but when I
said, 'We just can't do that,' I explained that was because the Comptroller's office
did not have jurisdiction to adopt rules to ban the practice. I told her this was the
Federal Reserve Board's purview."
Interestingly, though, Ms. Warren's take on regulatory capture at the agency was
substantiated in a damning
report
on its supervision of Wells Fargo, published by a unit of the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency on Wednesday.
The report cited a raft of agency oversight breakdowns regarding Wells Fargo. Among
them was its failure to follow up on a slew of consumer and employee complaints
beginning in early 2010. There was no evidence, the report said, that agency
examiners "required the bank to provide an analysis of the risks and controls, or
investigated these issues further to identify the root cause and the appropriate
supervisory actions needed."
Neither did the agency document the bank's resolution of whistle-blower complaints,
the report said, or conduct in-depth reviews and tests of the bank's controls in this
area "at least from 2011 through 2014." (
The
agency recently removed
its top Wells Fargo examiner, Bradley Linskens, from his
job running a staff of 60 overseeing the bank.)
"Regulatory failure has been built into the system," Ms. Warren said in our
interview. "The regulators routinely hear from the banks. They hear from those who
have billions of dollars at stake. But they don't hear from the millions of people
across this country who will be deeply affected by the decisions they make."
This is why the
Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau
plays such a crucial role, she said. The agency allows
consumers to sound off about their financial experiences, and their complaints
provide a heat map for regulators to identify and pursue wrongdoing.
But this setup has also made the bureau a target for evisceration by bank-centric
politicians.
"There was a time when everything that went through Washington got measured by
whether it created more opportunities for the middle class," Ms. Warren said. "Now,
the people with money and power have figured out how to invest millions of dollars in
Washington and get rules that yield billions of dollars for themselves."
"Government," she added, "increasingly works for those at the top."
MOSCOW - The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its
state
oil company,
Rosneft , to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the
sovereign wealth fund of Qatar.
The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given
Western sanctions against the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.
But the emergence of foreign money suggests that investors are reassessing the sanctions after
the election of Donald J. Trump, who has advocated warming ties with authorities in Moscow and is
considering the chairman of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, as a candidate for secretary of state.
Mr. Tillerson criticized the sanctions as harmful for business after they halted an Exxon joint
venture with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Kara Sea, in
Russia 's sector of the Arctic Ocean.
The deal will bring Moscow $11.3 billion to help plug a widening budget deficit as Russia fights
two wars, in Syria and Ukraine, and has struggled to meet pension payments and public-sector payrolls.
The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year
deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly
traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic
sign for investor interest in Russia.
The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned
company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization.
The sanctions limit long-term lending and transfer of American technology for drilling offshore
and shale oil deposits.
The deal carries other risks as well. Both Glencore and the Qatari fund, the Qatar Investment
Authority, have extensive investments in emerging markets. The Qatar fund is also an investor in
Glencore.
The announced price valued Rosneft at $58 billion, slightly less than the company's stock market
value at the close of trading in Moscow on Wednesday, of just under $59 billion.
Both the market price of shares and the sale price for the 19.5 percent stake announced Wednesday
are a relative bargain, indicating the Russian government's eagerness to cut a deal to shore up its
finances.
Bretislav Stejskal
3 weeks ago Gerry Lamb you don't really know much now, do you. You are a little Alice in wonderland
when it comes to geopolitics. Russia never ever seeked war. If you knew enough about Russia, you'd
know this first. the entire western greed cannot accept the ownership of the subhuman Russians of
a vast and rich land. To the Anglo-Saxons all slavs will always be lesser people. It's in them. They
sponsored the fascism, comunism and pretty much every evil on this planet. Even Stalin did what he
did for all patriotic reasons, while the west does it all out of a simple and pure greed.
I am a true patriot. I'm America first all the way. But we've been giving Russia the
short end of the stick since the end of WWII. Harry Truman started it with nuclear
blackmail after we bombed Japan. Even though (yes it's true folks) the Soviets are the
ones who really took the guts out of the Nazi war machine. We would have won anyway, but
Russia accelerated the process in a huge way. They also invaded Japan forcing the
emperors hand after we dropped the second atom bomb. During the Cuban missle crisis we
really didn't have a leg to stand on in negotions. We had tactical nukes in Siberia
armed and ready long before Russia put missiles in Cuba. I'm not a sympathizer, Stalin
was an oppressor of human rights, and I feel communism is fundamentally flawed. But
Putin is right, we've tried to force our ideas on the rest of the world and alienated
most of it through out the process. Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, Cuba, and Iran during
the cold war.
"... A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military victory is also a top priority. ..."
The West retains it's out of touch Libyan policies when in Luca, Italy last week the G7
'warned and commanded' that the fractious warring Libyan parties 'must' work with the dying
UN appointed and recognised Government of National Accord (GNA), situated only in a small
naval base in Tripoli and its so called Presidency Council (PC). And further ordered
Libyans to work together to fix the economic crisis by recognising that the Central Bank of
Libya (CBL) need to only collaborate with the GNA/PC, so out of touch with the real issues
on the ground in Libya are the G7 Countries. Their language almost expressed in colonial
terms!
Other global interference in Libya continues. Most recently also the GNA and Presidency
Council (PC) leader Fayez Serraj was seeing the head, at his HQ in Stuttgart, of the United
Stated Africa Command (AFRICOM) General Thomas Waldhauser. I didn't know Stuttgart was in
Africa?
Other pronouncements of one kind or another backing the phantom GNA appear almost
weekly.
All a waste of time, as UN and EU efforts have proven these past years. As far as Serraj
is concerned he is unelected by Libyans but chosen by the foreigners. That's never going to
achieve forward progress for Libya's future.
The one year anniversary of the General National Accord (GNA) created by the UN and
headed by Serraj was on the 30th March just two weeks ago. But the GNA doesn't function. To
compound the GNA's inability to govern, an acute emergency has emerged in the last 7 days
revolving around further direct sales by Cyrenaica (East Libya) of oil bypassing Tripoli
and the West. If this issue remains unresolved the country may split into two or three
pieces. There is now tremendous in-fighting between National Oil Company (NOC) and a
variety of diverse interests. The West's reactions to these realities remain puzzling and
totally unrealistic to say the least.
A Libyan military solution to the civil war is fast becoming the only option however a
Mandela type Truth and Reconciliation Commission following straight after such military
victory is also a top priority.
These developments are part of a new dynamic that is entering the Libyan Civil War that
is another trend that may satisfy weary Libyans themselves. The re-entry of two of Gaddafis
children who are seeking a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to South Africa's,
in order to bring unity to the country. Specific Libyan tribes are starting to back the
Gaddafi clan a new and hopefully peaceful attempt at country unification may appear that
ousts the GNA and other Tripoli militias and extremists for good from the political scene.
This is becoming a realistic proposition.
It is to this point that national reconciliation must be addressed. South Africa's
process helped to unify the country after decades of apartheid.
The LNA's Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar is close to Elders of Warfalla tribe that give
him their support in the war against terrorism. Warfalla tribe is the biggest tribe in
Libya located in Bani Walid and Sirte area, the Warshfana tribe is second located to the
South West of Tripoli. Both tribes are from the west of Libya and both are against
extremists and very sympathetic to the Gaddafis. Importantly, the tribes believe that the
Gaddafis can reach an accommodation with Libyan parties to one another forgive crimes
committed before and after the revolt of 2011. Already, evidence can be seen of this trend:
In the past week, Libyan authorities have released some Gaddafi era nobles from prison. The
involvement of the former AQ-LIFG fighters to take credit for these releases is a vain
attempt to try to align themselves with Gaddifites which will never succeed.
While the limelight is on Saif, who still is believed to suffer from physical and mental
injuries sustained during his capture, his sister Aisha Gaddafi is fast becoming the most
important member of the family. She is generating a good deal of attention and she may well
be very influential in future. Aisha is a pragmatic and sensible Libyan with acute
political acumen and a sharp wit and intellect. She has a dynamic personality and is the
most well educated of the Colonel's siblings. There is an argument that she needs to return
to the political scene. Whether she wants to, no one knows due to her low profile so far.
However with Aisha's victory last week in the European Court of Justice against the UN
Security Council-sponsored sanctions this may very well be the first indicator. She has
also had her travel ban lifted. A major achievement. Together with her brother, when he
achieves 100 percent fitness, both Gaddafi's can begin to work together with all Libyans to
rescue the country from its dreadful plight as part of a team never a return to
dictatorship.
This tandem approach -Gaddafi siblings and the Tribes- is the possible solution to
Libya's civil war. Haftar recognizes the values of tribes and the Libyan Field Marshall is
now using all his might to solidify and unify all Libyans whilst continuing to fight
terrorists. As stated earlier, South Africa's dismantling of decades of apartheid serves as
the example, the model for Libya.
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up to help deal with
what awful things happened under apartheid, much worse than Gaddafi's crimes ever were. The
remnants of conflict during this post-apartheid period resulted in still some limited
violence and human rights abuses from all sides but no section of society escaped exposure
or punishment.
Libya is suffering under a system of constant outside international interference in a
Libyan decision about their own future. Self-reflection is an important part of
reconciliation and it is thought that if the Gaddafis assistance in such an effort will
help in a "cleansing" to build a new Libyan future, this would be a good thing. Of course,
Libya is not South Africa, and the issues completely different, yet it is the process of
reconciliation and forgiveness itself which has its primordial roots in today's modern
Libyan tribes.
Russia involvement with Egypt is essential. Also African countries must unite to help
Libya through this process, not US's AFRICOM, UN or even the EU. The only other country
that appears to be a true friend to Libya is the UAE who also have the advantage of being
anti-Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous sect that has influence in the West of Libya.
If body language is anything to go by, this picture (of Mohamed bin Zayed, the powerful
Crown Prince of the UAE with Haftar) taken last week in Abu Dhabi speaks volumes!
AFRICOM headquarters are in Stuttgart, because Gaddafi was adamantly against its
location on Africa's soil. One of the reasons for NATO's war against Libya and the
killing of Gaddafi.
If only we could get a similar update for Yemen, where only continued famine and bombing
seem on the agenda.
And Somalia is such a black hole that not even its despair and deaths reach the MSM or
social networks.
Only tangentially relevant to this post, but Libya is a good example of the power we
have allowed our politicians to confer to central banks.
Few will remember that whilst
the war in Libya was raging, somehow, some faction found it both relevant and a priority
to announce the creation of the central bank of Libya. This piece of news was reported
far and wide by the international press too.
i hope the libyans can rally round aisha gaddafi and put their country back together.
they need to keep the us/eu out of the country. sue for damages - at least, and bigtime
- in international court if they are unable to prosecute the war criminals themselves.
show the iraqis and the syrians and the afghans and the ukrainians and everyone else how
war criminals must be treated.
Libya deserves far more attention than it gets. The war is still going on there but
receives no attention because the deaths there are not politically useful anymore.
That's why after 2011 all the media coverage shifted to Syria. If the Israel/Nato
alliance had their way, Syria would now be in the same situation Libya is - a failed
state. This is what they mean when they refer to "bringing democracy" to the Middle
East.
Only Russia's intervention in August 2013 prevented that, which explains why they
decided to punish Russia by organising the "regime change" in Ukraine and spreading the
chaos to Russia's doorstep. Ukraine is now also a failed state with two different
governments embroiled in a civil war. Funny how that always seems to be the result of
the Israel/Nato alliance bringing "freedom and democracy" to countries - it's almost as
if that was their plan all along...
Perhaps Libya will be brought together again, the world can hope. Will that old saying:
"what goes around, comes around" ring true on this? Colonialism is alive still, but
there are those who just don't see the light. One fact is certain, the "war on terror"
birthing after 9-11, if anything, created the mother of all C-F's to date. One might get
the impression that the end game is to destroy the U.S./western ways?
We don't hear much of US (Hillary, Obama, etc) "successes" in Libya from the US MSM.
It's shameful that the UN tries to force govt from above (with outsiders) on these
people like the US does in places like Iraq. What happened to the other two govts in
Tripoli and Tobruk? I doubt any govt in the east will go along due to extremist
influences and greed to dominate oil in that area. I wish Gaddhafis all the luck and
success in fixing the wrong done to them and bringing this to the world. It's bad enough
the US and especially western media participation in the death, destruction, pain, and
suffering.
Re: the photo
Haftar had better hope Zayed's left hand does not contain a knife. The emirates and
saudis are not known to be trustworthy fans of others in the ME neighborhood who do not
conform.
AFRICOM is in Stuttgart because it was created out of the staff from US EUCOM (European
Command). At first, the staff sections did both areas of operations (Europe & Africa).
Once additional staff officers and NCOs were sent to EUCOM, AFRICOM was separated from
EUCOM, but stayed in Stuttgart. AFRICOM was moved to another base in Stuttgart, Kelly
Barracks. EUCOM is on Patch Barracks - a few miles away. The German government was quite
displeased at the addition of a major US headquarters in their country, but had little
power or courage to do anything except grumble. The US DoD wanted to put AFRICOM in
Africa, but there were no countries willing to accept it that were in any way safe for
families. When no options in Africa were viable, the US simply created the new
headquarters in Stuttgart.
I am a retired US Army officer that was assigned to US EUCOM from 2008-2009.
How to understand the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) and its love of lies.
The MCM
will report factual truths, but usually buried somewhere in a long article, bracketed by
the acceptable lies. Or, if the inconvenient truths do get an article of their own,
those facts are subsequently ignored by the MCM with the lies being repeated over and
over.
And, then, even the lies become the conventional wisdom.
Such as has happened with the lies about the August 2013 chemical attack in Syria.
The MCM did note that the proof was not there to accuse the Syrian government, BUT it
was buried and ignored and now, in 2017, it is accepted history that the Assad
government did attack their own supporters with sarin.
It's enough to make one never trust anything the MCM puts out.
Again b is mistakenly describing the attack on Libya as a civil war. A civil war is a
war between different factions of a country; the war against Libya was carried out al
most entirely external forces, by NATO and mercenaries. This constant reference to the
attack on Libya, and indeed the attack on Syria, as civil wars, is the language of
propaganda.
Massive bombing by NATO led to the death and wounding of at least many
tens of thousands of Libyans, and the destruction of much infrastructure, followed by
hell on earth via head choppers and mass murdering and raping mercenaries.
Libya in 2010 was leading the UN human development index for Africa, with a high
standard of living, high literacy rate, largely happy and healthy people, with free
education and health care, and generous financial presents for marriage and birth, and
wonderful development projects. Blacks were doing well there. When Gaddafi took over,
Libya was a colonized, wretchedly poor basket case.
Libya had built up large gold reserves on the basis of its high quality oil and was
attempting to implement a pan African alternative to the parasitic and criminal western
banking system and its debt enslavement of much of Africa.
Lurid lies were used to 'justify' a 'no fly zone' via the UNSC and this was then used
to commit the ultimate crime according to Nuremberg trials, a war of aggression, by NATO
and their useful mercenary monsters.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 19, 2017 11:24:58 AM |
14
What's interesting is the lack of interest in JASTA. I brought it up yesterday and there
was nothing but silence. Hmmmm. One would think it would be ripe for critical dissection
at this venue considering the revelatory implications that could possibly emanate from
it. Unless. That's it. I think it's the unless. I'll let you guess what the unless is.
Let me just say, it's what I've always known to be true.
Where do Trump & Sessions
stand on JASTA? If Trump truly is a patriot and believes his jingoistic "America First"
rhetoric, then he has to support the integrity of this legislation and direct his DOJ
and all the alphabet agencies to comply and let the chips fall where they may and act
accordingly to the facts. Or he can be a Saudi chump and continue to bomb Yemen and
Syria for the Saudi pricks.
Needless to say, this is getting hardly any coverage in the press. Gee, I wonder why?
But I expected different at this venue. Not really.
On March 29, 2016, the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism
organization filed a letter with the Department of Justice to request the DOJ
commence an immediate national security investigation into potential widespread
criminal violations of the Foreign Regisration Act ("FARA"), by foreign agents
retained to conduct what we view as an unprecedented foreign influence campaign on
behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The apparent goal of the massive Saudi-funded foreign agent offensive is to delude
Congress into passing unprincipled and unwarranted amendments to the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrrorism Act ("JASTA").
In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative
text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted
U.S. veterans nationwide through a campaign that deeply mischaracterizes JASTA, and
even more importantly has been conducted in ways that conceal the fact that the
influence and propaganda onslaught has been and continues to be orchestrated and
financed by the Saudi government and foreign agents working on its behalf. Read full
complaint here:
http://passjasta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FARA-COMPLAINT-20170329.pdf
i 2nd @5 jfls comments and hope they can move forward with the children of gaddaffi
in forming a gov't and coalition.
@7 mina.. i think you have the answer - yes.. every time the usa state dept mention
libya it is in the context of everyone working with the gna.. i guess that will give the
required structure for continued abuse from the west - bend over and take this..
Libya is hard to read. France, Russia, Egypt, and UAE are supposed to be supporting
Haftar. Then France issues a
statement
yesterday supporting Serraj and the GNA in the wake of Haftar's Libyan
National Army attack on Tamenhant air base in the south. Italian troops were reported to
be stationed at Tamenhant working with the pro-GNA militias there.
Fascinating article.
Inspiring in that the T&R process allows the Libyans to take their future into their own
hands - A fundemental right!
But that the Gadaffis might actually be the key to the future of Libya is a resoundingly
damning indictment of the West's actions!
It also occurs to me how very imbalanced is the media coverage of the ME conflicts.
Thanks, b, for providing the forum for such writing. And look forward to more articles,
Richard.
Looks like they got rid of ISIS for good, even if some of its former fighters are
probably still in the country. Good. Without major external assistance (as in 'massive
air strikes and special forces'), no side is strong enough to conquer the entire
country. This being obvious, there should be a good chance that they'll come to some
sort of national unity agreement.
Which is pretty much what I predicted in an article in early 2016.
Why would anyone even care about what the West thinks or wants? Clearly, it's a
troubled, fast-declining polity that is desperately trying to cling to the glory days
that are long gone, and will never return. It'll be getting weaker with every passing
year.
As soon as Trump becomes serious about tackling the US trade deficit, the globalization
will stop and then kick into ferocious reverse, as the whole thing is sustained solely
by the US' willingness to endure the unrelenting economic punishment for purely
ideological reasons. Globalization in its present form is devastating America's core,
and its patience is nearly exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing
out begins.
Once it's over, everything that globalization had birthed - the EU, the Singapores and
Dubais of the world, the Israel - the end of globalization will bring to an inevitable
denouement.
Libya will be taken over by a neighboring country that is becoming hideously
overpopulated and is in a dire need of additional living space and inexpensive energy.
Egypt simply has no other options, other than a national implosion.
@24 telescope, '... the whole thing is sustained solely by the US' willingness to endure
the unrelenting economic punishment for purely ideological reasons ...'
the whole
thing is sustained by the globalized 1%'s willingness to inflict unrelenting economic
punishment purely for their own economic 'well-being' ... 'profit', at any rate. they've
made a joke of money as 'a store of value' and - i agree - 'Globalization in its present
form is devastating America's (all the west's) core, and its patience is nearly
exhausted. Give it a year, or two at the most, then lashing out begins.'
as for egypt - overpopulated - taking over libya - 'underpopulated' ... they'll
certainly have to do that without russia's help ... think of the precedent that would
set vis-à-vis russia-china! or do you envision a takeover of russia by china as being in
the cards ... that china, too, simply has no other options, other than a national
implosion.
Libya has a central bank now and no longer exports as much oil to China as it once did.
The people no longer get free health care and education. Why does anyone believe that
the powers that be care much about anything else.
#27: they DO care a lot. you see the positive results of their military campaign, when
people have none of these. like in Egypt, KSA, Jordan and all the major allies.
As of
today, 40 mass graves have been discovered in Kassai (Congo Kinshasa=DRC) and 2 UN
inspectors sent to enquire there were killed ten days ago. But who cares?
In that article, it's funny to think of the NTC wanting to bring back foreign oil
workers after how they treated them especially the blacks from neighboring countries.
Foreigners like that couple who sold Libya cleaning products had to face al Qaeda so
they might not be eager to return. But that was 2011. The current status sounds mixed.
In one of the books I read, there was a Libyan plan with the Chinese (and Russians?) to
build a railway connecting Tripoli, Sirte, and Tobruk. But that ended with Gaddhafi
gone.
Those who blame the Syrian government for the allegedly chemical incident in Khan
Sheikhun are now pushing the analysis of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) to the front. But the results of the OPCW tests are inconsistent with the
observed technical and medical facts of the incident.
The OPCW Director General Ambassador Üzümcü, a Turk, yesterday
released
its first results of his organization:
The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were
analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that
the victims
were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also
analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these
analyses
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: "The results of these analyses from four OPCW
designated laboratories
indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance
.
That's "Sarin or Sarin- like substance" three times a row. Sarin is also mentioned in
the headline. Someone is pushing that meme hard.
But the OPCW did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred in Khan Sheikhun. It
suggested nothing about the incident itself. Instead it talked about bio-medical samples -
nothing more, nothing less.
A "Sarin like substances" could be a different chemical weapon than sarin - soman is
possible. But many general insecticides belong to the same chemical class as sarin and
soman. They are organophosphorus compounds. (Sarin was originally developed as
insecticide). All of such compounds could be a source of the exposure found by by the OPCW.
These chemicals tend to degrade within hours or days. A forensic analysis will not find the
original substance but only decomposition products of some organophosporus compound. That
is the reason why the OPCW result is not fixed on sarin but also mentions "sarin like
substances".
The question is now where those samples come from? And what is the chain of evidence
that connects the samples to the incident in question. The OPCW has not send an
investigation team to Khan Sheikhun. No samples were taken by its own inspectors. While
Russia and Syria have asked for OPCW inspections on the ground, Tahrir al-Sham, the renamed
al-Qaeda in Syria which controls the area, has not asked for inspectors. Without its
agreement any investigation mission is simply too dangerous. None of the OPCW inspectors
are interested in literally losing their heads to those terrorists.
Immediately after the incident bodies of dead and wounded were brought to Turkey where
they were taken into hospital. Al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda aligned personal must have transported
these. It is a three hour trip from Khan Sheikhun to the Turkish border. Unless we trust
the words of al-Qaeda operatives we can not be sure that the corpses delivered were indeed
from Khan Sheikhun.
The incident happened on April 4. An immediate OPCW statement on April 4
referred
to chlorine, not sarin or similar:
The OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of
the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of
the use of toxic chemicals,
reportedly chlorine
, for hostile purposes
in the Syrian Arab Republic".
The UN Security Council convened on April 6 to discuss the incident. The Turkish
newspaper Hurriyet
reported
:
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting
to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on
April 4,
stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas
.
Turkey's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear teams (KBRN) prepared an
initial report over the possible material of the alleged chemical attack, relying on the
symptoms of and tests conducted on the victims and their testimonies.
The report stated that the initial findings of the tests conducted on around 30
victims brought to Turkey for treatment
pointed to a chlorine gas attack
.
Thirty victims were immediately brought to Turkey after the incident. But the Turkish
doctors and CBRN specialist did not consider sarin, but chlorine gas -a much less potent
chemical- to be involved. (Chlorine is not designated a chemical weapon under the various
chemical warfare regulations. This fact is often obfuscated for pure propaganda reasons. )
The symptoms of chlorine ingestion and the effects of sarin exposure are quite different.
It is extremely unlikely that the emergency doctors and chemical weapon specialists have
misdiagnosed the issue when the patients arrived and were taken care of.
The 30
casualties arriving in Turkey were not the casualties of a sarin incident.
But the Turkish Health Ministry
told
a different story:
The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern
Syria this week was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a
statement on Thursday.
...
"According to the results of preliminary tests," the statement said, "patients were
exposed to chemical material (Sarin)."
...
The Turkish statement
did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified
in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the
telling symptoms
seen in the victims included "
lung edema
, increase in lung weight and
bleeding in lungs."
From the CDC Emergency Response Database:
At high exposure levels, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and accumulation of
fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema)
contribute to a sensation of
choking.
The CDC entry
for Sarin
mentions "fluid accumulation in the airways" as one symptom among many more conspicuous
ones. It does not mention an edema of the lungs.
Contradicting the first Turkish reports the Turkish Health Ministry claimed
"sarin" (in parenthesis?!). But the symptom it described as proof was not of sarin but of
chlorine exposure.
The Turkish Justice Minister also
made
a statement but that did not mention sarin at all
Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters that "Autopsies were carried out on
three of the bodies after they were brought from Idlib. The results of the autopsy
confirms that chemical weapons were used," quoted by state-run Anadolu news agency.
"This scientific investigation also confirms that Assad used chemical weapons,"
Bozdag added, without giving further details.
...
Bozdag said autopsies were conducted with the "participation" of officials from the
World Health Organization (WHO) in the southern province of Adana together with
officials from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
But WHO immediately countered Bozdag's claims
that it was involved
in the postmortem, saying the organisation did not conduct autopsies, adding: "It is not
our mandate."
...
[It] also stressed that no samples or swabs had been taken by WHO despite claims by the
Adana prosecutor that "examples" had been sent to the organisation and the OPCW.
The Justice Minister claimed that samples had been given to the WHO and OPCW from the
very first autopsies. But the WHO clearly denies that. I find no OPCW statement on this.
In 2013 a Turkish court, under Justice Minister Bozdag, set one suspected Ahrar al Sham
member
free
after he was caught with sarin precursors. The person was later sentenced in
absentia as he had fled back to Syria. Ahrar al Sham, while not in charge, has a presence
in Khan Sheikhun.
The neuroscientist and neuro-pharmacologist Denis O'Brien, a Ph.D. with a research and
teaching career in that field, analyzed the symtoms of the casualties that were depicted in
the various videos coming out of Khan Sheikhun. His diagnostics and chemical-biological
explanations are humorously titled
Top Ten Ways to Tell
When You're Being Spoofed by a False-Flag Sarin Attack
.
O'Brian notes the total absence of feces, urine, vomit and cyanosis (turning blue) in
the videos. Sarin exposure causes, according to
the CDC
database
"Nausea, vomiting (emesis), diarrhea, abdominal pain, and cramping." Sarin
effected patients would spontaneously shit, peed and vomited all over. But the casualties
in the videos, even the "dead" ones, have clean undies. The "clinic" in the videos has
clean floors. The patients show red skin color, not oxygen deprived blue. The patients in
the videos were not effected by sarin.
Medical personal and rescue workers in the videos (
example
)
and pictures also show none of the typical sarin symptoms. Sarin degrades relatively fast.
Half of the potency will be gone within five hours after release (depending on
environmental factors). But these rescue workers and medical personal were immediately
involved with the casualties. They do not wear any reasonable protection. They would have
been dead or at least effected if sarin would have been involved in any relevant
concentration.
The Turkish doctors and chemical weapon specialists who received the first patients
diagnosed chlorine exposure, not sarin. The first Turkish reports to the UN speak of
chlorine, not sarin. It is only the Turkish Health Minister who mentions sarin - in
parentheses, but then lists a symptom of severe chlorine exposure as one of sarin. Neither
the casualties nor the unprotected medical personal involved in the incident show any
effect of sarin exposure.
Fifteen days after the incident the OPCW say that samples it was given(!) "indicate
exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance".
Turkey has been the supply and support lifeline for Ahrar al Sham as well as for
al-Qaeda in Syria. The samples given to the OPCW were taken by Turkish personal in Turkey.
The current head of the OPCW is a Turkish citizen. It is in the interest of Turkey and its
terrorist clients in Syria to blame the Syrian government for chemical weapon use.
The medical and
technical evidence
is not consistent with a sarin attack by the Syrian government. All
of the videos and pictures of the incident were taken in al-Qaeda controlled territory. All
witnesses were under al-Qaeda control. How much of the incident was staged for videos (see
al-Qaeda doctor video linked above) or how many of the witnesses were told to lie is not
testable under current circumstance. The Syrian government insist that it has given up all
its chemical weapons. The Russian government also asserts that no chemical weapon attack
took place.
The OPCW analysis may well have found that samples it received indicated
organophosphorus exposure. But the chain of evidence for these samples is very dubious.
The observable facts of the incident on the ground
do not support
the conclusion that sarin
was present
in the Khan Sheikhun incident.
Note: Part of the above is based on the work and
tweets
of
Ali Ornek
Posted by b on April 20, 2017 at 03:26 PM |
Permalink
Nice report. Although facts didn't matter with the incubator babies, Benghazi black
mercenaries, WMD, ... it's good to set the record straight for those who are interested
in the truth. It also proves again and again that big party politicians and main stream
media are a bunch of whoring liars.
Oh I do believe the bodies will show sarin.. But they would be christian or alawite
bodies.. Just like the bodies shown in ghouta who were kidnapped victims of al queda.
Who is going to verify the bodies are actual people and who they say they are.. In many
decades of knowing multi racial couples I have never seen blonde white babies as shows
in al queda photos. No woman would be stupid enough to go live in such freedom loving
hell hole like idlib unlike kids who think screwing dozens of jihadis are actually fun.
The Swedish Doctors for Human Rights whose text and video were used at the UNSC
presentation on the topic report: "The response of Western media journalists have also
in occasions taken a bizarre, seemingly desperate character ... Le Figaro indulges in a
series of libellous statements ad-hominem against the messenger of the objective
research-conclusions they dislike," which is a sure sign the Doctors are correct,
http://theindicter.com/libellous-attack-by-mainstream-journalists-angered-by-swedhr-denounce-of-unethical-anti-syria-propaganda/
The Indicter
also published a witness account of the big refugee massacre
bombing, testifying that at least 4 Turkish ambulances were on-site prior to the
explosion, were filled with the children's bodies and took them away, probably for their
organs. Canthama at SyrPers observes: "There is a REAL RISK of children organ
trafficking, this has been a very common sad aspect of the war of aggression against the
Syrians, many children and adults (thousands) were kidnaped and had their organs removed
in Turkey and either for use inside Turkey or shipped to terrorist friendly UK, France,
Germany, US, KSA, Qatar and Israhell. The UN is well aware of this illegal trade and
crime, but as usual double standard is applied as if Syrians are no humans."
[sic]
Putin was right to publicly announce the "attack" to be a False Flag, and it looks
ever more likely the Turkish government played a role and is complicit in a number of
other Syria related crimes of the most vilest.
I wanted to post the Javad Zarif statement you posted at SyrPers because of
its strong condemnation of the Outlaw US Empire's alliance with terrorists, but it's not
yet listed at the Iranian Foreign Ministry's website. Perhaps you could post a link to
where you found it?
The white helmet actor that played the part of father of twins in the
bombing very quickly appeared for photo shoot with Erdogan. Also Bana the seven year old
tweeting from Aleppo, who miraculously escaped Aleppo and then appeared for photo shoot
with Erdogan.
It seems Turkey does play a very direct role, Erdogan personally, working directly with
AQ.
Not forgetting the direct links between Erdogan and the ISIS oil convoys.
the us election was hacked! => the russians are coming! => assad gasses his own people!
all have in common their shrill hysteria and faith-based appeal. they are diammetrically
opposed to reality. but the people who want us to believe this nonsense will not be
denied! the people who want us all to believe include all the western trans-national
corporate mainstream media and, of course, the minority neo-cons for whom they shill.
this shrill minority is bent on continuing their terrorism in syria, ukraine, libya
and elsewhere. the governments of the us/nato/eu and their gcc/il proxies comprise the
early 21st-century axis of evil. they will be defeated by the alliance of the rest of
the countries of the world free of their dominion as the 21st-century unfolds, but their
horrid reign of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit around the world, and in
ukraine and mena especially, will live on in infamy, just as has that of the third reich
and its axis.
thanks b, for articulating what the msm will not.. it doesn't serve there bosses agenda.
look, when someone is going for your jugular, it is a case of surviving however you
can.. the west is like a heroin addict looking for it's next fix. the fix is making war
openly, and if they can't do that - silently.. the msm is just a stooge for them at this
point..
as for the turk throwing this out - if he hasn't gotten a promotion from king erdogan
yet, i would be surprised.. what an embarrassment the turk establishment is at this
point.. that means they will be used more by the west and i do wonder what this means
for the turkey relationship with russia and iran at this point..
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the
site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.
It may take awhile, but Erdogan and the Turks will experience blowback in
a big way when the SAA and allies push the terrorists back over the border into Turkey.
Hard to fathom what Putin and Lavrov think about Erdogan at this point as little is
being written or said, other than the MoD's statement on the OPCW report covered by the
TASS link above and Putin's call regarding the election victory on the 18th about which
little was said,
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54330
And unfortunately, the remarks by
Russia's OPCW rep are fully posted at the Foreign Affairs Ministry's website, although
they will sometime,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2732765
re: the "Blonde" babies, it looks like peroxide...or perhaps super-strong chlorine. Too
orange/yellow to be real. Also the "father" isn't one of those light-eyed Syrians iykwim.
What really clinched it for me though was the video of the already-dead children,
showing no signs of chemical poisoning, lined up in a row to be filmed. As the cell
phone camera panned over them, the guy realizes one of their heads is lolled to the
side, not facing the camera. Instead of simply repositioning the head, he slaps it into
place, very roughly.
These dead are not mourned by the living who were there to document the event.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software
around the world, to preserve their spying access.
Frank Oak
3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots crimes
going viral
Nancy M
3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes
that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about
her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
John
3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards
in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.
Great interview, thanks RT. I knew most of the material in this interview for years now, but
it's good for it to get out whatever way possible. Hope you continue doing more such great interviews.
jake gittes 1 year ago
RT? Imagine the Russian equivalent? Golly, NSA out of control? Who knew? Who knew that
the NSA mandate *is to exceed their mandate" .
If you were in prison for the last 15 yrs you would know that NSA security in triplicate is
just doing what they've always been doing except that PRISM, restarted in 2007, is just updated
software.
Jim Jimmy 2 years ago
there is one main reason they collect all information and target everyone, even members of
congress and people like Angela merkel. If they have personal information on these powerful people
there comes the chance to blackmail them. "vote this way on this" "consent to this policy". It's
political leverage
"... By Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Visting Professor, Council for Social Development. Originally published at the New Economic Perspectives website ..."
"... why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy into economics and politics? ..."
"... gets interest from ..."
"... Economics should be transferred to the divinity school. Then it will be untouchable! ..."
Yves here. I'm using the original headline from INET even though "false
arrogance" seems like rhetorical overkill. After all, arrogance and hubris are
closely related phenomena (my online thesaurus list "arrogance" as the first
synonym for "hubris"). But in Greek tragedies, the victims of hubris were all
legitimately accomplished, yet let their successes go to their heads. Thus the
use of "false arrogance" presumably means that economists' high opinion of
themselves is not warranted.
By Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus,
Jawaharlal Nehru University and Visting Professor, Council for Social
Development. Originally published at the
New Economic Perspectives website
The problem of any branch of knowledge is to systematize a set of particular
observations in a more coherent form, called hypothesis or 'theory.' Two
problems must be resolved by those attempting to develop theory: (1) finding
agreement on what has been observed; (2) finding agreement on how to
systematize those observations.
In economics, there would be more agreement on the second point than on the
first. Many would agree that using the short-hand rules of mathematics is a
convenient way of systematizing and communicating knowledge - provided we have
agreement on the first problem, namely what observations are being
systematized. Social sciences face this problem in the absence of controlled
experiments in a changing, non-repetitive world. This problem may be more acute
for economics than for other branches of social science, because economists
like to believe that they are dealing with quantitative facts, and can use
standard statistical methods. However, what are quantitative facts in a
changing world? If one is dealing with questions of general interest that arise
in macroeconomics, one has to first agree on 'robust' so-called 'stylized'
facts based on observation: for example, we can agree that business cycles
occur; that total output grows as a long term trend; that unemployment and
financial crisis are recurring problems, and so on.
In the view of the economic world now dominant in major universities in the
United States - with its ripple effect around the world - is these are
transient states, aberrations from a perfectly functioning equilibrium system.
The function of theory, in this view, is to systematize the perfectly
functioning world as a deterministic system with the aid of mathematics. One
cannot but be reminded of the great French mathematician Laplace, who claimed
with chilling arrogance, two centuries after Newton, that one could completely
predict the future and the past on the basis of scientific laws of motion - if
only one knew completely the present state of all particles. When emperor
Napoleon asked how God fitted into this view, Laplace is said to have replied
that he did not need that particular hypothesis. Replace 'God' by
'uncertainty', and you are pretty close to knowing what mainstream
macro-economists in well-known universities are doing with their own variety of
temporal and inter-temporal optimization techniques, and their assumption of a
representative all knowing, all-seeing rational agent.
Some find this extreme and out-dated scientific determinism difficult to
stomach, but are afraid to move too far away, mostly for career reasons. They
change assumptions at the margin, but leave the main structure mostly
unchallenged. The tragedy of the vast, growing industry of 'scientific'
knowledge in economics is that students and young researchers are not exposed
to alternative views of how problems may be posed and tackled.
This exclusion of alternative views is not merely a question of vested
interest and the ideological view that we live in the best of all possible
worlds where optimum equilibria rule, except during transient moments. It
stems, also, from a misplaced notion of the aesthetics of good theory: Good
theory is assumed to be a closed axiomatic system. Its axioms can, at best, be
challenged empirically - e.g. testing the axiom of individual rationality by
setting up experimental devices - but such challenges hardly add up to any
workable alternative way of doing macro-economics.
There is however an alternative way, or, rather, there are alternative ways.
We must learn to accept that when undeniable facts stare us in the face and
shake up our political universe - e.g. growing unemployment is a problem, and
money and finance have roles beyond medium of payment in an uncertain world
shaken by financial crises - they are not transient problems; they are a part
of the system we are meant to study. It is no good saying my axiomatic system
does not have room for them. Instead, the alternative way is to take each
problem and devise the best ways in which we are able to handle them
analytically. Physicist Feynman (economist Dow (1995) made a similar
distinction) had made a distinction between the Greek way of doing mathematics
axiomatically, and the Babylonian way, which used separate known results
(theorems) without necessarily knowing the link among them. We must accept this
Babylonian approach to deal with macro-economic problems, without pretending
that it must follow from some grand axiom.
Awareness of history must enter economic theory by showing that concepts
such as cost, profit, wage, rent, and even commercial rationality have
anthropological dimensions specific to social systems. The humility to accept
that economic propositions cannot be universal would save us from
self-defeating arrogance.
I can't tell you how much I agree with the article.
For example, what CRITERIA are used that something is a "good" job. Before you
even start to debate the "facts" at least set up the criteria by which you will
evaluate them. It seems evident to me (pension, "good" – what is "good" health
care) but apparently, one of the "pre-eminent" economists, at least according
to another economist, thinks part time jobs are just as good as retail .
It works for me as an executive summary, but almost every paragraph would
probably require a similarly-sized essay to explain it. I agree with its
judgment that too many economists view the world as being governed by some
sort of universal economic law (or "laws"), when in reality those laws work
in very limited circumstances. Whether it's possible there could be such
laws some day, I don't have an opinion one way or another, and nothing in
this article sheds much light on that issue.
It's my experience that the overwhelming number of economists don't know
squat about employment/ unemployment, including why and employer hires and
why people look for and accept jobs. I assume this is because all of these
things are rare event in the personal lives of economists, who spend little
time looking for or between jobs. An economist is either employed, or he/she
is not an economist, and so once they gain experience with the above, they
are no longer in a position where they can speak about it among others still
in the field.
pension + black lung = good job? I mean if we're saying coal mining is a
"good job" now noone who can do better wants it though, that's what a
"good job" it is. Compensation matters but so do working conditions, and by
the way externalities matter, and "coal mining" as a good job certainly
doesn't account for that and the whole community being a cancer cluster etc.
As an economist, now semi retired (author, handyman, carer ), I can speak
of my own experiences.
I think one aspect of my degree course was a lack of normative studies
and not enough, 'well that is the mainstream theory, now this is what we
observe in practice' (and why eg control fraud, captured political
interests)
We were also mispoken to about how private banks create money, taxes fund
government spending and so on.
My choice to study economics was regretted years later, yet it gave me a
lift up career-wise.
It now seems sad that the profession has become mis-trusted and
denigrated. We don't all think alike.
When I studied economics, I realized how absurd a lot of it was so I
answered according to what the prof wanted to see.
However, I'm under the impression that my education in a Cdn
university was way less dogmatic than in the US.
Externalities were discussed, as was the dubious quality of GDP
growth. I had a book on the history of the Cdn financial system. It
explained very well how we went from gold standard to current system..
and how the leading countries used devaluations (France, UK, US) to their
advantage.
The problem with objective economists is that they realize that there
exists something called the law of unintended consequences. Once you
realize there are too many variables to control, you become a leaf in the
wind. And no one likes ambivalent people. They want leaders who KNOW the
answers. So leaders who appear to have answers are chosen.
Well said. I always appreciated having my undergraduate economic
theory class delivered by an active duty Marine Corp Major. A hardened
realist with a talent for illuminating theory.
No offense to Dean Baker, but what doesn't Krugman NOT get wrong? His
public disagreement with Real Economist, Steve Keen, would have been
hilarious had it not been so pathetic in demonstrating either what a sheer
idiot he is, or professional liar, whatever the case may be. (Krugman was
claiming that banks do not create credit as Krugman has no understanding of
that rather simple fractional reserve banking system. I once wrote to
Krugman to correct him on his supply-and-demand
theory
as to the
cause of that incredible spiking upwards of oil/energy costs around 2008,
even though the Baltic Exchange Index ad pretty much collapsed, with an
incredible number of oil tankers floating off the coasts of Singapore and
Malaysia, in an inactive state – – attempting to explain to him about
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, et al., speculating up the prices on ICE
via commodity futures speculation or wash sales, and he didn't get that
either!)
But this reminds me of a local (Seattle) witless talk show (KIRO radio
station: the John and Curley Show) where the two snarky hosts, as ignorant
as can be, go on and on about their love of globalization, scoffing at those
who don't understand that offshoring manufacturing (they ignored all the
other categories) jobs to China and elsewhere was most clever, and "freed up
America to manufacture high-end goods" - evidently ignorant of the fact as
to where most chip fabs are located, and that 70% to 100% of many auto parts
and aircraft parts are manufactured overseas, shipped back to America only
for assembling purposes.
That ultra-boondoggle, the F-35, is manufactured across 9 foreign
countries plus America - wonder why it's such a cluster screw-up, huh?
A further aside: I don't see all Greek tragedies as turning on hubris.
Where is the hubris, say, of Oedipus? He is the King, there is a plague, the
people call on him for help, he helps. And the plague is vanquished (mind
you, he and his family – the ones still living – are in a mess. But that –
Sophocles seems to be saying – is Life).
The important thing according to the Greek scholar Michael Scott is to
recognize that Greek theater and Greek democracy are joined at the hip.
The former educated the electorate in the difficult choices they would
have to make as managers of their own political existence. We have
political theater today but no-one considers it instruction in one's
civic duty.
"We" here can say it to each other, over and over, in different and
ever-better-documented ways, that almost all economics and the "findings" it
generates, and almost all economists and their credentials, are BS, MS, Ph.D
(bullish!t, more sh!t, piled higher and deeper). But how to reach a larger, and
large enough, set of people who actually have votes that count and can "call
bullsh!t" and demand and get an end to the "policies" that are built on and
gather "legitimacy" from the "findings" of all those faux 'economists?" Who
after all do have those (feedback-loop-granted) "credentials," and so many
sous-chefs to keep pumping out the mega-gallons of Bernays sauce to make the
sh!t sandwiches seem au courant, de rigeur, and somehow palatable?
Agreed, I think that's the issue. Debating whether or not economics is a
science plays right into the prevailing power structure. Rather, the
question is why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy
into economics and politics? There are lots of quantitative (and
qualitative) "facts" in the world about economics; it can be a scientific
discipline like any other. The important civic debate is the political part:
what values should guide our interpretation and implementation of those
economic understandings?
why do we accept the artificial devolution of political economy
into economics and politics?
This is the right question if we change "why to we accept" to "how is
it that we now have" – that is, if we ask an empirical, historical
question and not a metaphysical or psychological question. In an academic
sense, I would say the answer has to do with a long battle within
economics that was decisively won in the 50s or 60s by one "school" to
the extent that they could ostracize and ignore alternative "schools"
without much effective criticism, and an implicit "bargain" with
sociology and political science to craft an academic division of labor.
And then, inertia and serious pushback against any and all challengers.
In the non-academic world, the answer has to do with a certain
confluence of interest between neoclassical economics and existing social
and economic power.
"But how to reach a larger, and large enough, set of people who
actually have votes that count and can "call bullsh!t" and demand and get
an end to the "policies" that are built on and gather "legitimacy" from
the "findings" of all those faux 'economists?"
I think one method, to move in that direction, is to make a very small
number of very specific demands. Single payer healthcare, and a living wage.
We demand them!! Why don't we have them??!!
When the "economists" tie themselves up into illogical pretzels, trying
to "explain" why we can't have these nice things, they destroy their
credibility– to the point where their dogma is revealed as false and
inhuman. Then, we can shake off their dead hand and begin to build a new
society on more rational and humane principles.
I understand and share your frustration with a brand of economics
being used as a cudgel to tell us we cannot have nice things even as each
individual US state's GDP is the equivalent to that of (at least) a
medium EU nation which individually can afford far better health
insurance schemes than we do. It should be the economists' job to smooth
the way, to find ways so that we can have nice things not just leave it
at can't.
I disagree with washunate that to engage with economists who are
failing is a waste of time that plays into the hands of the prevailing
power structure. Neoliberal economists should be hearing from us that
they are not scientists no matter how much math they dress their pet
theories with. The greatest glory of a science is the predictive powers
of its foundational theories and in that regard neoliberal economics
fails spectacularly. It is not by any definition a science and they
should hear it as often as possible. Of course they know this in their
bones but their theories give their funders significant political cover
as they seek more undeserved goods for themselves. It is our job to
remind everyone who will hear that neoliberal theories are fiction not
science.
Why don't we have universal health care? Sadly, I think the answer is
quite simple – the elasticity of demand for health is infinite as the
alternative is death. Hence, Genentech can and does charge $20,000 for a
round of rituxan, which is very effective on non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Is it
worth it? Of course it is – lymphoma is deadly.
My point is that while the social benefit of universal health care is
high, so is the opportunity cost to the healthcare industry. And since
the industry is free to bribe politicians (sans a quid pro quo of course)
we are unlikely to ever get it. As discussed above, economics divorced
from politics is useless.
wow pretty awesome that Europe/Great Britain and Japan don't have
politicians . just teasing you, how though did those countries manage
to get around your problem is the question//
The British learned from the washout of the first world war that
the usual politicians could not be trusted to produce a country fit
for heroes as was promised, so they voted for socialism.
As for the Japanese, my memory is that the US set their health
system up! Dang!
The British polititician who lost out big time in that
election that brought the Labour Party's version of socialism
into power, was Winston Churchill – after the end of World War
Two.
It goes to show that you might need one kind of leader in
existential-wartime, and another for peacetime. However,
nowadays how do you know whether the there is an existential
struggle or not?
Yes, hubris was the tragic flaw. Treating it as a mere synonym for arrogance
is a fine example of why to avoid thesaurusi. A good dictionary with synonymies
is more reliable.
Speaking of hubris, there's a recently published book by a "professor of
national security" (good luck with that one!!!), Tom Nichols, titled:
The
Death of Expertise
, and it's a real hoot!
Not because the author got anything right, he got almost everything
completely wrong, and simply for that reason!
At one point in this garbage book by Nichols, he is repeating an exchange
between a political appointee whom he believes to be an "expert" and a grad
student concerning Reagan's spaced-based missile defense {SDI or Star Wars -
in this case I believe it was the space-based platform} of which much of it
turned out to be a hoax meant to mislead the Soviets – – and historically we
know the grad student was correct, and Jastrow, if I recall his name
correctly, was most incorrect – – but you would never know it from this
author! -- !
(If you observe any American space-based missile platforms, please be
sure to let me know!)
Besides acknowledging that economic theory is bound to time and society, it
would also be good to give some fresh thought to familiar economic concepts we
take as Bible-given.
Let's re-examine the ideas of interest [can we do without it], growth [can
we have a no-growth economy], and differential pay [need we pay a much higher
salary for "higher" work],
I would go on to look at profit [should there be profit in all economic
activities, such as health care, education, and others], oligopolies [is it
good to have very large corporations], and competition [should we promote
competition is all aspects of life].
Some of these have been questioned in these pages, such as the question of
oligopoly. I encourage raising more and continued questioning, as we've done
here.
It tends to draw fire when I mention it, but "Sharia or Islamic banking
and finance" is supposed to be done without any interest. And the system
(now under assault by Western interest-holders, by physical violence and
subversion of many types, and co-optation via corruption) kind of relies on
actual trust and risk-sharing. Here's some details for anyone "interested:"
http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx
Thank you for your first reference, JTMcPhee, from the Institute of
Islamic Banking. It makes a great deal of sense that lenders bear risk
along with borrowers when we are talking about financing
entrepreneurship. In this view, the lender has
an interest in
rather than
gets interest from
. [I very much suspect that the
former
meaning became detached from the
latter
very
early on in human history, which is why the latter was condemned as
'usury', a result itself of an imbalance of power leading to coercive
lending.]
I wonder, however, about 'consumer lending' where there is clearly no
entrepreneurial risk.
Do you have a useful reference about how this 'consumer lending'
occurs without 'interest' in the Islamic world?
In 1955, the economist Simon Kuznets thought he had found such a law of
motion, one that determined the path of income inequality in a growing economy.
The scant data that he could gather together seemed to suggest that, as a
nation's GDP grows, inequality first rises, then levels off, and ultimately
starts to fall. Despite Kuznets' explicit warnings that his work was 5%
empirical, 95% speculation and "some of it possibly tainted by wishful
thinking", his findings were soon touted as an economic law of motion,
immortalized as "the Kuznets Curve"– resembling an upside-down U on the page –
and has been taught to every economics student for the past half century.
As for the curve's message? When it comes to inequality, it has to get worse
before it can get better, and more growth will make it better. And so the
Kuznets Curve became a perfect justification for trickle-down economics and for
enduring austerity today in the pursuit of making everyone better off some day.
Forty years later, in the 1990s, economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger
thought they too had found an economic law of motion, this time about
pollution. And it appeared to follow the very same trajectory as Kuznets' curve
on inequality: first rising then falling as the economy grows. Despite the
familiar caveats that the data were incomplete, and available for local air and
water pollutants only, their findings were quickly labeled the "Environmental
Kuznets Curve". And the message? When it comes to pollution, it has to get
worse before it can get better and – guess what – more growth will make it
better. Like a well-trained child, growth will apparently clean up after
itself.
Except it doesn't.
===================================================================
More fuel to the fire
They both seem typical of the human search for knowledge, with or without
resorting to the Scientific Method.
Typical in that
1. we fail to recognize our knowledge is always partial and limited
1A. Sometimes with the added arrogance of saying we know it's partial and
limited
(Some can't afford that added arrogance, because they have been exposed
already, like, say, fortune tellers)
And yet
2. we use that knowledge as if it's complete and applicable everywhere.
The Greek concept of hubris was not merely arrogance, but involved an INJURY
to others. (I discuss this in J is for Junk Economics.) The main examples were
creditors and land monopolizers - and kings. Nemesis not only fight hubris, but
specifically supported the weak and poor who were the main injured parties. The
iconography is quite similar to Sumerian Nanshe of Lagash.
So the concept of hubris is linked to affluenza: irresponsibility of wealth,
injuring society at large.
My Lord! The best economist on the planet is commenting! Our Economist
God! (As someone here aptly characterized you a few weeks ago when Yves ran
your discussion of Jubilees.)
I'll come right out with it, I'm a Michael Hudson super fan/groupie and
after Yves published one of your articles, which of course, I had already
read being a big fan/internet tube tracker, I suggested we concerned
citizens, get a Michael Hudson fan club going and somehow convince you to
take your stellar, economics distilling/demystifying self on the road along
with other exemplary economists and some musicians and comedians. Like that
stadium event you did in Europe or that Irish Econ Conference, but this
would be for the education of the vast citizenry, hence the addition of a
bit of music/comedy to entice. A touring TED/Coachella or South by Southwest
but for the Economic Edification of the 99%. (You wouldn't neccessarily have
to deliver all of your addresses in person. Some could be taped.)
You would be bigger than Bernie if the millenials became familiar with your
work, but more importantly, you and other like minded economists, could arm
people with the deeper understanding that is essential to overturning the
prevailing paradigm.
Thank You For Your Works!
Hope
ps I looked into getting Economic Rock Star as a website but it is taken.
Yes, 'injury' as in
injustice -- Of course that may entail
physical damage, but the recent tendency to reduce 'injury' to that narrow
sense alone misses most of the point.
Thanks for the connection to 'hubris', concerning which I was Classically
clueless until a few minutes ago. If hubris corresponds to injury in the
proper sense, perhaps 'arrogance' should be paired with 'insult', i.e. the
gratuitous gloating (= self-aggrandizement of the unjust) and gleeful
blaming of the injured that at least in living memory seems almost always to
be packaged with the injustice?
None of these practices is new, although their use has expanded over the
years. What does seem to be new, as Bettina Boxall of the Los Angeles Times
reported this week, is that some California farmers are now experimenting with
flooding fields that have grapevines and almond trees growing on them. And in
general, people in California are paying a lot more attention to groundwater
than they used to.
In 2014, the California Legislature approved a package of
groundwater-management laws - long after most other Western states had done so
- that are now slowwwwwly beginning to take effect. Local
groundwater-management agencies are being formed that will have to come up with
plans to reach groundwater sustainability within 20 years.
========================================================
You can look at this optimistically or pessimistically. With the population
growing year, after year, after year, it doesn't take high intelligence that
water demand will exceed water supply. And yet CA government choose to deal
with this freight train coming down the tracks in ..2014.
> With the population growing year, after year, after year, it doesn't
take high intelligence that water demand will exceed water supply.
Supply is not fixed. A lot of the current "supply" (rainfall) isn't being
retained, stored, or used intelligently. So there's still quite a bit of
room for population growth, particularly in the northern, wetter parts of
the state. Even without artificial restrictions on usage.
On the other had, I agree with the point that humanity should not have as
its primary goal the maximization of population on a single finite sphere.
And thus economics should not have as its primary goal the maximization of
"growth".
"The problem of any branch of knowledge is to systematize a set of
particular observations in a more coherent form, called hypothesis or 'theory.'
Two problems must be resolved by those attempting to develop theory: (1)
finding agreement on what has been observed; (2) finding agreement on how to
systematize those observations."
How will modern economists agree to agree on anything real now that
post-modernist thought and critique has entered the economics field?
"But Foucault had belatedly spotted that post-modernism and "neo-liberal"
free-market economics, which had developed entirely independently of each other
over the previous half-century, pointed in much the same direction. "
http://www.economist.com/node/8401159
adding: The economists who use a post-modernist approach( all is
uncertain and events are transient and therefore immaterial to the core
theory) to defend a scientific determinist* core theory are engaging in
double-think. I'm not an economist so maybe there's a
there
there I
cannot see.
*
"Popper insisted that the term "scientific" can only be applied to
statements that are falsifiable. Popper's book The Open Universe: An
Argument For Indeterminism defines scientific determinism as the claim that
any event can be rationally predicted, with any desired degree of
precision, if we are given a sufficiently precise description of past
events, together with all the laws of nature, a notion that Popper asserted
was both falsifiable and adequately falsified by modern scientific
knowledge.
"In his book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking claims that predictability
is required for 'scientific determinism' (start of chapter 4). He defines
'scientific determinism"" as meaning: 'something that will happen in the
future can be predicted.' "
By measures that register actual human engagement – rather than fake
accounts and bot activity - Facebook does not seem to be growing at all. In
2016, its users generated about 25 percent less original content than in 2015.
The time users spend on Facebook dropped from 24 hours in mid-2015 to 18.9
hours in February, Comscore reported.
========================================
One can only hope.
I am only on Facebook because a friend and co-worker signed me up (without my
knowledge or consent, but I think most people looked upon it like getting a
greeting card) back in the day when the Facebook fad was at its peak. And I was
interested in it as a social and economic phenomenon.
My own anecdotal experience is that the most ardent users (multi daily
postings) have declined by 95%. The occasional 2 or 3 times weekly posters are
down to once monthly, and so on.
And the response to postings seems to have had even greater declines. Even good
friends who I used to TRY and keep up with postings, I scarcely ever bother now
– and when I do open one, people who used to get near 100 "looks" have 2 or 3 –
maybe once in a while for something real (somebody died, instead this is a
picture of a meal I eated) , maybe 5.
Woolworths used to be a juggernaut – so was Sears. Who remembers "My Space"
???
I saw too many people turning into Trump Fraidy Cats before the election
("Vote for Hillary because Trump! He's so awful!") or Vote Shamers ("You're
voting third party? Shame on you!").
After the election, Facebook seemed like a psych ward. Too many sobbing,
crying, and raving loons for my taste.
Cutting back on Facebook is part of my larger goal of spending less time
on social media and more time in social reality.
Bravo, another critical issue absent from MSM or even worse purposefully
being confused.
It would help a lot if people take time to understand the money in itself
that permeates every aspect of life since it is a central feature of any
financial system under any economic system ancient or contemporary.
Here is an simple essay that explains without financial jargon what money is
in itself as a social construct and whom in reality it serves:
Economics isn't economical, it is political-economics. Politics first,
economics second. Politics is the art, not the science, of sharing out the
wealth, power and fame in a society in an organized way. If your politics is
corrupt, then your economics will be corrupt also.
Blame Pythagoras. From Pythagoras and Croesus, we got the idea that value
was a number, and that everything had a value, and that a market (aka city
state) is where the hidden hand determined the relationship between prices,
goods and services. The actual "cost" per capita, of running a subsistence
agrarian society hasn't changed since the days of Babylon. We simply have
more technical bookkeeping (and accounting). A shekel was the weight of 180
grains of dried barley seed. The Babylonians didn't have a primitive society
they had monarchy, theocracy, militarism and receipts. A thing might be
valued in so many shekels of silver, but the receipt accomplished what a
coin would have, because it was honored. Clay money instead of paper money.
You got your receipt for your socialist food dole, went to the temple
granary to pick it up (this was long before Rome), visited the temple
prostitutes (way better than Roman games), then went home. And as has been
pointed out, this was a clay fiat and honesty was just as vanishing then
as now. And yes, it was a debt system, not a credit system. The US and the
world has moved from a credit system to a debt system in the last 100 years.
The Great Whore, Babylon is still awaiting her destiny.
"Daniel reads the words MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN and interprets them for
the king: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to
an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed and found wanting; and PERES, the
kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."
Having once held a 1776 edition of Wealth of Nations in my hand I recall
Smith was a Moral Philosopher and that Economics was a branch of Moral
Philosophy choosing between Goods and Bads and seeing Utility Functions as
Demand Curves.
Then I recall Keynes, the Mathematician, writing beautiful prose in The
General Theory. Somewhere the Reduced Form Equation boys started to play with
Stochastic Variables to make the R2 fit Deterministic equations replaced Moral
choices and an obsession with Beta proceeded to ignore Alpha.
Economics is something of an academic joke. Steve Keen has introduced some
life into a dead subject with his Hyman MInsky analysis since so much of
Economic Theory as propounded is simply a Java Box running inside the main
system
We must learn to accept that when undeniable facts stare us in the face
and shake up our political universe - e.g.
growing unemployment is a
problem
, and money and finance have roles beyond medium of payment in an
uncertain world shaken by financial crises - they are not transient
problems; they are a part of the system we are meant to study.
I think studying some of these things might be better left to psychologists.
I emphasized the phrase about unemployment as a case in point – it could be
argued that we have the unemployment we have right now thanks to telling
ourselves, collectively, that we can't employ people. Anyone who chooses to
look around and observe can find things we could be paying people to do, like
fixing our streets and bridges, educating our young, exploring space and
advancing science, providing medical care to the significant portion of our
population who don't have access, but we are told that this would be bad for
some reason, and many of us seem to believe this.
I don't know if that confirms the author's ideas or not, but as several of
us have observed now in these comments, our economic problems have less to do
with the dismal science (or lack of it) and more to do with what people are
inclined to believe is true, regardless of the facts.
Actually, economics is more like a branch of medieval scholasticism. It's
about forcing reality to fit dogma by imposing methodological and
epistemological gag rules on its practitioners so that they're blinded to
substance by form - and the non-expert public is bamboozled into mute
acquiescence. Econned, as Yves would say.
Yes, I'm baffled that we hear all this about oh jobs are going away becuz
robots and maybe UBI and on and on when there are SO MANY UNFILLED JOBS staring
us in the face where filling them would be of enormous benefit to all. Are they
looking around at ALL?
As you can see, I'm baffled, too. UBI might be a good idea, and various
forms of technology have certainly eliminated jobs over the years, but when
so much work remains to be done, I don't see how you can argue that we've
reached an age where most of us are truly unemployable.
FTM, what is employment? Put most simply, it is one person or entity who
has money paying someone to perform some task(s), possibly to a minimum
acceptable quality. There are many forms of work we do that no one wants to
pay us to do. My work at an amateur theatre falls into that category, as
does the work of the people in the food bank/soup kitchen next door. Maybe
our concept of what constitutes useful work needs to change, too.
The place to start paying decent wages is for all kinds of
housework, daycare and elder care. All are undervalued and underpaid
while that latter two are essential for a healthy community. None of
these should be consigned to robots as only human contact can do the
job well.
But the irony of basic income is that's one of the things it
does. A huge portion of "housework, daycare, and elder care" is
better done
informally
, outside of the GDP-measured formal
economy of employers and jobs and wages and benefits, especially
given how crappy the formal jobs tend to be in those sectors.
Income supports that lack formal work requirements by definition
create more time for people to do things in the informal economy.
But wouldn't it be better to pay parents and caregivers for
caring? First of all, it's work and deserves to be remunerated
like work. Second, keeping care work in the informal economy
only "works" if people have other income with which to satisfy
their needs and wants. There is no possibility that any basic
income grant will provide a single parent with the funds to
allow them to work taking care of their children, which is the
socially optimal situation in almost all cases.
pretty funny. that's been standard econ cirricuulum at the University of
Magonia for, oh, let's see, 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Nine! Nine years!
Pretty funny. Is this still April 1st? I guess not. Oh well, a day late, a
dollar short (no pun intended) is better than a year late and a grand short, or
a century late and a million short. There's a pattern there! it goes back to
the Testament of Amram, Manuscript B. The Dead Sea Scrolls. That's what we
teach in econo 101 during the "money" unit. Money, at the Universtiy of Magonia,
is an idea that mediates the boundary wtihin a society between cooperation and
conflict.. That's not a theory, it's a reality. Everybody has heard this before
in the peanut gallery so I won't reapeat myself.
They should send a delegation from Harvard to the Universtiy of Magonia for
a seminar in money and economics. hahahaha. That's pretty funny even to think
about. Believe me. They'd learn a few things but they might get ontological
shock and end up like MIT mathematical economist Ed Bucks who spent two months
in the New Hampshire woods looking at deer through binoculars in search of a
theory of economics that could survive a collision with nature AND be
deterministic and mathematically rigorous. He pretty much had a nervous
breakdown and ended up back at MIT sucking up grant money like a baby at his
mamas tits. Many are called, but few are chosen. LOL
"... By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at Wolf Street ..."
"... By Don Quijones . ..."
"... When it comes to debt, everything is relative, especially if you don't have a reserve-currency-denominated printing press. Read Is Mexico Facing "Liquidity Problems?" ..."
"... Greenspan's Fraud ..."
"... It would also stop phony war on drugs in Mexico ..."
"... To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between 2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by 46%. ..."
"... [u]nlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars and euros to bail out bond holders or inflate away the debt. ..."
"... Therefore shouldn't the question be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the relative amount in pesos? ..."
"... To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. ..."
Mexico's Economy Is Being Plundered Dry Posted on
April 20, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here. Most Americans know on some level that Mexico has become an economic and
political disaster, save for those at the very top of the food chain. This post gives vignettes that
bring home how much of a failed state it has become. And needless to say, the US had no small role
in that outcome.
By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at Wolf Street. Originally published at
Wolf Street
The government of Mexico has a new problem on its hands: what to do with the burgeoning ranks
of state governors, current or former, that are facing prosecution for fraud or corruption. It's
a particularly sensitive problem given that most of the suspects belong to the governing political
party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled Mexico uninterruptedly from 1929
to 2000. It returned to power in December 2012 with the election of Enrique Peña Nieto. And it clearly
hasn't changed its ways.
Some of the accused governors were so compromised they went on the run. In the last few weeks,
two of them, Tomás Yarrington, former state governor of Tamaulipas, and Javier Duarte, former governor
of Veracruz, were tracked down. Yarrington, accused of laundering proceeds from drug trafficking
as well as helping Mexico's Gulf Cartel export "large quantities" of cocaine to the United States,
was ensnared by Italian Police in the Tuscan city of Florence. He faces possible extradition
to the United States.
Yarrington's successor as governor of Tamaulipas, Eugenio Hernández, a fellow PRI member who is
also accused of close ties with narcotraficantes and money laundering,
has not been seen in public since last June .
As for Duarte, he was caught this week by police in Guatemala. Like Yarrington, he wasn't exactly
laying low. Among the accusations he faces is that of
buying fake chemotherapy
drugs , which were then unknowingly administered by state-run hospitals to children suffering
from cancer. He and his cohorts purportedly pocketed the difference. He is also alleged to have set
up 34 shell companies with the intention of diverting 35 billion pesos (roughly $2 billion) of public
funds into his and his friends' deep pockets.
In just about any jurisdiction on earth, $2 billion is a substantial amount of money, even by
today's inflated standards. But in Mexico, where neither the super rich (accounting for a very large
chunk of the country's wealth) nor the super poor (accounting for roughly half of the population)
pay direct taxes of any kind, it's a veritable fortune.
And when the country's public debt is already growing at an unprecedented pace, rampant corruption
becomes a serious problem.
In the year 2000, Mexico had a perfectly manageable debt load of roughly 20% of GDP. Today, it
is almost two and a half times that size. Last year alone the Mexican state
issued a grand total of $20.31 billion in new debt, the largest amount since 1995, the year immediately
after the Tequila Crisis when the country received an international bailout to rescue its entire
banking system from collapse and to
make whole the Wall Street investment banks that had gone all in on Mexican assets.
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between
2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by 46%.
Unlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars and euros to bail out
bond holders or inflate away the debt. This debt must be serviced the hard way.
In recent years, Mexico's public debt has mushroomed in order to make up for lackluster growth,
a weakening peso, much lower global oil prices, and the dwindling contribution to government coffers
of the country's erstwhile sugar daddy, Pemex. The state-owned oil giant has itself been systematically
plundered dry by its burgeoning ranks of senior managers and administrators, the untouchable,
unsackable leaders of the oil workers' union, all closely aligned to PRI, and legions of Pemex contractors.
Between 2008 and 2016 Pemex's contribution to the government's tax revenues shrank from 40% to
13%. During roughly the same period (2009-2016) its debt grew
187% , to nearly
$100 billion. Its pension liabilities amount to $1.2 billion. The losses and debt keep growing in
tandem, while its production and reserves are shrinking. The company was already
bailed out once last year.
The more Pemex's financial health declines, the larger the shortfall in public finances and the
faster Mexico's public debt will grow.
The really twisted part? The more the debt grows, the more opportunities the country's corrupt
politicians will get to feather their nests. It's not like there's much deterrent. In recent years
only 17 of 42 serving or former governors suspected of corruption have been investigated, according
to a study by María Amparo Casar, executive president of the advocacy group Mexicans Against Corruption
and Impunity. Before the latest rash of detentions, only three of them ended up in prison.
"The decades of impunity have generated a level of shamelessness we've never seen before in Mexico,"
Max Kaiser, anti-corruption director for the Mexican Institute of Competitiveness (IMCO), told the
New York Times . The excesses are more public than ever and have brought Mexicans to the verge
of bankruptcy.
Mexico's debt continues to grow at a much faster pace than its economy, whose growth is forecast
to slow this year to 1.5%, compared to last year's 2.4%. In February Mexico's top auditor, the Federal
Audit Office (ASF), warned
that Mexico's debt situation was just a step away from becoming unsustainable. A number of states
are
already facing bankruptcy , including Duarte's Veracruz.
Last August, Standard & Poor's lowered the outlook for Mexico's sovereign bonds from stable to
negative and saw "an at least one-in-three possibility of a downgrade over the next 24 months." Mexico's
foreign currency sovereign credit rating, which is what matters with bonds denominated in a foreign
currency, at BBB+, is just three notches above junk. A downgrade would raise the cost of borrowing,
pushing Mexico's finances even closer to the brink. In the meantime, the plunder must go on.
By Don Quijones .
When it comes to debt, everything is relative, especially if you don't have a reserve-currency-denominated
printing press. Read
Is Mexico Facing "Liquidity Problems?"
And needless to say, the US had no small role in that outcome.
Can you elaborate on this? What responsibility do average US citizens bear for Mexico's crisis?
Given the massive wealth transfer upwards in the last decade do we not have the same corruption
issues in the US, regardless of it being under cover of law?
Maybe the stuff in this article has something to do with explaining the role "our" government
and corruptorations have had and continue to have in catalyzing an dexporting and importing immiseration
in Mexico and here "at home" too? "The Political Economy of Mexico's Drug War,"
http://isreview.org/issue/90/political-economy-mexicos-drug-war
I don't know if this is what was meant by that comment or not but, at the very least, it is
the US' appetite for drugs that has allowed the cartels to flourish into practically nation states
unto themselves.
The problem with either is that a) The Mexican drug cartels are moving toward producing more
lethal, cheaper drugs in massive quantities as the profits from selling marijuana dry up, and
b) there needs to be, in the USA, a much more rigorous process regulating (as opposed to banning)
controlled substances and of assisting addicts towards recovery. We've made periodic moves in
this direction, but none have had staying power and that needs to change.
@Loblolly: The U.S.'s role south of its borders has been predation and looting for centuries
now. I've read that between 1798 and 1994 the U.S. was responsible for 41 changes of government
south of its borders.
When the Haitians, one of the two poorest nations in the hemisphere, had the temerity to elect
Jean Bertrand Aristide, the candidate of the poor, the Clintons sent troops, and Bush 43 kidnapped
him and took him to Central Africa.
The Reagan administration famously sold arms to Iran right after it had kidnapped U.S. embassy
staff to fund a proxy war against the other poorest nation in the hemisphere, Nicaragua. Reagan
asked the Mexican president to endorse his line that Nicaragua was a threat to the U.S. The Mexican
president replied he would be happy to do that if there was any way he could say such a thing
without being laughed out of office.
More recently, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton blessed the Honduran coup, installing
a military junta to replace the democratically-elected government–a government which had the temerity
to try to raise Honduras' minimum wage from 60¢ an hour. (The nerve of those people!). Meanwhile,
30,000 unaccompanied minors made their way to Gringolandia to avoid Honduran chaos. (I heard from
WaPo's Ruben Navarette, deploring the treatment of these kids, but he uttered not a peep about
what made them choose exile over their homes.)
For Mexico's current corruption and sad-and-sorry economy, we can at least take credit for
NAFTA. Actually their president, Carlos Salinas Gotari, drank enough of the neoliberal koolaid
with his Harvard education to propose "free trade" to Bush 41 whose administration authored the
actual legislation. Clinton signed the treaty with environmental and labor provisions that just
aren't enforced.
To demonstrate what a great idea was NAFTA, almost immediately the U.S. had to come up with
a $20 billion loan to deal with the capital flight it permitted–and not incidentally to bail out
U.S. banks that bet wrong on Mexico, and to rehearse the U.S. bank bailouts for any later financial
scandal.
One might guess that shipping a bunch of subsidized Iowa corn south of the border would put
some subsistence corn farmers in Mexico out of business and it did. Sure, corn is only arguably
the most important food crop in the world, and those little farmers were keeping the diversity
of the corn genome alive, but hey! They weren't making any money for Monsanto!
In the wake of NAFTA, Mexican real incomes declined 34% (says Ravi Batra in his Greenspan's
Fraud )–really saying something in a country where half the population gets by on less than
$4 a day. One has to return to the halcyon days of the Great Depression to find a decline like
that in the U.S. economy.
Of course that U.S. decline provoked no great migration oh wait! The Okies! The only more recent
comparable economic decline (besides the Greeks) that I can think of is when Cuba lost its oil
and subsidies from the Soviets in the early '90s. In the U.S., Michael Pollan reports we get one
calorie of food by burning 10 calories of petroleum. Without that Russian oil, I've read that
the average Cuban lost 20 lbs.
So the constant attacks, political, economic and military, from the U.S. have had an effect.
All those "illegal aliens" (no, not Martians with unpaid traffic tickets actually: "undocumented
workers") came north for a reason. Ask one if he'd rather be back home, and you'll seldom hear
them say "no."
We read daily in nakedcapitalism how we're sowing the wind, but we're surely going to reap
the whirlwind for the way the U.S. has treated its southern neighbors.
It's widely known that NAFTA allowed US agriculture companies that are heavily subsidized by
the government to dump their cheap corn in Mexico putting farmers there off their land and out
of business. And yet people still wonder why so many are immigrating to the US.
Also, I'd keep an eye on that governor who is facing extradition to the US for facilitating
the export of "large quantities" of cocaine. Speculation to be sure, but something tells me you
don't do that without the knowledge and possible assistance of Uncle Sugar.
I'd say ask Gary Webb, but he's dead of course after exposing a similar scandal back in the
90s.
NAFTA is directly responsible for increased cartel power. Besides corn dumping disrupting Mexico's
rural economy and legitimate income, it generated the "maquiladora's" or Mexican factories along
the US border for assembling tariff free imported materials for export.
The large population increase the factories attracted had no increase in public infrastructure
like schools, housing etc and youth gangs proliferated. The cartels then began using the gangs
as enforcers for smuggling routes and distribution into the US and many associated criminal tasks.
A cascade of events ..
Between 2008 and 2016 Pemex's contribution to the government's tax revenues shrank from
40% to 13%.
A radio journalist friend in Guadalajara has been expecting and writing about this scenario
for at least a dozen years. Mexico is a petro-state, but production is declining in its big oilfields
and isn't being replaced. He visited South America to check out alternate bolt holes, on the theory
that when the oil runs out, it's gonna turn ugly in Mexico.
So far his worries proved to be early. We don't have enough data points, but it's worth noting
that Mexico's 1982 debt crisis occurred after a spike in US interest rates, a US recession and
an oil patch meltdown in 1981.
Similarly, the US Fed started hiking interest rates in early 1994, while the price of oil had
been sliding toward $15/bbl ever since the late 1990 spike to $40/bbl in anticipation of the Gulf
war. Here's a long term chart of crude oil:
Now J-Yel and her sidekick Stanley Mellon Fischer are once again "normalizing" interest rates,
in a process they imagine to be smooth sailing. One should doubt this proposition. Among other
things, recent extreme peso devaluation makes Mexico's dollar-denominated debt more onerous to
service.
By next year, the question on everyone's lips in Vichy DC may be " Who lost Mexico?
"
IIRC, Cantarell, the supergiant Mexican offshore field, peaked quite awhile ago. Maybe some
new discoveries have made up for some of the decline, but I hadn't heard much about that.
If US establishment would go after murderous Mexican oligarchy's Wall Street interests and
support democratic movements in Mexico based of egalitarian principles, return of land to the
people and establish social justice, we would have to build a wall to keep Mexicans in the US
not the other way around.
It would also stop phony war on drugs in Mexico, a war that is nothing but a modern form, a
sad reincarnation of popular insurrection against Mexican aristocracy happens to be at this time
funded by drug trade, as a proud Mexican tradition of noble outlaws, a country founded on "Bandits"
myth as national heroes bringers of independence from Spain.
If the US removed big Imperial foot of the throats of billions of peoples all over the world,
and that includes Mexico nobody would want to go to America enjoying living in their own countries
as everybody wants.
World immigration is an artifact of exploitative globalism and wars. Nothing natural or normal
or desired is in emigration of people. Tourism yes but emigration is a sociopolitical tools of
global oligarchy combined with chaos and violence.
If US let, as it were before in history (revolution of 1910-1930-ties, before PRI was corrupted
to the bone) for political left to takeover the Mexican government then fate of Mexican people
would have changed significantly for better.
The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be
mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This
official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.
Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological
boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts
their narrative.
Or to use your language, it's to keep in place the foot of US authority on its own people.
The damage to Mexico in the war on drugs is collateral damage – a necessary cost of keeping people
in the US disciplined. Nothing personal just bidness.
This article focuses on the oil, but where does Carlos Slim figure into this? I find it endlessly
fascinating that one of the world's richest people hails from one of its poorest countries.
Point taken, but it should be noted that in terms of per capita GDP (PPP), Mexico is 68th out
of 186 in the world, meaning it is not really one of the world's poorest countries. That said,
there is rampant poverty in Mexico that makes Slim's hoarding all the more despicable.
Per capita GDP is just an average. Median income is what you should be considering
here. There are a handful of Carlos Slims down there that bust the curve for everyone else. Oh,
by the way, did I mention that Señor Slim now owns the New York Times?
Far be it from me to defend the Peña Nieto administration, but I'm not sure from where Quijones
gets this:
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies. Between
2015 and 2016 alone, the total amount of euro and dollar-denominated debt it issued rose by
46%.
The
figures I have from the Bank of México show the country ended 2015 with a gross external debt
of USD $417bn, while it ended 2016 at USD $412 bn: ie not a 46% increase but rather the first
decrease in Mexico's external debt since 2009.
What I do see is that the total external debt (in dollars) decreased but the peso lost 18%
to the USD in 2016. Since GDP only grew 7% last year, Mexico's external debt as a percentage of
GDP (denominated in pesos) would have grown by around 40%. But this goes against Quijones' correct
point that " [u]nlike debt issued in pesos, Mexico's central bank cannot just print dollars
and euros to bail out bond holders or inflate away the debt. ". Therefore shouldn't the question
be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the relative amount in pesos?
I would guess that we want to answer the question "How much Mexican production would have to
be diverted to pay off that debt?" So we either work out the value of Mexican GDP in dollars,
or convert the value of the debt to pesos.
Therefore shouldn't the question be the absolute external debt in dollars instead of the
relative amount in pesos?
Simpler to keep the currency conversions out, and just track changes on a per currency basis.
A perennial question I always ask when it comes to trade imbalances by the US is that we send
our dollars to foreign countries for goods, and it only a subset of the US dollars come back to
the US for goods what's happening to the rest of our US dollars? In the case of Mexico, an answer
in theory could be that at least some of those US dollars are being used to pay US debt. But that
would mean the Fed Gov of Mexico would have to implement a tax that is denominated in US dollars.
Which would then fall on their exporters, as they're the ones hoovering up the US dollars. And
they don't want that.
So instead they tax the losers. And they only have pesos. So the conversion rate is an issue.
What's interesting in all this is that while Mexico's Fed Gov is taking on debt in US dollars,
their central bank owns US treasuries (that's how they manipulate their currency). But it begs
the question, is there a way that Mexico's central bank and Mexico's Fed Gov could come to a deal
to use the US treasuries that the central bank is holding to cancel out the US debt obligation
by Mexico's Fed Gov? I'm guessing no – it's the principle of the matter, lol.
To make matters worse, much of Mexico's new debt is in foreign-denominated currencies.
Why do countries do this to themselves? Seems to be the very definition of insanity.
"Why do countries do this to themselves?" They don't. They have an elite that does this to
the country because it benefits them as a class, with most people in the country excluded from
the decision-making process.
I don't get what good it can possibly do to build a wall to keep those bad hombres out when
the bad hombres are all the politicians in Mexico. This is not a cautionary tale, it's too late
for that. We need entirely new thinking here. Look how complex Brexit is – which lets us know
how detailed the union tried to be in order to protect its interests. Which is looking pretty
futile. Victor Orban was the only leader in the EU to put up a wall to keep refugees/immigrants
out and instead of sanctioning Hungary, Mutti has confessed her immigration policy was a mistake.
Why on earth didn't she say the ME war was a mistake? It's practically genocide. Three years ago
when Syrians started leaving in a panic they knew it was going to be annihilation. How did they
know they were sitting on such unlucky ground? If free trade treaties had a way of maintaining
decent wages and living standards as the prerequisite to that trade we could begin to set things
right. And that is what we should be doing instead of going to war to kickstart the free market
economy. Trump is acting like that wall is actually infrastructure. And I wonder if people are
amused by the double meaning of "the war on poverty." Everything is such a mess we can't keep
pretending that the basics we follow are right. It seems like one long and insane emergency. I'm
so burned out with political failure.
"[Pemex's] pension liabilities amount to $1.2 billion" this figure seemed a bit low in today's
world of inflated pension return expectations–wondering about the source here. I saw the following
study said Pemex's liabilities were closer to $90 billion although it is Wharton.
That is a terrible typo on my part and I hang my head in shame - it should read 1.8 trillion
pesos (roughly $90 billion at today's exchange rate), though there's some controversy around the
number since some of the liabilities were supposed to have been transferred to the government's
books last year. I don't how how the $1.2 billion crept in but I apologize with complete sincerity
to all readers (and Yves) for the cock up.
That data point you mention was taken from
an article (second paragraph down) published in EL Financiero, the third most read newspaper
in Mexico and an affiliate of Bloomberg. Will look into the disparity.
As for Mexico's GDP, it grew by 2.3% last year, not 7%. The country hasn't experienced such
buoyant growth for decades - and certainly not since joining NAFTA.
Thanks DQ: sorry I wasn't clear about the 7% figure; the Bank of Mexico data I cited refer
to nominal GDP growth in pesos. Since the peso devalued 18% to the dollar in 2016, real GDP in
dollars shrank from USD 1.3 trillion to 1.15 trillion. Might this account for why EF calculated
a 46% increase in external debt– because they are stating how many dollars Mexico borrowed but
calculated in pesos? If so, this figure is misleading and detracts from your argument: those obligations
are in foreign currencies, so their value in pesos is beside the point.
As I see it, the external debt is not (yet) a major issue in Mexico; more of a concern are
the bonds issued by the states and semi-public companies that cannot print their own currencies
and will leave the public on the hook. (Not to mention PRI whacking the public with spending cuts
and utility/gas hikes, which are another story )
Thanks for clarifying, RG. And you're probably right: external debt is not the biggest issue
here. More important are the out of control public spending at the regional level, the systemic
corruption at both the state and federal level, which Peña Nieto's government has done nothing
to address, and Pemex's worsening woes, and the risk they pose to Mexico's fiscal health.
If the peso once again begins to fall in value, the exposure of Mexico's corporate sector to
foreign denominated debt is likely to be a much more immediate threat than the government's.
Mexico has always been like this. Even prior to American meddling. Transferring all their mineral
wealth i.e. silver to China for cheap, yet profitable, ceramics, and turning the Yucatan from
growing food into the plants that were used to weave bags for storage containers in the 18th C.,
peonage and companies stores, on and on it goes.
What's happening now is just a continuation of the plundering that's been happening since the
16th C.
this sounds like the standard bezzle:
run up debts
buy things
pocket the things
burn down the store
collect insurance $ on everything that was "inside" the store (even though it had actually been
looted long ago)
As for Duarte, he was caught this week by police in Guatemala. Like Yarrington, he wasn't
exactly laying low. Among the accusations he faces is that of buying fake chemotherapy drugs,
which were then unknowingly administered by state-run hospitals to children suffering from
cancer. He and his cohorts purportedly pocketed the difference.
Shades of Harry Lime, no? The drug war has done to Mexico what it took WWII to do to Vienna.
Anecdote here, but an uncle on my husband's side who lives in Mexico City had mentioned big
problems with his pension. (he works in media, and the family refers to it as a government pension).
he said that pensions are being looted and they are paying out pennies on the dollar. so he withdrew
what he could in lump sum and bought a small apartment near a beach somewhere. the only way to
keep any of the value. they say what used to be hundreds of dollars a month to retire on is now
less than $50 per month, and that no one can live off that little.
Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
Notable quotes:
"... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking
campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of
the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.
Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and
2013,
told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed
in a new
CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack
on our very democracy."
"A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to
our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political
equivalent of 9/11."
Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never
was in field operations
Notable quotes:
"... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
"... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
"... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
"... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
"... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
"... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
"... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
"... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose
that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to
promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?
Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies,
adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.
"We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price,"
Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell
answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way
that "Moscow would get the message."
Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's
"Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other
tantalizing bits of information.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people
– I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria
and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we
were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity
for the CIA in planning?
John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W.
Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing
of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike
Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't
like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to
ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally
recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country
by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to
start killing people because of it.
Ray McGovern:What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than
I do because John dealt with him.
JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters.
Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through
the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got
into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations.
This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to
think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas
except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally.
He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in
difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill
foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.
RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy
of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad.
How does that bring peace to Syria?
JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the
Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something
that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even
inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on
TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.
This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director
under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought
through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding
like that? What is his motivation for doing this?
RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of
the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on
11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does
Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go?
It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition
of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of
Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants
bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
"... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
"... (Emphasis added) ..."
"... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
"... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking
– was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe
Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.
On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan"
for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent
animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive,
too.
Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying
to help Morell explain
what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad into submission.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria.
make the Russians pay a price in Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and
Tehran."
In the follow-up
interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American
non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.
Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety
that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria
to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in
the world).
Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians
and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did
that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing
Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.
But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already
inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside
nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.
What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such
as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians
to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.
Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem
should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a
prospective President Hillary Clinton.
A Slight Imprecision?
Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly
misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say
perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."
TV interviewer Charlie Rose.
Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented
his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change"
in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And
that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional
government that represents all of the Syrian people.
"That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran
wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries,
in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.
"And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give
you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some
pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard
to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which
the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already
fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.
"So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition.
And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's
an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending
this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue
to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)
Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on
the ground."
Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start
killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.
"So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And
here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would
see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are
extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his
offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement
we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)
"You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night,
right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here,
just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of
this.
"Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're
talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have,
and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right.
But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was
the way people interpreted it."
Acts of Illegal War
Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates
international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved
– the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."
Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after
it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.
Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow
Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the
U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the
sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.
However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including
Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.
Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the
arming and training of anti-government rebels (including
some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria
(aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish
rebels.
Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government
targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of
the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate
with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international
law.
And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any
deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists,"
except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously
muddled thinking do we have here?
One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged
the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington.
And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with
the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to
Moscow.
A Fawning Audition
Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell
was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration
by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on
March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)
Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State
when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the
job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put
her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think
the public needs to know."
And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie,
I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We
trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus,
I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave
us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust
her word and I trust her judgment."
Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable
private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been
marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?
FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising
these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."
For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity"
and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted
in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking
him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.
My Travails With Charlie
Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated
remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor
the Presbyterian wing of JINSA
" (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).
The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary,
"Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described
the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify
invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation
that had originally been extended to him.
True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was
his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going
to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided
to spare myself the trouble.
The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay
for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto
YouTube. It might be worth
a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
"Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive
and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world.
But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple
times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world
is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term.
At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses,
loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators
can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never
be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there
is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.
To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point
the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford
anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their
hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
"... Cynicism does derive from Socrates; from that part of the Socratic approach that questions community norms so aggressively that they have to kill you to shut you up. As for Socrates, so for Jesus. ..."
"... What would Jesus disrupt? Clearly the banks. He would be all about debt forgiveness. http://www.michael-hudson.com/2017/01/the-land-belongs-to-god/ ..."
"... I believe Lambert's point was exactly that: that the money-changers should be thrown out of the temple; that Blankfein is not doing "God's work"; that the whole article was a depiction of the deliberate debauchery of the Christian message by conflating it with material enterprise. That article in the links was a spiritual horror show. ..."
"... Has someone written a good book on the history of usury? When did it become acceptable in the Christian dominated US? Islam bans it. Shakespeare talked about it. Our founders lamented their usurious debts. Think I read somewhere that the Zionists pledged, after WW2, to get out of banking altogether? ..."
Christ was apparently a true cynic. See the wikipedia article on Cynicism
before judging that; it's not original with me. Cynicism was open in its
denunciation of all human convention. Nevertheless, it was non-violent, so
"bringing a sword" means not the waging of organized war, but rather is a
metaphor of conflict between those who support conventional morality and
those who support the Cynical way of life; if indeed those were Jesus's
words (if there were any words of Jesus, for that matter), as they are
mostly incompatible with the rest of his speech.
Cynicism does derive from Socrates; from that part of the Socratic
approach that questions community norms so aggressively that they have to
kill you to shut you up. As for Socrates, so for Jesus.
It's amazing the doors that open onto the understanding of Christianity
once its Cynical features are recognized, and the neo-Platonist frosting
that was applied by Paul, and the forces of order later on, is demoted. The
cake is actually quite inspirational; the frosting, pretty revolting. But
the natural selection of ideas, that process which favors the survival of
ideas that enhance power and authority, has decisively suppressed the
Cynical core.
Re: What would Jesus disrupt? (just the question, not the linked article)
Wasn't there something about money changers in the temple?
My view is that Forex is
the
great threat to whatever commonwealth
anyone lives in – if not now, sooner or later. Always cheaper elsewhere.
So I reckon Jesus would disrupt the system of foreign currency exchange. I
imagine that something more turbulent than disrupting the equilibrium of Forex
trader's desks would be involved. Now,
that
would be a miracle!
Jesus rendered unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. He was
getting the money-changers out of the temple, not getting rid of them
altogether. The spiritual path is not material, or military, it is in the
mind and the soul. People cannot pursue a material, political, or social
agenda of any kind, even one of redistribution, and still be truly
"Christian," as Christ would have had it. They must give all they have and
find their way in poverty. They must abandon judgment of the actions of
their fellows. Just as Diogenes lived in a barrel, but did not much care
about the decor of the Athens' St Regis lobby one way or another.
Ultimately the message was that to be poor and angry is to be a slave
twice over; to be poor and happy is to be free of the chains of both wealth
and resentment. Hence also the point that the poor are always with you; that
has come up often here, and the real message is missed: that the most
important thing is not necessarily to help the poor, but to be among them:
to eliminate concern for material things from life entirely. The same goes
for pain; turning the other cheek is not metaphorical; it is a statement
that suffering imposed by others has only the meaning one gives it, and to
deny that meaning is to deny them power over your mind.
I'm not saying that all of that is right, or even arguable; I'm just
saying that I think the philosophical basis of it should be considered more
profoundly, and given more respect, than it often is, when it is used for
political polemic.
I believe Lambert's point was exactly that: that the money-changers
should be thrown out of the temple; that Blankfein is not doing "God's
work"; that the whole article was a depiction of the deliberate debauchery
of the Christian message by conflating it with material enterprise. That
article in the links was a spiritual horror show.
Has someone written a good book on the history of usury? When did it
become acceptable in the Christian dominated US? Islam bans it.
Shakespeare talked about it. Our founders lamented their usurious debts.
Think I read somewhere that the Zionists pledged, after WW2, to get out
of banking altogether?
I'm not surprised at all that the professional Democrats out there view
American politics as an extended episode of
The West Wing
. It should
come as no surprise, considering the impact that
24
had on the views
that many have about torture.
As far as politics-based TV shows go,
The West Wing
isn't bad, and
is probably a little less ridiculous than the American version of
House of
Cards
. Neither one of them is good as the Danish TV show
Borgen
,
though.
-Rob Lowe had the relationship with the hooker who was nympho and made
lots of money while she went to prestigious law school so it was okay. The
hero Is really helping her. And Lowe's liberalism meant she didn't take his
money.
-the mindless support for free trade; "trade stops wars"
-the Supreme Court nominee situation; hey let's get one guy who thinks guys
should marry called Rodriguez and one guy who makes. Hitler look emphatic
and call it a day because centrism is great!
-Sheen did Welfare reform
-Lawrence O'Donnell. He didn't become insufferable on MSNBC. His episodes
were the worst.
-the moderate Republican fetish
-"smart wars"
-an insane portrayal of deficit hawks as reasonable
The show was garbage. The joke is "who is the office Jonah?" On "The West
Wing", they were all Jonah. The Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama
Administration were the West Wing put into action.
Admission, I loved the West Wing. I also enjoyed 24. In particular,
West Wing is a joy for self admitted acting addict. And yes it played to
my sensibilities, but even I began to realize that the episodes that
meant the most to me, the ones that really resonated and stayed with me
were the ones where the underlying issue was not solved or changed by
working in the White House who most of the time just put on a bandage on
it for themselves (and the viewers). So Veterans still didn't get their
benefits and the care of a "grateful nation" but a funeral, drunk drivers
still kill, etc. And on return to it a decade later, things like how
crazy the voters are, and only a really smart staffer can realize that
they are not seeing the real problem for the trees began to grate
unbearably.
Oh, and NTG, don't forget the Rob Lowe character was the speech writer
for many of the Bartlett early speeches, which when you think about it is
the prototype for the Obama administration talk pretty about things and
dazzle them before failing to change anything prototype. He also later
ran for Congress, loses and becomes a highly paid lawyer (because?) only
to give it up to become the Deputy Chief of Staff of the first Latino
President. (And maybe I am the only one who can see so much wrong with
that.)
Sure, but Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus
Sutherland took it nearly as often as he dished it out. And it was
him against a world full of bad guys.
Good series, you just need to remind yourself it's only the
TeeBee.
FYI – This is really his full name!
Kiefer William Frederick Dempsey George Rufus Sutherland
I'm a fan of whodunnits and 24 was at its base a whodunnit/stop
them before they can do more, and a well crafted one at that. The
thing is that the one season I watched it, there was far less
torture in it than probably one fifth of a season of Criminal
Minds. Now CM does supposedly make the case the torturer is a
criminal, but when it comes to torture porn (like the movies SAW)
CM is near the top on television. And torture is one of those
things that many people do find entertaining though they vocally
condemn it. And most have not thought out the larger political and
social implications of it. We are savage creatures with a veneer.
Where 24 and Zero Dark Thirty are detrimental is they make people
think torture actually works in real life rather than in fantasy.
or life in this society is so boring and unrewarding that
people need ever more violence (fictional OR real) to entertain
themselves. Granted people have always liked stories with
violence, but it probably does play in.
And if you are an atheist getting off on the righteous
violence, then go the whole hog, and embrace Hell Fire &
Eternal Damnation. (Or stop saying people who do are dumb,
when they are just you, a step further.)
Yeah, I nodded along to that article, but was surprised that it didn't
connect the dots between liberals' love of war, sorry, "humanitarian
intervention" and the appalling post-9/11 "West Wing" episodes. As we say
around these parts, those storylines were "wonderfully clarifying."
"The Newsroom" was like "The West Wing" a fantasy version of the
real deal. But embedded in both fantasies was the same embrace of the
exceptionalism of the USA, USA, USA. American politics should only be
dished out to us in comedic form like the first two years of VEEP. If
you want to get a funny view of our class system and urban versus
rural dynamics, and just want a good laugh, watch "Schitts Creek"
starring Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy.
Anyone who has given money to a Sorkin production has largely
gotten that (although less for his television industry set pieces),
it is a feature of his work along with the soaring emotional speech
by the lead. Don't forget that Sorkin's first big work had the
following speech (delivered in typical style by Jack Nicholson in
the movie):
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has
walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater
responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for
Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You
have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's
death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives You
don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't
talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on
that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty we use these words as the
backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a
punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket
of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in
which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went
on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand
a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're
entitled to!
From the West Wing article:
"The West Wing "took something that was for the most part considered dry and
nerdy-especially to people in high school and college-and sexed it up",
former David Axelrod advisor Eric Lesser told Vanity Fair in a longform 2012
feature about the "Sorkinization of politics".
I didn't watch West Wing on TV as I wasn't in the USA during its original
airing times, but we bought DVDs of the series and watched it in 2012, by
which time I'd become plenty cynical about US politics in general! Looking
back, rather than (or as well as) depicting politics' "Sorkinization" I'd
say that West Wing = the Hallmark-ization of US politics.
One thing from the article that really stands out to me is where he talks
about how the administration in The West Wing doesn't actually seem to stand
for (or accomplish) much of anything, and viewers could project their views
onto it. Compare this to The Thick of It/In the Loop, where the party of the
characters is never specified, only there it's part of the joke. They're
just 'The Party' and the other side is 'The Opposition'. Intentionally or
not, this has the effect of portraying British politics as filled with
parties that aren't actually terribly different internally, and just
obsessed with optics and media relations. Both Armando Iannucci and Aaron
Sorkin have created shows that portray politics as vapid, empty, and stupid,
only Sorkin thinks this is something positive and praiseworthy, that this is
how 'serious' politics should be.
Also, bah, Borgen. I dropped that show after the "we must stay the course
in Afghanistan, because reasons" episode.
The Thick of It
also makes it clear that the intelligent but
vicious consultants lead the dim-witted elected officials and party
bureaucrats (all of whom went to Oxbridge) around by the nose.
Literally no one in the world of
The Thick of It
is both
competent and admirable. One episode does suggest that Malcolm Tucker,
the famously nasty PR and messaging expert, honestly believes that his
party is better for workers and regular people. But there's no way to map
his beliefs onto policy. So there's no way to test whether he's a
Blairite or an old fashioned Labor dude. (I think it's pretty clear his
unnamed party is Labor and the other unnamed Party is the Tories -
there's even a season whether that party is in a coalition with another,
weaker party that's clearly the Liberals.)
Allysa B. provides an interesting overview of the UBI issue in the piece
linked above. She is even-handed and thorough, without blatant cherry-picking
to promote any specific agenda.
Yet the conclusion of her piece is profoundly dissatisfying.
"Basic income isn't the only way to make that demand, and it isn't even a
necessary part of it-but its utopian elements can help drive a more visionary
agenda for labor.
None of the UBI proposals we hear today-in Canada, the United Kingdom, or in
France-is likely to be quite the basic income imagined by luxury communists
(there aren't enough of them to win an election yet), but they're a start.
Utopia is possible. If we want it, though, we'll need to make it a part of
the demands and visions of the left movements we build over the next few years.
Because we can't just invent the future-we're going to have to fight for it."
If her real interest is in building powerful movements, more than the
technical pros and cons of UBI or a Jobs Guarantee, why not share some
strategic thoughts on how to build such movements? She is rightly unenthused at
the prospects of accomplishing anything through politics as usual in the U.S.,
or other parts of the developed world. So how will these new movements seize
power?!?!
In other words– does she have any useful ideas on how to translate the
energy of well-meaning doctoral students like herself, in places like New
Haven, Ithaca, or Princeton, into positive changes in the working lives of
people in places like Akron or Camden?
Without including real strategies for the seizure of political and economic
power by workers, these earnest discussions may only do what Alyssa B.,
herself, decries: "Instead of fighting off the dystopian future, settle into
the interregnum of the present, with all its morbid symptoms."
adding: and what goals will they advance besides leisure?
A guaranteed income that helps people pay for expensive insurance for
still-unaffordable healthcare, or clothes and appliances that fall apart, or
social services that don't exist, or rent-extracting tolls and fees, or the
bill for their poisoned water isn't utopian.
It was a labor movement, not an 8-hr day movement. People expected
to be productive and have enough of a share in the fruits of their
labor to meet their needs, and enjoy their leisure.
Neither automation nor an income guarantee will enable people to
meet their needs, and enjoy their leisure in the examples in my
comment and many other areas of our diminished economic life. That's
not an argument against an income guarantee. It's a question about
what problem it's supposed to solve.
UBI in combination with corporate dominance is an absolutely terrible
idea.
After corps have exploited labor to the point they have no consumers
(already happening), UBI just becomes a gov subsidy to oligarchs keeping
them in power and the people out, when they (oligarchs and corps) would
otherwise crumble under their own extractive overreach.
UBI can be good, UBI combined with corporate dominance is most certainly
not.
Why do you think all the squillionaires are calling for UBI. It's
certainly not because they give a damn about the workers they've violently
exploited for decades.
"... Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17 other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer – https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/ ..."
"... Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention) ..."
"... as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs, Americans don't care what happens around the world. ..."
"... And you are saying the general public in other countries do ..."
"... And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned by the MIC even when they vote isolationist. ..."
Ok, so how about just one rule: stop (bleep, bleep) intervening!
Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17
other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless
interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know
more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer –
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/
>>The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless
interventions abroad and subsequent destruction?
Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the
Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame
everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects
of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention)
as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs,
Americans don't care what happens around the world.
Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the
Establishment or amongst the people.
Funny, I care but for some reason I haven't been able to figure out
how to stop all those foreign interventions. Maybe if I just cared more,
I could stop it. I will try that. Or maybe I simply lack the immense
power required to confront and defeat a State intent on foreign
interventions.
Sort of like berating individual Joe slave for not ending slavery.
And you are saying the general public in other countries
do
care (assuming they aren't the ones being attacked)? The Brits and the
French in recent years have seemed just as enthusiastic about intervening
as we are. To me this is a lot more shocking than the complacency of my
fellow Americans–people who live behind two oceans and are perhaps
understandably uninterested in foreign affairs. This has always been true
as was seen in the runups to WW1 and WW2.
And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only
took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned
by the MIC even when they vote isolationist.
"... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
"... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
"... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
"... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
"... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
"... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
"... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and
barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated
from their villages?
Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible
for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?
I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties
do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and
take the blood samples.
Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth,
the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be
buried.
Cheers from New Zealand.
Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective
clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead?
Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack.
23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack
which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only
real fact in this story.
The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want
as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don'
t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe
a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).
If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step
closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in
5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen
vibrant democracies yet:
-Iraq: broken apart into a US friendly Kurdish, an Iran friendly Shia and an ISIS territory
-Syria: Civial war being waged, divided into loyalist, AlQuaeda,ISIS and Kurdish part
-Lebanon: Civil war incited by Saudi Arabia, stopped by Hisbollah
-Libya: Complete clusterfuxx thanks to Hillary Clinton wanting to have a lasting moment as
US secretary of foreign affairs
-Somalia: Who put that on a list? It was already a complete mess in 2001
-Sudan: Friends of China as well as Saudi Arabia - are allowed to butcher whomever they want
as long as they are Christian
-Iran: Prevented attack by letting the US military bleed out in Iraq. Were already outflanked
in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to take actions in Afghanistan, as Pakistan's ISI made sure the
US bleeds there too.
Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could
go south?
The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy.
McCain´s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they
were against freedom.
55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of
more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US
bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South
Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.
Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well
industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.
Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their
honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US)
made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment
camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!
So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many
more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting
any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...
"It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns
out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.
If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud
of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.
International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for
attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that
has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.
So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on,
count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.
Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of
war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never
agreed a treaty of peace.
I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions
with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?
The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against
Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked
about Trump... ;-)
But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport
and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who
kill beautyful babies".
"... What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. ..."
"... Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. ..."
"... Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? ..."
"... Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran? ..."
100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the
civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are
just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.
If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what
happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.
I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly
acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.
It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing
to truly "Make American Great Again".
Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what
few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.
Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy
with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public
expense.
The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?
100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened
there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or
" qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing
his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite
medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only
a few days later."
By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.
What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by
the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could
not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American
zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states.
Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American
is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded
once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses
it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use
the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the
stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling
as for the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from
the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power
for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the
country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a
real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
@Carlton Meyer
Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria
BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.
Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for
Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel
Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:
More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby
agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:
@Sean Russia
was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE!
I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad.
Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was
fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along?
Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up,
N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia.
He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem
for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More LOL:
geokat62 Troll:
L.K ,
Rurik
@Brabantian
Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -
Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney
& Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can
invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their
accusations:
(1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow
a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"
(2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack
(3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred
(4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead
of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping
& torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"
(5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it
on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot
at Aangirfan's page above
(6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown
up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping
sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."
(7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi
backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos
in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".
(8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions
to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet
domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:
In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short
distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian
secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta
war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks
supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death
only a few days later."
By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy
& dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major
US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline
from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent
and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
There is no reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda affiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscribe to the popular contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?
Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation
with North Korea?
Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 2:53
pm GMT
@Anon Get
a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.
He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.
But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs
And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more
innocents.
The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then
had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty
was to the mafia.
It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.
And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano
So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.
Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. What's the common denominator to these two ??????
"Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to
celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control
that area.
Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated
with al Qaeda in planning this event.
100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had
WMD?
New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had
tried hard to conceal one."
Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining
is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."
Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell
lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "
200 Words @Wizard
of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,
I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic
victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.
The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which
has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.
It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military
to enter the fray against him.
I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance
the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.
One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea,
ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
Read More
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.
100 Words NEW!
@Wizard of Oz
Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority
like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:
Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom.
However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al
Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately
lacking manpower.
Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't
hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria
and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree
that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on
Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened.
Read More
@Quartermaster
Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite
destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Putin is so
bad for Russia that the Russians overwhelmingly support him.
600 Words @Jeff
Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."
If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the
"evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official
story w/official "evidence".
Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting
step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who
control that area.
After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment
on the rapidity with which "assessments were made." (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department
"guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join
the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)
Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he
escalated the discussion:
"What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire
event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"
To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:
They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal.
That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw
the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "
So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but
reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering
the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."
Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the
story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant
"into Russian . . . .")
Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing.
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the
gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable
door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for
the Assad regime having ordered it .
Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
Purchase Article
Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the
upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for
the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's
people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...
But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon
has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as
it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year,
the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.
Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved
robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep
structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize
the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative
unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought
to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure
of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than
Lebanon.[...]
The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical
data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of
cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called
tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the
evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.
[...]
Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos,
and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form
of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy
to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the
harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms,
a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD
The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic
risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack
on Syria
A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"
Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why
he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad
perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors
have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.
I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media
know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well
and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the
Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence
facilities.
The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant
of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will
continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity
that has dogged the new administration.
For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real
defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision
making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched,
while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for
what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise
that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert
and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. Read
More Agree: Z-man
@utu Why'd
there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up
by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground?
We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based
on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being
propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names.
Read More utu ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:43
pm GMT
200 Words @The
Anti-Gnostic How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. It's not about proving things. It is about narrative
control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that
bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing
instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's
intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media
can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want
to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey,
Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
Read More Sean ,
April 18, 2017 at 6:49
pm GMT
"The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while
Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what
they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW)
have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted
up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed
with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in
the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the
idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you,
Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of
which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence"
and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their
word for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely
from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind
the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal"
bullshit. Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit.
Read More
@utu It's
not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish
report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that
Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means,
right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al
Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report.
So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in
the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid
guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post
truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence.
Read More Z-man ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:12
pm GMT
100 Words @Jeff
Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form
of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down
Saddam and now threatens Assad.
Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist
covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting
in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the
7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.
What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and
overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist
control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country,
Oded Yinon regime change program.
The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the
Zionist criminal project.
@bike-anarchist
Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you.
I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for
me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid
and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right?
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments Svigor ,
April 18, 2017 at 7:20
pm GMT
400 Words I think the take-home point for anyone who does his own thinking is that Trump acted so quickly (36 hours) that
the evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. The evidence forthcoming has been shit. Ergo, it seems very clear that
Trump had no valid reason to act as he did.
What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations?
Either the area is full of innocent civilians, or it's an al-Qaeda stronghold.
Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there
backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people
on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole
analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people
who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
The Russians are going to need a lot more than counter-propaganda. I trust them even less than I trust western Big Media. Hard
evidence or go home.
Agent76, nobody who will trust globalresearch.ca needs to have their link cited, they'll know about it already, being Konspiracy
Kooks. Nobody else is gonna buy that junk.
Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port.
Illegal, schmellegal. It's perfectly legit realpolitik. If Ukraine didn't want Russia taking back what was hers, she shouldn't
have jumped into bed with hostile powers. Seriously, if you'd asked a Ukrainian on independence day what would happen in the current
circumstances, they could have painted you an accurate picture.
"We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical
attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and
we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it
right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action
based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president
have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "
Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very
strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country
who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.
I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.
When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against
our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .
Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I
had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.
In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax
attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.
If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?
I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst
complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country
tens of trillions of dollars.
There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.
Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered
on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.
Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.
100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they
are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.
Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria
There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for
Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.
"iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. always trying to slip one in
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War.
Read More
There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles,
cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered
munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[41] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and
are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three
forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[41] of the stockpile was in this form.[56] Whereas these
chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[41][57] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below
55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[48]
Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire
at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[58] Perhaps
more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[59] The Oak Ridge National
Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[60]
and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[61]
Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the
village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea
that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.
even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil,
because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.
It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be
costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad
must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the
target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are
(or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop
assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.
Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?
There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which
read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and
even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National
Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence
nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both
documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting
that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word
for anything?
Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from
satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the
attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified
source or method.
And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother
knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then
it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive
in this context.
Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate
with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit.
Great.
The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. " like clearing out heavily fortified
urban areas.."
100 Words @DB
Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil
war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian
populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera
before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible,
given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable
evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
Read More
200 Words @Anon
None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.
But it doesn't.
There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you
are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.
Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013.
Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions
of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream
media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.
Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred,
our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e.
Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house
in Coventry, England. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
100 Words @anonymous
It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures
and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated.
Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster
think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise?
Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment
politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being
an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . . Read More
200 Words How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People
ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.
That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"
I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"
Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"
Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving
they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him
or his surrogate next time " Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
@Philip Giraldi
Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle
East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo
al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the
evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident
of Australia.
What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions
with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More SolontoCroesus ,
April 18, 2017 at 9:19
pm GMT
100 Words @utu
It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative.
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this
report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they
have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications
between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor
report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's
fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for
being stupid guys you pay extra, right?
One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it
is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.
According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality"
of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,
Is there a link to the video ?
Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information
as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.
This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.
My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement.
Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ?
300 Words It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile.
A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus
narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs.
Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.' Read More
100 Words @Brewer
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the
Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in
the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later
than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.
It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am.
200 Words @Orville
H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless.
. . ."
Yeah, it looks like it.
I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits,
that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but
with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .
With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .
Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.
I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between
the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..
.. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option
I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all
trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.
and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't
think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora
would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.
the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace
100 Words @Incitatus
It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam
dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative.
OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.
GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which
he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending
to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic,
was dead.
The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a
way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators
by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite
their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable
succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?
True corruption. There are no excuses.
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to
the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back
to' Department of War.'
Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.
that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers
to a stable government with a viable middle class.
"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were
backed by Iran,"
Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable
suffering. It is written.
They literally thrive on that shit
Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47
nope
it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack
on Syria.
Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you
to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.
BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Pretty sure the Commies had
Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the
way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.
April 18, 2017 "
Information
Clearing House
" -
Beirut - As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire
Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria –
triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To
some, Syria is synonymous
with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while
others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers
and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various
neo-colonialist designs.
Many people are hiding their
heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative,
while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of
information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic,
Al-Mayadeen
and Press TV.
Here in the Middle East and, in
fact, all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian
President Bashar Al-Assad are always 'strong'; no one appears to be
'neutral'. But even the divisions are often 'pre-defined', carved along
pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi'a lines. It is rarely
being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular
and socialist principles.
The recent opportunistic
statements by certain badly informed and biased Western 'progressive'
intellectuals, calling the Syrian system "disgraceful" has confused
things even further.
*****
Overall, in the countries
encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general
population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults
on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies.
Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan,
Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western
military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey
and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more
attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds
its independence.
But ask the thinkers from all
over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the
assaults that are being conducted by the West.
Ms
Zeinab Al-Saffar (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
An Iraqi educationalist,
prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:
I believe that the attacks
against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated
flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of
muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global
power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical
attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it,
consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could
buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression
to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of
Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.
After the US missile assault on
Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti,
lashed out at Trump's decision, which he defined as, "an extremely
serious violation of international law."
Llorenti reminded the Council of
February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin
Powell, "came to this room to present to us, according to his own words,
convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria (Photo: Andre Vltchek)
Such views are not held in Iraq
only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events
even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Çeviköz wrote to
me:
The real question is: "who
orchestrated that chemical attack?" It seems that only the US could
benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the
'reason', the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were
already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the
world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the
players, the actors keep changing.
In Latin America, Russia, China,
much of Africa and, of course, in the neighboring Iran, people are
beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the
Western foreign policy.
A young prominent Iranian
researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his
opinion on the recent developments:
It seems to me that the US
behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before
vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US
behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack
against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically
proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US
did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the
military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a
message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of
being too much 'pro-Putin' and 'pro-Assad'.
What is now clearly detectable
in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions,
it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression
which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle
East and the world.
In Syria, the sentiments are
clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I
believe:
I feel sad and worried. I
want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to
have my safe existence. I don't want others to interfere in our life.
Why doesn't Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to
us?
Andre Vltchek is a
philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest
books are revolutionary novel
"Aurora"
and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: "
Exposing
Lies Of The Empire
"
and "
Fighting
Against Western Imperialism
"
.
View his other books
here
.
Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch
Rwanda Gambit
,
his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having
lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in
East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He
can be reached through his
website
and his
Twitter
.
"... Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women ..."
"... An MoA commentor reports that the group Nour al Din al Zenki which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime. ..."
"... Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed. Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our concern / sarc ..."
Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women
An MoA commentor reports that the group
Nour al Din al Zenki
which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this
latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime.
Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed.
Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our
concern / sarc
They can get 'em on Overstock.com now! Just package 'em up on the
pallets stacked with $100 bills and air drop them wherever we know
there are friendly terrorists. It'll all work out. Helicopter money
always does.
A few seasons back, South Park pointed out how easy it was for corporations
to co-opt social justice rhetoric. Since then, life has stubbornly insisted on
supporting that thesis.
Every now and then the un-system bites back as we just saw with the Pepsi
ad, although they did get a ton of free press, similar to United. That
approach worked for The Donald ..
Corporations love non-class based identity politics. They love arguing
that the real problems in society are not about economic inequality but
rather on identity based sensitivity. You can learn the fancy sensitivity
codes at your uppity college and look down your nose at the poor whites who
don't get the semiotic coaching. Business as Usual.
"... A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for him in spite of their dislike. ..."
"... European neoliberalism in many ways created the conditions that the far right has recently exploited to convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants. Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as well)? ..."
"... The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so dominant that in combination with how the election system is structured, they are basically the only two national parties. The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties that influence policy through coalition forming simply doesn't exist. ..."
"... US presidential, senatorial, and congressional candidates basically run not with a platform, but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered - he couldn't run as a non-Democrat. ..."
"Liberals now looking to commune with the Trump base should
check out the conscientious effort to do exactly that by the
Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild. As we learn in
her election-year best seller, Strangers in Their Own Land:
Anger and Mourning on the American Right, she poured her
compassion, her anthropological sensibility, and five years
of her life into "a journey to the heart of the American
right." Determined to burst out of her own "political
bubble," Hochschild uprooted herself to the red enclave of
Lake Charles, Louisiana, where, as she reports, there are no
color-coded recycling bins or gluten-free restaurant entrées.
There she befriended and chronicled tea-party members who
would all end up voting for Trump. Hochschild liked the
people she met, who in turn reciprocated with a "teasing,
good-hearted acceptance of a stranger from Berkeley." And
lest liberal readers fear that she was making nice with
bigots in the thrall of their notorious neighbor David Duke,
she offers reassurances that her tea-partyers "were generally
silent about blacks." (Around her, anyway.)
Hochschild's
mission was inspired by Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With
Kansas? She wanted "to scale the empathy wall" and "unlock
the door to the Great Paradox" of why working-class voters
cast ballots for politicians actively opposed to their
interests. Louisiana is America's ground zero for industrial
pollution and toxic waste; the stretch of oil and
petrochemical plants along the Mississippi between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge is not known as "cancer alley" for
nothing. Nonetheless, the kindly natives befriended by
Hochschild not only turned out for Trump but have
consistently voted for local politicians like Steve Scalise
(No. 3 in Paul Ryan's current House leadership), former
senator David Vitter, and former governor Bobby Jindal, who
rewarded poison-spewing corporations with tax breaks and
deregulation even as Louisiana's starved public institutions
struggled to elevate the health and education of a populace
that ranks near the bottom in both among the 50 states.
Hochschild's newfound friends, some of them in dire health,
have no explanation for this paradox, only lame, don't–wanna–rock–Big
Oil's–tanker excuses. Similarly unpersuasive is their
rationale for hating the federal government, given that it
foots the bill for 44 percent of their state's budget.
Everyone who takes these handouts is a freeloader except
them, it seems; the government should stop favoring those
other moochers (none dare call them black) who, in their
view, "cut the line." Never mind that these white voters who
complain about "line cutters" are themselves guilty of
cutting the most important line of all - the polling-place
line - since they are not subjected to the voter-suppression
efforts being inflicted on minorities by GOP state
legislatures, the Roberts Supreme Court, and now the Jeff
Sessions–led Department of Justice.
In "What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working
Class," a postelection postmortem published to much op-ed
attention by the Harvard Business Review (and soon to be
published in expanded form as what will undoubtedly be
another best-selling book), the University of California law
professor Joan C. Williams proposes that other liberals do in
essence what Hochschild did. "The best advice I've seen so
far for Democrats is the recommendation that hipsters move to
Iowa," Williams writes - or to any other location in the
American plains where "shockingly high numbers of
working-class men are unemployed or on disability, fueling a
wave of despair deaths in the form of the opioid epidemic."
She further urges liberals to discard "the dorky arrogance
and smugness of the professional elite" (epitomized in her
view by Hillary Clinton) that leads them to condescend to
disaffected working-class whites and "write off blue-collar
resentment as racism."
Hochschild anticipated that Williams directive, too. She's
never smug. But for all her fond acceptance of her new
Louisiana pals, and for all her generosity in portraying them
as virtually untainted by racism, it's not clear what such
noble efforts yielded beyond a book, many happy memories of
cultural tourism, and confirmation that nothing will change
anytime soon. Her Louisianans will keep voting for candidates
who will sabotage their health and their children's
education; they will not be deterred by an empathic Berkeley
visitor, let alone Democratic politicians."
"We hear people constantly saying 'Nothing will change his
supporters' minds. They're with him no matter what.' First of
all this is enervating defeatism which is demoralizing and
loserish. But it also misses the point. It is factually
wrong. For the supporters those people have in mind, they're
right.
They're true believers, authoritarians who are energized
by Trump's destructive behavior. But there are not that many
of those people.
A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for
him in spite of their dislike.
Those people can be
carved away. But Democrats will regain power by winning it in
what amount to our 21st century internal American
borderlands, not in the big cities or rural areas mainly but
in between. So what's happening now to lay that groundwork
for 2018?"
DD:
European neoliberalism in many ways created the
conditions that the far right has recently exploited to
convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants.
Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the
far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties
point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as
well)?
MB: The Finland situation is very promising from a
leftist view. Finland's political system is mostly dominated
by six parties: the Green Party, similar to the Greens here;
a Social Democratic Party. which is like the Labor Party; the
Left Alliance, which is the communists and socialists. This
is the Left.
On the other side, you have the Centre Party, which was
like the Farmers' Party but doesn't really have an economic
definition, so sometimes they join coalitions with left-wing
or right-wing parties; you have the National Coalition Party,
the right-wing business party; then, lately, you have the
Finns Party - which used to be called the True Finns, which
kind of gives you a hint of what they're about. They're like
an ethno-nationalist party, though they will deny that.
In 2015, the top three parties in Finland were
conservative: in order was the Centre Party, the National
Coalition Party, and then the Finns. They came together and
formed the center-right Bourgeois Government (which is what
they actually call their governments). Combined, the three
parties have about 60 percent of the public behind them.
The Finns join the center-right party that's mostly
interested in austerity of various sorts - trimming down
wages and benefits, increasing competitiveness of exports,
which also means trimming down labor costs and making people
work longer and cutting vacations.
When the Finns join that government, their support just
collapses. It goes from over 20 percent to less than 10
percent over a year or two. If you read the Finnish
newspapers, the consensus is that they are basically
supported by blue-collar people who are also racists. But
ultimately, they don't want a party that comes in and cuts
their wages and benefits even if the party is racist and
satisfies their anti-immigrant tendencies.
Their support base looks at the Finns Party and says,
"You're a traitor to the working class - to hell with you."
Only left parties picked up voters as the ethno-nationalist
party declined.
This shows that even people who are have very bad views on
immigration and diversity - if they get screwed on just basic
pocketbook issues, they jump ship and go back over to their
old homes in the Left.
That's a good sign for the American context, especially
because Trump and the Republicans are not going to run a
government that benefits working-class people. His base is
going to get disillusioned and be open to supporting a
Bernie-style candidate or someone like that who speaks to
their issues and actually intends to follow through with
them, instead of just using them rhetorically and then
abandoning them once they get into office. So it's promising.
The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so
dominant that in combination with how the election system is
structured, they are basically the only two national parties.
The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties
that influence policy through coalition forming simply
doesn't exist.
US presidential, senatorial, and
congressional candidates basically run not with a platform,
but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered
- he couldn't run as a non-Democrat.
"... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
"... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
"... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
"... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
"... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
"... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
"... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
"... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
"... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
"... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
"... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
"... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
"... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
"... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
"... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
"... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
"... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
"... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
"... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
"... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
"... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
"... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
"... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
"... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
"... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
"... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
"... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
"... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
"... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
"... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
"... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
"... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
"... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
"... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
"... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
"... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
"... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
"... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
"... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
"... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
"... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
"... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
"... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
"... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
"... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
"... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
"... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
"... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
"... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
"... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
"... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
"... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
"... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
"... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
"... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
"... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
"... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
"... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
"... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
"... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
"... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
"... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
"... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
"... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
"... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
"... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
"... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
"... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
"... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
"... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
"... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
"... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
"... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
"... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
"... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
"... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
"... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations
when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose
them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!
As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these
fact up.
No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed
away apparently..
Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military
'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense
of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades,
a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual'
'alert'.
Maintaining heightened readiness, to
Stand To! , stand
ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed,
eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year
after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and
discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have
backed away apparently..
China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa
is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese
most certainly do know what they're doing.
The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda
relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.
The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now
threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly
due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood
they shed.
The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce
and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues
and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its
South Korean proxies.
The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west
seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed
that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.
This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in
China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an
economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they
become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve
Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire
in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world.
End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.
No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness
what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed
they did)
The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and
that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the
cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the
sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)
The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set
off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.
If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used
to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times,
it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes
lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach
- and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive
regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation
without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.
There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see
this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.
China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North
Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.
@ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor.
Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. '
Vale, Pax Tecum '.
I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was
a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and
nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China.
Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise?
Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a
comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion
you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
@ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern
is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.
If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him
hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.
+1 on that. Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average
westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea
whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always
react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.
thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how
ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where
their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea
is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens
the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.
It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad
is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime
change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should
be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after
all happened "for its own good."
If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would
get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that
WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS...
would you have believed me?
Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies
could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now,
disgusting.
Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.
Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the
36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother
of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.
China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
LINK
"World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of
having small hands.
And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.
~ ~ ~ ~
Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.
Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them,
and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail
to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I
hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.
A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is
AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.
NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first
tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.
Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions
more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.
So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?
For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to
this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
(actually, 2 2-hr interviews).
Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain
the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect
excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not
say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the
area.
Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He
is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic
behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.
I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could
have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.
IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with
good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US
if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato
will support his coming war.
b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to
this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from
all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.
Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as
much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies
in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's
family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level
(thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work
the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.
I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea.
They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.
Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything
and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.
@30
You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding
of the subject, pls listen to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
- that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
@ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of
the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties
since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in
1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese
involvement.
Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History'
of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.
If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually
learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives
'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?
It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort
to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April
18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement
said.
.......
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah.
It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
@ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36
Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re
Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important
1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references,
from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:
I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in
the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly
endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral
view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience
and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider
nefarious reasons.
I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the
presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.
It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery
of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in
exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil
reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out
of it.
It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The
delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were
build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton
had already renegaded on.
"demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"
Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think
these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget
is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.
You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the
poor, homeless and ill.
Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and
consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is
There One At All?' thread. Cheers.
I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population
with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the
Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin,
Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels
or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.
Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again,
what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic
allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept
this tremendous blunder?
Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted
back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the
pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.
At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should
have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.
Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short
on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.
So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an
ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops
and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting
regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It
is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against
Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and
no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things
are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans
a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she
want to risk losing the access to US markets.
For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert
Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical
devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url
is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs,
but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the
text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll
make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.
Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in
Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi
led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan
thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends,
Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between
Tehran and Riyadh.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)
Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on
occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6
months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has
been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?
To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing
armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War
risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants
study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous
famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)
SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now
That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable.
Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.
In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will
be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior
or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.
I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment
anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades
of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically
70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America"
spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.
I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly
after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for
believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created
an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result
of it. I am in South Korea.
Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring
and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all,
so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing
in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as
sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring
to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to
reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.
The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against
humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters
and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."
However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end
to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52
Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable'
6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ...
China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue
to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign...
fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation,
or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.
Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike
(highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet
enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying
degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction
to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?
Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling
for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people,
and you are calling people here crazy?
The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests
- the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.
As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes
for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.
ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan
would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.
Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the
Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.
He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff
Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally
deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.
"We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the
two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any
Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.
In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example.
In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest
and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family
in the UAE.
In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although
Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.
The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the
most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.
While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from
a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.
...
Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated,
Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo
abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions
on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.
This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power
on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai.
The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting
authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's
camp.
For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise
anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.
Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership
is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.
The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of
WWII.
The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two
US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air
raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production
plants.
The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on
the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought.
The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects
of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and
physical experiments on real people.
I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth
lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?
Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars
of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.
The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth
is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now
to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia,
one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was
the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of
any Australian politician.
The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything,
no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.
I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so
years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded
by other currencies taking up market share.
I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one
threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take
down the US.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.
What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US
strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the
coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk
at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?
US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines
put out by these type think tanks.
The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts--
basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified
because...
following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior
to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left
& Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully
documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.
You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju
from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation
inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?
From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control
escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful
with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone.
Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are
talking about.
Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the
city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in
accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.
If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other
currencies taking up market share.
Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...
If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves
and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD
first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and
win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions
do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?
IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated
in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed
US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe
? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)
Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy
of tension' goes on and on ...
Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for
military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced
is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate
all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about
to kick off again.
The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another
5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.
These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront
the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing
a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most,
South Koreans.
You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a
lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents
favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this
position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations;
few favor an outright withdrawal.
It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational
nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull
for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs
of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
"The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer
adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib
chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks,
again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.
Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant
read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed
prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window
has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they
are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have
the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists
and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc
...
Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda
bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers
spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China
'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all,
given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re
supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good
time vassals) ... any ?
Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is
the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged
at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more
than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus,
I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and
raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the
Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China
is because of that rather stark reality.
Yonatan @62--
Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of
Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own
published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.
Monolycus--
The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's
Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which
side did most of the murdering:
"At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was
to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities
by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000'
political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken
out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country,
according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian
of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations
into all this have scarcely begun...
"When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans
were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many
other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by
atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...
"The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for
civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been
executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...
"...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A
U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world
in October 1953...
"At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...
"...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South
was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...
"...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the
American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern
massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable:
The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations,
and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...
Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of
military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they
import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?
Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the
other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a
naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?
Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of
the Rand report?
China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until
recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800
Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400,
also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.
China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear
submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for
now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her
Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years
it will become not only possible but highly probable.
US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens
to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once
mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol
Limited will testify.
It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via
trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force,
then waging a war for conquest.
I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.
But two remarks:
byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed
and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind
him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started.
The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already
in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.
I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These
are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service
in dependence of the media splash they create.
There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun
Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have
thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many
turned out to be false .
North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an
insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability
and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.
Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in
his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check
the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of
alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other
stories above.
North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged
"communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage?
Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer
in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?
I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created
the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write
that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.
Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.
Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece
he wrote about his
1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama
is enlightening:
Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent.
'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate
to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified
Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and
if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship
of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster
to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
- North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.
1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil
in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.
2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing
a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would
suggest such a move.
3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild
guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology
of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold.
It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.
Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people
criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here.
To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does
not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs
in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they
are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not
North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest
sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely.
Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea.
Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint;
it is not Kim Yong-Un.
An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.
So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering
the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is
fired.
For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the
China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent
Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers,
sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining
army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from
potential threats other than Indian border effectively.
Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME
is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast.
And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital
'green' 'parade only' militaries.
What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?
The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend
a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...
The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold
War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint
training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?
The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual
knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder
of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the
carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft,
pilots, support crews and sailors ...
Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers
to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware
of this before.
Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new
reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with
the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which
in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for
export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.
Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information
about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.
I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge
of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s
to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all
took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow
mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured
I will be blown away.
American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That
is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative
congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays
which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously
a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens
into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind
him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the
good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism
they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly
the dumbest.
B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans
after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.
Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's
flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there
are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them
have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast
provinces if there are as yet no plans.
mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the
real US strategy?
Syria, Korea,
Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about
denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet
to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.
i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think
that war is rational in, literally, the end.
i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types.
the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes'
of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming'
might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money'
based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational
actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results
only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their
'trades' in.
i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now
that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?
we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon,
for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only
be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.
thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula
under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the
agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.
Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that
I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent
for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written
extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive
examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable,
easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format,
www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis
of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins
has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within
the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings,
http://www.ifstone.org/index.php
I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls
excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick"
using the white fleet to intimidate Japan: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html
The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North
Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including
the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.
U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised
of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see
Superstation95 for photos).
In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded
B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)
Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:
(1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;
(2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;
(3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens
from South Korea;
(4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.
There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?)
and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.
North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I
would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not
protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.
On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors
and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically
hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.
It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA).
Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a
Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?
@104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside
information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they
don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.
'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.
I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:
This is where this is going, I would guess:
US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
/~~~~~~~~~~ "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could
be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type
disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a
place unsuitable for life," he explained.
\~~~~~~~~~~
But that's not all we're going to get:
/~~~~~~~~~~
The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made
Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario
than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to
accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they
are in North Korean airspace."
\~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees.
Good job, eh?
@ blues
I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the
US, that can be abandoned if required.
@ jfl
I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars.
Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed.
Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all
of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country,
they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.
This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and
now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the
US become more threatening.
So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators
ect.
TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday,
front page reported on-line]
IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous President Donald Trump
has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean warmonger Kim Jong Un before he
can push the button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!
D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery
bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental
ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!
"Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the
elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk
missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.
Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the
tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.
====
Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how
did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr.
Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.
i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst.
and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play'
to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?)
to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?
Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes
on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault
- ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security?
The aggressor nation.
Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international
peace and security??
What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?
According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs
are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be
seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them
if they are on the ocean floor.
Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit
the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom
of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally
IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump
has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster
that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in
sight.
In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly
lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with
possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.
An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent
nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and
"Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing
the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until
it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as
cesium-137, into the environment."
It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in
the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of
the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these
daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone
for hundreds of years.
This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to
intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.
i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing
and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and
give him no way to look tuff.
Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?
Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is
very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's
brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and
her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on
the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
@29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming
war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes
will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.
everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't
provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the
opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war
instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.
it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries
in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.
if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia
as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington
is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but
sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?)
puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war
lovers.
where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?
@127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international
stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction
of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.
The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed
but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much
of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA:
Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.
"Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies
are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply
grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy"
trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.
One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all
US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.
Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were
met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war
and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands
and waters.
In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed
however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing
regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve
issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese
economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two
centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.
But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective
that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.
Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan
quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won
WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains
a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.
If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism
sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it
immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's
army' on the way to another killing spree. --
i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help
nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.
but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about
the 'great leader'.
during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.
by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if
only washington would accept him.
wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington
wish.
then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man
to get things done'
@ outraged.
What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war
component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving
60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.
Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way
of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.
From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.
it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
"As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear
and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea
(ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session
of the National People's Congress.
... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes
credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow
sea.
i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent
of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have
claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might
all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin
and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.
Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM |
134
@145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets.
B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality
lenses' that I find useful.
RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but
you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other
reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course
of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table'
kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.
Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick".
Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for
6 long volumes.
Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The
timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive
strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South
Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House
has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another
nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead
with his apparent plans.
\~~~~~~~~~~
@146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful
unitedsnake...'
but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's.
the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed
of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.
any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim
really just the korean version of trump?
an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound
about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?
151
Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare
covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link,
compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely
to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before
US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps
9-10pm Monday night Korean time???
Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against
the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.
i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a
whale
chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when
i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i
imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.
i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality',
so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the
point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted
'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown
and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored
by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines',
and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are
few and getting fewer, by their own design.
The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century.
Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover
America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street
and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars
would be needed.
The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed
from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After
WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were
reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They
joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various
international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies
to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms
...
After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would
it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell
& good time vassals) ... any ?
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on
the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking
at this.
1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can
do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to
the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems
to have happened this year.
we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US
would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean
army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars
and missiles.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/
Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff
.....But what would the result of such a strike be?
For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the
country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history
of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for
the long-suffering North Korean people.
It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been
ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance
at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food.
If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist
leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad,
you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.
In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel
to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical
government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the
Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial
burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.
Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's
missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely
no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following
such an ill-conceived attack......
A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during
the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north
Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction
I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).
ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer
you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because
they ran out of other targets in some way).
Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks.
Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy
with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.
Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with
a bad haircut."
The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
"I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at
a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming
a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses,
and miraculously healed on its own.
But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks
in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb
in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff
I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.
Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the
violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need
to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside
culture. Its an insane outlook.
Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator
people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant
missiles - blazing hooorahh.
No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes,
would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill
him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.'
What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian
strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious
cake as consolation?
LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't
help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money
when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its
so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them
of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the
most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure.
It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO
GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
@all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
---
The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch
Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo
likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.
Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation
by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover,
the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing
number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply
large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm
Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what
it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against
coercive removal.
smoothie X2 82
Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press
that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost
effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese
designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique
, secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners
may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.
The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest
that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that
this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential
election in the South.
For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both
of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors
(Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal
circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite
to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be
in South Korea.
The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will
be front and centre in the campaign.
Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.
Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American
soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember
that Osprey crash a couple months back?
oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified
in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't
have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the
years.
South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays
a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing
or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans
of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.
Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their
cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South
Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding
further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea,
but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.
I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.
i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean
people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the
possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors.
can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think,
as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean
compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow'
southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.
who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew
that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ...
the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the
us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.
treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in
many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change
now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch
with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.
now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in
the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet
to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just
what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.
atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that
take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.
Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird)
will have to pack up his toys and go home.
I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North
was/would be total desaster.
It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist
systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.
German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach"
policy.
The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally
South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already
changed. But the US managed to create a
security
conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for
North Korea.
Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source
seems to be posting figures for 2015).
Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections
of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this
gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship
with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question
of who holds power in South Korea really is.
Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to
me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.
The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun
(e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken
towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you
never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly
discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.
SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday
filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.
Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists
gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before
submitting the constitutional appeal.
According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment
violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.
Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one
THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement,
Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about
the THAAD installation.
Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision
was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs
and the presidential office.
The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was
no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national
security council of the presidential office.
"The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for
dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society,
an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.
So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.
The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its
national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.
It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely
lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how
dearly they need all that 'protection'.
Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?
(on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up,
but rather willing to up the ante...)
Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on
the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen'
(from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!
The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So
now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!
(President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)
Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.
b
I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although
I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards
Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more
saints in the WWII period than the US.
I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic
and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008.
Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker
he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official
end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other
deals.
For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably
will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.
According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster
the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.
This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders
mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of
the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.
I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to
me that could only have been fomented there.
Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and
CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to
keep US puppets in line.
yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in
the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was
just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything,
up until thaad.
@162, sb,
maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality
... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these
days.
@167 curtis
they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination.
the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly
not for koreans, north or south.
@170 gravatomic
i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down
: she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ...
and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.
I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree.
I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well
that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this
particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation
just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.
I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much
more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that
the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here
on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people
about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very
poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most
of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation
coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation
against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support
it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it
here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,)
it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars
and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again
if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this
moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.
@158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.
The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of
spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going
the way of Iraq and Libya.
was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it
just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to
happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't?
if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights
... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.
it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china
and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese
- not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned
about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?
here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.
whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
'star war' redux ?
by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --
lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.
well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest
market.
hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.
anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2
memorial ceremony in 2015.
mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.
so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring'
etc ?
Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault
of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.
There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving
a green light to:
China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether
in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html
The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.
Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come
here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.
Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at
the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original
sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.
I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not
less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely
their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle
of it.
By Doug Bandow
April 13, 2017
It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population,
the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United
States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small,
impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.
Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically,
fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where
it does not belong.
Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II.
Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's
loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during
the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism
fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.
But that world disappeared long ago.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of
Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need
for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start
shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.
The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S.
withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled
weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American
commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent
American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence
of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.
South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing
past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s,
when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas
was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as
yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.
Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home
U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation
with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors
expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops
remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and
highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers
to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.
So why is America still there?
One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance
that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II."
Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic
aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula.
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern
neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good
deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.
More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner
that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason
the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional
forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well
as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and
defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South
Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.
Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently.
The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer
of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles
and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop
(and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as
some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The
South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.
But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.
South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A
renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United
States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but
fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would
be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands
of lives and trillions of dollars.
Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable
nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for
a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive
retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the
North's threats.
But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct
its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's
reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support
for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might
actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear
umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.
Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from
staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear
parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts.
The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness
to act.
A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence
supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider
those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea
is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing
has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible.
And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on
non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give
if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent
Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed,
absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical
disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.
As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others
don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as
dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover,
small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by
big powers.
The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America
can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country,
where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation
in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing
on its own two feet.
@172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience.
Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.
Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle
of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.
I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though.
Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial
retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I
get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views
of a few people I talk to in SK though.
What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack
on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression.
Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US
that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book.
However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional
testimony.
Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of
Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional
fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty
categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide
of jews, gypsies and others.
Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not
openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly
the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick
ready, just in case.
the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy'
a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their
summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their
northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did
a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well
stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign
policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased
tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering
to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.
Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
Gavan NcCormack
Gregory Elich
Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to
the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it
down.
Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear
research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send
assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this
provocation ??
Wikileaks,
Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs
"We don't want
a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The
U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.
Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly
reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees
'.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may.
It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would
do anything.
"... It isn't. It's the world's biggest, most advanced cloud-computing company with an online retail storefront stuck between you and it. In 2005-2006 it was already selling supercomputing capability for cents on the dollar - way ahead of Google and Microsoft and IBM. ..."
"... Do you really think the internet created Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, etc? No, the internet was just a tool to be used. The people who created those businesses would have used any tool they had access to at the time because their original goal was not automation or innovation, it was only to get rich. ..."
"... "Disruptive parasitic intermediation" is superb, thanks. The entire phrase should appear automatically whenever "disruption"/"disruptive" or "innovation"/"innovative" is used in a laudatory sense. ..."
"... >that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain. ..."
"... As the rich became uber rich, they hid the money in tax havens. As for globalization, this has less to do these days with technological innovation and more to do with economic exploitation. ..."
+100 to your comment. There is a decided attempt by the plutocrats to get us to focus our anger
on automation and not the people, like they themselves, who control the automation ..
Plutocrats control much automation, but so do thousands of wannabe plutocrats whose expertise
lets them come from nowhere to billionairehood in a few short years by using it to create some
novel, disruptive parasitic intermediation that makes their fortune. The "sharing economy" relies
on automation. As does Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, Dropbox, Pinterest,
It's not a stretch to say that automation creates new plutocrats . So blame the individuals,
or blame the phenomenon, or both, whatever works for you.
So John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie weren't plutocrats–or were somehow better plutocrats?
Blame not individuals or phenomena but society and the public and elites who shape it. Our
social structure is also a kind of machine and perhaps the most imperfectly designed of all of
them. My own view is that the people who fear machines are the people who don't like or understand
machines. Tools, and the use of them, are an essential part of being human.
I'm replying to your upthread comment which seems to say today's careless campers and the technology
they rely on are somehow different from those other figures we know so well from history. In fact
all technology is tremendously disruptive but somehow things have a way of sorting themselves
out. So–just to repeat–the thing is not to "blame" the individuals or the automation but to get
to work on the sorting. People like Jeff Bezos with his very flaky business model could be little
more than a blip.
Automation? Those companies? I guess Amazon automates ordering not exactly R. Daneel
Olivaw for sure. If some poor Asian girl doesn't make the boots or some Agri giant doesn't make
the flour Amazon isn't sending you nothin', and the other companies are even more useless.
'Automation? Those companies? I guess Amazon automates ordering not exactly R. Daneel Olivaw
for sure.'
Um. Amazon is highly deceptive, in that most people think it's a giant online retail store.
It isn't. It's the world's biggest, most advanced cloud-computing company with an online retail
storefront stuck between you and it. In 2005-2006 it was already selling supercomputing capability
for cents on the dollar - way ahead of Google and Microsoft and IBM.
Do you really think the internet created Amazon, Snapchat, Facebook, etc? No, the internet
was just a tool to be used. The people who created those businesses would have used any tool they
had access to at the time because their original goal was not automation or innovation, it was
only to get rich.
Let me remind you of Thomas Edison. If he would have lived 100 years later, he would have used
computers instead of electricity to make his fortune. (In contrast, Nikolai Tesla/George Westinghouse
used electricity to be innovative, NOT to get rich ). It isn't the tool that is used, it is the
mindset of the people who use the tool
"Disruptive parasitic intermediation" is superb, thanks. The entire phrase should appear
automatically whenever "disruption"/"disruptive" or "innovation"/"innovative" is used in a laudatory
sense.
100% agreement with your first point in this thread, too. That short comment should stand as a
sort of epigraph/reference for all future discussion of these things.
No disagreement on the point about actual and wannabe plutocrats either, but perhaps it's worth
emphasising that it's not just a matter of a few successful (and many failed) personal get-rich-quick
schemes, real as those are: the potential of 'universal machines' tends to be released in the
form of parasitic intermediation because, for the time being at least, it's released into a world
subject to the 'demands' of capital, and at a (decades-long) moment of crisis for the traditional
model of capital accumulation. 'Universal' potential is set free to seek rents and maybe to
do a bit of police work on the side, if the two can even be separated.
The writer of this article from 2010 [
http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/artificial-scarcity-world-overproduction-escape-isnt
] surely wouldn't want it to be taken as conclusive, but it's a good example of one marginal
train of serious thought about all of the above. See also 'On Africa and Self-Reproducing Automata'
written by George Caffentzis 20 years or so earlier [https://libcom.org/library/george-caffentzis-letters-blood-fire];
apologies for link to entire (free, downloadable) book, but my crumbling print copy of the single
essay stubbornly resists uploading.
Unfortunately, the healthcare insurance debate has been simply a battle between competing ideologies.
I don't think Americans understand the key role that universal healthcare coverage plays in creating
resilient economies.
Before penicillin, heart surgeries, cancer cures, modern obstetrics etc. that it didn't matter
if you are rich or poor if you got sick. There was a good chance you would die in either case
which was a key reason that the average life span was short.
In the mid-20th century that began to change so now lifespan is as much about income as anything
else. It is well known that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain. So if you currently
have healthcare insurance through a job, then you don't want to lose it by taking a risk to do
something where you are no longer covered.
People are moving less to find work – why would you uproot your family to work for a company
that is just as likely to lay you off in two years in a place you have no roots? People are less
likely to day to quit jobs to start a new business – that is a big gamble today because you not
only have to keep the roof over your head and put food on the table, but you also have to cover
an even bigger cost of healthcare insurance in the individual market or you have a much greater
risk of not making it to your 65th birthday.
In countries like Canada, healthcare coverage is barely a discussion point if somebody is looking
to move, change jobs, or start a small business.
If I had a choice today between universal basic income vs universal healthcare coverage, I
would choose the healthcare coverage form a societal standpoint. That is simply insuring a risk
and can allow people much greater freedom during the working lives. Similarly, Social Security
is of similar importance because it provides basic protection against disability and not starving
in the cold in your old age. These are vastly different incentive systems than paying people money
to live on even if they are not working.
Our ideological debates should be factoring these types of ideas in the discussion instead
of just being a food fight.
>that people have a much bigger aversion to loss than gain.
Yeah well if the downside is that you're dead this starts to make sense.
>instead of just being a food fight.
The thing is that the Powers-That-Be want it to be a food fight, as that is a great stalling
at worst and complete diversion at best tactic. Good post, btw.
As the rich became uber rich, they hid the money in tax havens. As for globalization, this
has less to do these days with technological innovation and more to do with economic exploitation.
I will note that Germany, Japan, South Korea, and a few other nations have not bought into
this madness and have retained a good chunk of their manufacturing sectors.
'As for globalization, this has less to do these days with technological innovation and more
to do with economic exploitation.'
Economic exploiters are always with us. You're underrating the role of a specific technological
innovation. Globalization as we now know it really became feasible in the late 1980s with the
spread of instant global electronic networks, mostly via the fiberoptic cables through which everything
- telephony, Internet, etc - travels Internet packet mode.
That's the point at which capital could really start moving instantly around the world, and
companies could really begin to run global supply chains and workforces. That's the point when
shifts of workers in facilities in Bangalore or Beijing could start their workdays as shifts of
workers in the U.S. were ending theirs, and companies could outsource and offshore their whole
operations.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
"... "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/ ..."
So we're not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been
using for six years. Where exactly is the "red line" in Syria? The president's spokesman, Sean
Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.
This kind of confusion doesn't help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran
who are trying to navigate this conflict. Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet
members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.
"I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but
the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view,
to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that
occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post
as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/
"... Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control... ..."
"... The spring festival was originally a fertility celebration, so the bunnies connection runs deep. And shallow. ..."
Easter echoes the eons old human festivity to celebrate the March exquinox (in the northern hemisphere)
and the arrival of spring. The dark and cold days of winter are gone. The bright time of fertility
has come.
Today's fertility symbols of Easter, the egg and the hare,
relate to the old Germanic fertility goddess Eostre (Ostara). Ishtar, a Mesopotamian goddess
of love, stepped down into the
underworld of death but was revived. The Christian resurrection of Jesus is probably a transformation
of this older hopeful tale.
When the Christian message spread from its eastern Mediterranean origin its incorporation of old
local gods and fables helped to convert the multi-theistic societies to the new monotheistic
* believe. The gods of the pre-Christian religions were not completely discarded but their
tales transformed to support the new united message the Christian preachers were spreading.
But whatever. - It is spring, the darkness vanishes and it is my favored holiday. This year the
Julian and Gregorian calendars coincide. We thus
follow
the Russian Barbarians and wish us all
Happy Easter
Faberge egg with spring flowers and music box-
bigger
Please join me, v. Goethe and Dr. Faust in our traditional
Easter Walk:
Look from this height whereon we find us
Back to the town we have left behind us,
Where from the dark and narrow door
Forth a motley multitude pour.
They sun themselves gladly and all are gay,
They celebrate Christ's resurrection to-day.
For have not they themselves arisen?
From smoky huts and hovels and stables,
From labor's bonds and traffic's prison,
From the confinement of roofs and gables,
From many a cramping street and alley,
From churches full of the old world's night,
All have come out to the day's broad light.
...
How it hums o'er the fields and clangs from the steeple!
This is the real heaven of the people,
Both great and little are merry and gay,
I am a man, too, I can be, to-day.
* The Christian Trinity
, the three aspects of the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is a doctrinaire addition
of the 4th century. It just adds an explanatory layer on top of the Abrahamic core of the monotheistic
Christian message.
Happy Easter to all and may we celebrate more Happy Easters to come!
Thanks B for reminding us that as long as we continue to celebrate Easter and remember what
it represents, we are also celebrating hope, the possibility of renewal and setting humanity on
a path towards peace and away from greed, violence, exploitation and lack of care for our fellow
humans, animals and other travellers on this planet.
Actually the Trinity was one of the earliest pantheistic traditions incorporated and the most
foundational to Christianity, as it incorporated the Greek Year Gods, essentially past, present
and future. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
A good book on the subject; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm
Of course, the Catholic Church, as the eternal institution, didn't really care for a foundational
concept of renewal and did its best to fudge the message. Which they did a good job of, resulting
in the need for Luther to push the reset button.
Then again the essential fallacy of monotheism is that absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual
absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which consciousness rises, not an ideal of wisdom
and judgement from which it fell. The new born babe, not the wise old man.
It's just socially effective to assert the laws are given, rather than emergent with the processes
they describe. The assumptions are still deeply embedded in western culture, even if the folk
concepts have faded.
Or whether doth my mind, being crowned with you,
Drink up the monarch's plague, this flattery?
Or whether shall I say, mine eye saith true,
And that your love taught it this alchemy,
To make of monsters and things indigest
Such cherubins as your sweet self resemble,
Creating every bad a perfect best,
As fast as objects to his beams assemble?
O! 'tis the first, 'tis flattery in my seeing,
And my great mind most kingly drinks it up:
Mine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
And to his palate doth prepare the cup:
If it be poisoned, 'tis the lesser sin
That mine eye loves it and doth first begin.
Christianity proclaims that it is righteous and it is at war with (battling) ALL the other religions
which are deemed to be (at best) false. The adherents to these other religions are misled (at
best) or evil. Christianity says that it cannot tolerate (must destroy) evil. Accordingly, one
day the king of Christianity will return to rule the world.
Islam offers up the same story.
What a perfect formula we have for fomenting war. Inspiring youths to kill for their (faith)
religion.
Religion is a fundamental component in the justification of mass murder. It's been used this
way for centuries and it has not ebbed.
Just as the day of rest was a spiritual discipline that demonstrated there is more to life
than production and consumption - and so was a threat to every narrative of power and control...
So the resurrection is a symbol that the alternative narrative of the Kingdom of Heaven does
triumph over the fear and death we all live in. Not only does the Kingdom of Heaven out-survive
death, it transforms it. The resurrection narrative does not defeat the powers of this world through
conflict. It 'outlives' them, most especially with those eternal qualities of mercy, forgiveness,
life, light, and yes, love.
May we all celebrate this day and the lives of those who have pointed us all to a life of wholeness.
thank you b, for this site and for your work to host it.
I checked and indeed, you can find Russian greeting cards "Happy Easter", but that seems to be
copied from the West. More standard is to greet people on that day with words "Christ has resurrected",
and post cards have those words but there are also other, less religious versions. From Holy Internet:
" Traditional Easter greeting is Христос воскрес! (Christ is risen!) and the response is Воистину
воскрес! (In truth He is risen!) ".
A muslim couple walk past a shop, there's eggs & stuff and a big sign reading 'Happy Easter'.
One of them to the other: 'From what I understand, some rabbit was born to them...'
I think the next phase change of human evolution will involve a switch back from the linear, growth
oriented view of the last several thousand years, to a more cyclical, thermodynamic conceptual
foundation.
For instance, we think of time as the point of the present moving past to future, but the reality
is change turning future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Events have
to occur, in order to be determined.
Alan Watts used the example of a boat and its wake, as analogy, in that the wake doesn't steer
the boat, the boat creates the wake. Events are first in the present, then in the past.
This makes time an effect of activity, similar to temperature, color, pressure, etc.
If you consider the actual, physical manifestation of time and history, this concept on which
human culture is based, it is residue in the present state. What is measured as time; duration,
is the state of the present, as events form and dissolve.
The overwhelming physical reality is the thermodynamic convection cycles/feedback loops in
which we evolved. They underlay all aspects of biology and civilization. Right now, you might
say we are at the crest of an enormous wave and it's mostly foam and bubbles, with a massive undertow.
thanks for the easter reminder, amidst everything else that is being focused on.. new beginnings
which we surely do need... looking for new leaders to pave a new direction here at this moment
and don't see anything on the horizon yet..
"... As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed, somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other nations' interests for America's. ..."
"... "One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians," Mr. Trump said during a major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place." ..."
As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a
priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed,
somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary
Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging
heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other
nations' interests for America's.
"One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians,"
Mr. Trump said during a
major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians
suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The
world is a different place."
"We're a humanitarian nation," he continued, "but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions
will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We've made the Middle East more unstable and
chaotic than ever before."
The contrast between Mr. Trump and his predecessor could not be starker. In the early days
of his presidency, Mr. Obama made the case for America's moral responsibility to intervene militarily
on humanitarian grounds. "Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention
later," he said in
accepting
the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 .
Yet when Syria slipped into a deadly civil war, Mr. Obama focused more on the costs of intervention
than the risks of inaction. Even after Mr. Assad's forces killed hundreds in a poison gas attack
in August 2013, Mr. Obama did not carry out a threatened missile strike because, he said, he had
not gotten
Congress to sign off on it .
Mr. Trump's action, only 77 days into his term, hardly settles the question of when he might
intervene in future crises. He has not articulated criteria for humanitarian interventions and,
even if he did, it is not clear that he would stick to his standards any more than Mr. Obama did.
Firing dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria also deflects attention from Mr. Trump's
lengthening list of troubles at home, from the investigation of his campaign's murky ties with
Russia to his failed health care legislation.
"... A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for him in spite of their dislike. ..."
"... European neoliberalism in many ways created the conditions that the far right has recently exploited to convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants. Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as well)? ..."
"... The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so dominant that in combination with how the election system is structured, they are basically the only two national parties. The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties that influence policy through coalition forming simply doesn't exist. ..."
"... US presidential, senatorial, and congressional candidates basically run not with a platform, but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered - he couldn't run as a non-Democrat. ..."
"Liberals now looking to commune with the Trump base should
check out the conscientious effort to do exactly that by the
Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild. As we learn in
her election-year best seller, Strangers in Their Own Land:
Anger and Mourning on the American Right, she poured her
compassion, her anthropological sensibility, and five years
of her life into "a journey to the heart of the American
right." Determined to burst out of her own "political
bubble," Hochschild uprooted herself to the red enclave of
Lake Charles, Louisiana, where, as she reports, there are no
color-coded recycling bins or gluten-free restaurant entrées.
There she befriended and chronicled tea-party members who
would all end up voting for Trump. Hochschild liked the
people she met, who in turn reciprocated with a "teasing,
good-hearted acceptance of a stranger from Berkeley." And
lest liberal readers fear that she was making nice with
bigots in the thrall of their notorious neighbor David Duke,
she offers reassurances that her tea-partyers "were generally
silent about blacks." (Around her, anyway.)
Hochschild's
mission was inspired by Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With
Kansas? She wanted "to scale the empathy wall" and "unlock
the door to the Great Paradox" of why working-class voters
cast ballots for politicians actively opposed to their
interests. Louisiana is America's ground zero for industrial
pollution and toxic waste; the stretch of oil and
petrochemical plants along the Mississippi between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge is not known as "cancer alley" for
nothing. Nonetheless, the kindly natives befriended by
Hochschild not only turned out for Trump but have
consistently voted for local politicians like Steve Scalise
(No. 3 in Paul Ryan's current House leadership), former
senator David Vitter, and former governor Bobby Jindal, who
rewarded poison-spewing corporations with tax breaks and
deregulation even as Louisiana's starved public institutions
struggled to elevate the health and education of a populace
that ranks near the bottom in both among the 50 states.
Hochschild's newfound friends, some of them in dire health,
have no explanation for this paradox, only lame, don't–wanna–rock–Big
Oil's–tanker excuses. Similarly unpersuasive is their
rationale for hating the federal government, given that it
foots the bill for 44 percent of their state's budget.
Everyone who takes these handouts is a freeloader except
them, it seems; the government should stop favoring those
other moochers (none dare call them black) who, in their
view, "cut the line." Never mind that these white voters who
complain about "line cutters" are themselves guilty of
cutting the most important line of all - the polling-place
line - since they are not subjected to the voter-suppression
efforts being inflicted on minorities by GOP state
legislatures, the Roberts Supreme Court, and now the Jeff
Sessions–led Department of Justice.
In "What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working
Class," a postelection postmortem published to much op-ed
attention by the Harvard Business Review (and soon to be
published in expanded form as what will undoubtedly be
another best-selling book), the University of California law
professor Joan C. Williams proposes that other liberals do in
essence what Hochschild did. "The best advice I've seen so
far for Democrats is the recommendation that hipsters move to
Iowa," Williams writes - or to any other location in the
American plains where "shockingly high numbers of
working-class men are unemployed or on disability, fueling a
wave of despair deaths in the form of the opioid epidemic."
She further urges liberals to discard "the dorky arrogance
and smugness of the professional elite" (epitomized in her
view by Hillary Clinton) that leads them to condescend to
disaffected working-class whites and "write off blue-collar
resentment as racism."
Hochschild anticipated that Williams directive, too. She's
never smug. But for all her fond acceptance of her new
Louisiana pals, and for all her generosity in portraying them
as virtually untainted by racism, it's not clear what such
noble efforts yielded beyond a book, many happy memories of
cultural tourism, and confirmation that nothing will change
anytime soon. Her Louisianans will keep voting for candidates
who will sabotage their health and their children's
education; they will not be deterred by an empathic Berkeley
visitor, let alone Democratic politicians."
"We hear people constantly saying 'Nothing will change his
supporters' minds. They're with him no matter what.' First of
all this is enervating defeatism which is demoralizing and
loserish. But it also misses the point. It is factually
wrong. For the supporters those people have in mind, they're
right.
They're true believers, authoritarians who are energized
by Trump's destructive behavior. But there are not that many
of those people.
A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for
him in spite of their dislike.
Those people can be
carved away. But Democrats will regain power by winning it in
what amount to our 21st century internal American
borderlands, not in the big cities or rural areas mainly but
in between. So what's happening now to lay that groundwork
for 2018?"
DD:
European neoliberalism in many ways created the
conditions that the far right has recently exploited to
convince people that their problems are caused by immigrants.
Does what's going on in Finland with the decline in the
far-right parties and the increasing success of left parties
point to a way out throughout Europe (and maybe here as
well)?
MB: The Finland situation is very promising from a
leftist view. Finland's political system is mostly dominated
by six parties: the Green Party, similar to the Greens here;
a Social Democratic Party. which is like the Labor Party; the
Left Alliance, which is the communists and socialists. This
is the Left.
On the other side, you have the Centre Party, which was
like the Farmers' Party but doesn't really have an economic
definition, so sometimes they join coalitions with left-wing
or right-wing parties; you have the National Coalition Party,
the right-wing business party; then, lately, you have the
Finns Party - which used to be called the True Finns, which
kind of gives you a hint of what they're about. They're like
an ethno-nationalist party, though they will deny that.
In 2015, the top three parties in Finland were
conservative: in order was the Centre Party, the National
Coalition Party, and then the Finns. They came together and
formed the center-right Bourgeois Government (which is what
they actually call their governments). Combined, the three
parties have about 60 percent of the public behind them.
The Finns join the center-right party that's mostly
interested in austerity of various sorts - trimming down
wages and benefits, increasing competitiveness of exports,
which also means trimming down labor costs and making people
work longer and cutting vacations.
When the Finns join that government, their support just
collapses. It goes from over 20 percent to less than 10
percent over a year or two. If you read the Finnish
newspapers, the consensus is that they are basically
supported by blue-collar people who are also racists. But
ultimately, they don't want a party that comes in and cuts
their wages and benefits even if the party is racist and
satisfies their anti-immigrant tendencies.
Their support base looks at the Finns Party and says,
"You're a traitor to the working class - to hell with you."
Only left parties picked up voters as the ethno-nationalist
party declined.
This shows that even people who are have very bad views on
immigration and diversity - if they get screwed on just basic
pocketbook issues, they jump ship and go back over to their
old homes in the Left.
That's a good sign for the American context, especially
because Trump and the Republicans are not going to run a
government that benefits working-class people. His base is
going to get disillusioned and be open to supporting a
Bernie-style candidate or someone like that who speaks to
their issues and actually intends to follow through with
them, instead of just using them rhetorically and then
abandoning them once they get into office. So it's promising.
The big difference is that in the US the "R&D" are so
dominant that in combination with how the election system is
structured, they are basically the only two national parties.
The option of jumping between "significant fringe" parties
that influence policy through coalition forming simply
doesn't exist.
US presidential, senatorial, and
congressional candidates basically run not with a platform,
but with a party. This is also how Sanders got outmaneuvered
- he couldn't run as a non-Democrat.
Russian writer Dmitry Orlov has in fact written an entire book on just
this subject: "Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American
Prospects" (2011). In it he argues that the American empire is headed for
the same kind of collapse as the Soviet Union experienced, but that
Americans will have a harder time of it as we're much less self-sufficient
both individually and as a society as a whole.
Thank YOU for using Better World Books. I volunteer at our local
library and we send many of our discarded books to BWB and they PAY us
for them. So their business helps support libraries : )
Yes, he likens it to falling out of a several stories high window, as
opposed to falling out of a ground floor window. People were used to
getting by with less and so when the USSR collapsed (economically, not in
any other way) people didn't have that hard a time of it. Not to worry,
the gradual diminishing of expectations that's being conducted right now
should help us along.
Thank you very much for this, Lambert. I am in the late stages of an
anthropology doctorate and have been studying the Soviet Union and its
legacy for nearly a decade. The parallels between the U.S. and the late
Soviet period have been becoming more obvious with each passing year. I
especially think that your emphasis on the out-of-touch character of the
elite nomenklatura is on point. To me this stands out as one of the primary
reasons for the Soviet Union's dissolution. It was their increasing desire
to emulate Western consumption, their appetite for foreign goods, and their
own loss of faith in the Soviet project that was instrumental to tearing it
apart. In Central Asia, where I've done most of my work, it is rarely the
Soviet Union per se that is the subject of critique, but rather the actions
of its leaders, who lived in an increasingly insular world with its own set
of institutions and norms, their own resorts, their own stores, etc. apart
from the rest of the population.
There are important differences with the contemporary U.S., however.
Despite hiccups and shortages in many areas of the economy, the late Soviet
Union did a very good job of ensuring access to basic goods such as food,
housing, and medical care. Even with quotas and shortages, my sense is that
the average person had far better access to these things in the USSR than
many people in the U.S. do today. i.e. You could not always get an apartment
in central Moscow, but you would have a place to live somewhere in the
country. The planned economy did a very poor job at providing automobiles
and "consumer goods," which many came to desire, but it did a very good job
at providing basic welfare, especially in its later years. It's critical to
emphasis this point so as not to fall into the narrative of capitalist
inevitability, what Francis Fukuyama called "the end of history." I don't
think the Soviet Union's end was inevitable and it could have been managed
differently if the interests of the broader population rather than the
elites had been the focus of concern. (There are also important differences
across regions: the Baltic states, Ukraine, etc. had a much more hostile
relationship to Moscow than did Central Asia and the Caucasus; a lot of this
nuance sometimes gets lost in discussions of the end of the USSR in which
Eastern Europe looms large in the U.S. imagination).
The more important parallel, it seems to me, is what the post-Soviet
situation can tell us about our own near-future. The experience of the
Soviet Union's end left people in a state of shock and surprise. It also
exposed the way in which so many social institutions only work to the extent
that people believe in them or at least act as if they believe in them. It
is a profoundly disorienting sensation and I think that that is where some
of the greatest parallels between the end of these two different empires
will be most pronounced.
Something you might look into: When I was in college and studying
anthropology, about 1967, I was told there was an Indian (from India)
anthropologist doing fieldwork in a small town in the greater midwest –
Missouri? I never followed up and found his monograph, but it's probably
out there, and there should be many more like it.
So, the bigger question: is there ethnography of the US, done by
cultural outsiders? It should be very revealing.
Etnog
Confused ussr politboro & military had created great animus among muslim
southern flank provinces with its bombing of muslims in Afghanistan not
that the blob did not help, but the advent of cheap/affordable still &
video cameras, along with the vcr removed the power of the govt approved
media to control the narrative with porous borders along the muslim
provinces, the central committee had lost control of the Soviet union and
was not prepared to revert to Stalinist retributions to regain control
As to the main question there is no breaking up america russia spans
two/three continents and had a very distinct religious divide with
borders across dozens of countries with enemies on all sides working to
disrupt it
Neither canada nor mexico have a navy, air force nor army of any real
consequence and except for opportunistic economic activities, do not have
any history or inkling of wanting to disrupt the u.s. of "ay what you
lookin at"
Many parts of the country have been economically abandoned and most
state and local govts are led and fed by failed attorneys hiding their
incompetence on the bench or in elected office
Things are not as they should be, but most people will suffer and live
rather than fight and die
We don't have all the loose ends which brought the soviet collapse and
sadly, we killed off most of those who were here before us, taking
advantage of their own disunity and discooperationalism to slowly
eliminate them in the quest for sea to shining sea
The world is not full of people who are looking to pay tens of
thousnds of dollars to be illegally entered into russia for its
"opportunities"
Thanks for posting this, Lambert. Like many others, I've been thinking
about how the US has been following a similar downward path as the USSR. I
recently read "Armageddon Averted" by Stephen Kotkin, who pointed to the
following reasons for Soviet collapse:
1.
Economic stagnation
(no incentives for workers, stalled
productivity, R&D diverted to military applications, inflexibility and high
costs of the heavy industry physical plant)
2.
Elite apathy
on the communist project (who saw they could make
more money under capitalism while retaining power in a new regime)
3.
Degradation of public health and morale
(popular cynicism and
civic disengagement, escalating drug, alcohol use, illness, and disability)
The reasons I think we may go a different way than the USSR (perhaps even
avoiding collapse) is that while we have been suffering stagnation for about
a decade now, we still have a pretty dynamic economy. Many Americans aspire
to be small business owners and workers across sectors have, comparatively,
pretty high productivity. The ethos for fairness and hard work is very
strong, it is just hard to believe this country is fair on any fronts these
days (we're all cynics now). Even though cartels and a complicit government
have allowed the financialization and oligopoloziation of the economy, it is
not outside the realm of possibility that these things get dismantled over
the next few decades if the right groups get energized, mobilized, and gain
power.
Another reason for the likely perpetuation of the status quo or avoidance
of collapse is that the elites are raking in the money. American capitalism
has worked and continues to work very well for them. If anything, they may
be more willing now to turn away from the democratic project (but they've
always been against democracy). Then again, we should ask ourselves: are we
more/less democratic or more/less surveilled and oppressed now than we were
fifty or sixty years ago, under Jim Crow and the Red Scare? How much
more/less? Probably about the same. In other words, the elite are probably
not willing to let the USA go down the tubes the same way the elites of the
USSR were okay with their collapse.
I think the symptoms of USSR/USA collapse are similar, but the causes are
very different. And we also have some historical experience with these
causes (monopolies/oligopolies, wealth inequality, anti-democratic elites).
It can be reversed.
"Then again, we should ask ourselves: are we more/less democratic or
more/less surveilled and oppressed now than we were fifty or sixty years
ago, under Jim Crow and the Red Scare? How much more/less? Probably about
the same."
I would say Big Brother has many more ways to watch us and track our
every movement now. Also, it's my impression that Americans under 40 not
only don't know the value of privacy, they don't even want to know what
it is.
Also, American materialism has had another 5-6 decades to do its
corrosive work of undermining the human spirit.
So, I would say, in many ways, more surveilled/less democratic.
Um, "Prices That Do Not Send Signals": can we put the price of our
centrally planned, monopoly-issued, fiat-declared
money
into that
category? The
Politboro
Fed meets and declares exactly how
much money the system will need at what precise time and at what precise
price. Then the analysts practice their Kremlinology (did Yellen say "may
increase" or "might increase"?) and then scramble to buy or sell the goods
and services represented by this so-called "money". Right now the
Commissars
Fed analysts have decided that the precisely-right price
of money according to their calculations and astrological observations
should be the lowest it has ever been in recorded history. Like the Soviet
Union, however, they come out every so often to declare "все прекрасно"
("everything is great!")
Setting the base rate of money is not a terribly offense, market-wise.
However, practices like the Greenspan-Bernanke and presumably Yellen put,
to intervene to stop stock market swoon is one example. Another is the
extensive intervention in the mortgage market, with 90% of mortgages now
government guaranteed. The result of artificially cheap credit is
inflated housing prices, which helps builders and brokers (and those who
got in early, meaning older people who could buy housing and haven't
suffered reversals) at the expense of most citizens.
Seems slicing and dicing income streams, w/ long expectation tails, w/
at the center of it is RE, w/ everything else bolted on it, all whilst
wages and jobs are crapified, meaning the aforementioned is a substitute
for the former wellie that's a wee bit of pressure on the – unknown –
future ™ and as we all know you can't price the unknown now can we .
Don't know about the centrally planned rant, the bimetallism standard,
is just as, if not more authoritarian, let alone just an sole object as a
price anchor vs. a basket of assets. But as YS is want to repetitively
inform political and ideological factors during the Vietnam period had a
much more fundamental role in setting the stage than say bimetallism vs
fiat fixations. Had the anti taxers taken a intellectual and functional
purview of the state of things, then we might not be in this mess, but
yeah ev'bal fiat . sigh
I would add per your last response to a comment of mine wrt enabling
capital flows freedom, remind me again the manifold size of the shadow
sector and its velocity vs USD base money. Not to mention its ability to
FX shape shift in a blink of an eye.
disheveled . with no less than a hundred years of history its a bit
much to lay it all at the feet of fiat.
I read somewhere that one thing the Founding Fathers WANTed Congress
to do was to issue the money and "regulate the value thereof". I presume
that means they wanted the value of the money kept constant so people
could always understand what "things cost" or "were worth" in relation to
eachother.. .
now, right now, tomorrow and next week.
It is fun making The Amazing Rubber Yardstick longer or shorter at
your every whim, but just try measuring something with The Amazing Rubber
Yardstick.
You have to be careful about reading into history, you have to make
sure its in accurate context. Observational Bias has a pertinacity to
project ones desires where they are not warrantied.
There are some parallels, particularly WRT leadership, but our situation
is fairly unique in that we are getting far too much of what we don't need
for cheap (bad food, entertainment, junk consumer products) and getting far
too little of what we need for a premium (good food, education, healthcare,
etc.). Capitalists figured out Brave New World was far more effective than
1984.
Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US
Blossoming?
This book explores the why, how, when and where of the present decline
and fall of the US Empire, based on a theory of synergizing contradictions
used in 1980 to predict the fall of the Soviet empire. It then maps possible
futures for the US and the world, with a blueprint for a desirable global
future. This book is best read as a companion to Peace Economics: From a
Killing to a Life Enhancing Economy.
Author: Johan Galtung, born 1930 in Oslo, Norway. Lives in Spain, France,
Japan and the USA and is mainly engaged in mediation and research. He
founded TRANSCEND: A network for Peace and Development, in 1993, and is the
rector of TRANSCEND Peace University.
I would like to disagree with the thesis of this article, and if I think
of something I'll let you know. I don't think I'll be letting you know.
Sure, there are differences, but there are numerous similarities between the
late stage USSR and the current USA, and we ignore them at our peril.
As for part of the problem with Russian queuing in general, the initial
discussion of this particular breed of post-USSR-fall Russians c. 2001 at
McDonald's in Taibbi's writeup is a good and very funny illustration in
short (quote below). But the full length of it is golden prose and very
worth reading for those of you who might be interested in keen observation
of social types, with an interesting early assessment of Putin as
anti-Sovok. It's overall right on the money to anyone who has ever spent any
time in Russian social circles.
____________________________
The specific mission of the staffers at the McDonald's take-out window
was to record the number of instances of a certain kind of conversation,
a conversation only possible in Russia- the old Russia, anyway. It takes
place when a middle-aged and usually overweight person makes his way to
the front of a long line at McDonald's. The person has had as long as
five full minutes to read the menu before getting to the front of the
line, but he's waited until he actually reaches the front to do so. Now
that he is at the front of the line, and six or seven people are safely
camped behind him in impatient agony, he squints up at the menu, scanning
the letters some 4-6 minutes longer than it is physically possible to
actually read the information. From there, he starts asking questions of
the cashier:
"A Royal Cheeseburger, what's that?"
"Which is the sandwich that comes with tomatoes and horseradish?"
"Why should I order the meal if it's not cheaper than ordering the
items separately?"
"Can I get an extra box with the McNuggets?"
And so on, and so on. There is no way to stop such a person, no way to
make the process go faster. He is progressing at maximum speed. Any
attempt to speed him up will only cause behavioral spillage in any number
of new and ugly directions. You are at his mercy.
America is a hot, decaying mess. And using examples of our mess of a
healthcare system is spot on, though you could have just as easily used our
decaying infrastructure, for example. Anyway, I just spent the last two
weeks dealing with a very serious health scare, and I bless my lucky stars
for having access to the VA system. Given my sharply reduced income, the
"market"-based system would have really extracted a nice chunk of my
savings. All I had to worry about with the VA was showing up on time for my
many appointments with various specialists (all of which were made in a
timely manner, given the urgency of my situation). I want EVERYBODY to have
what I have, because it is good and it saves lives, rather than mint cash
for stockholders and MBA douchenozzles. Of course, that's precisely why the
VA is a thorn in the side of our politicos, and explaisn why they have been
trying to strangle the VA and privatize it in order to turn it into yet
another rent-extraction opportunity for our rentier class.
Yes. The fall of the Soviet Union was due to the party elite finding a
way to cash out and the people felt that they no longer had a vested
interest In their government thanks gulf between reality and the propaganda.
Both are occurring in the USA right now with similar results.
Thanks for examples! I've been saying this since the Clinton-fans went
into Permanent Putin mode, but I wasn't able to break it down with examples.
I think the Russia Paranoia has 2 psychological roots:
the pundit class is terrified that USA is going to be like post-communism
Russia: they lost their empire and became a laughing-stock, despite going
capitalist. That's why a Russian future is more scary to them than a, say,
Chinese or Nazi future. In their hearts they know it's more likely. That's
why nobody big is accusing trump of being a "chinese spy"
Plus even though Russia is no longer communist, the word 'russia' still
packs commie connotations. So centrist Dems frightened of a Sanders-like
party takeover can say "russia" to strike at their left flank and right
flank simultaneously.
No other country I can think of fills both these psychological needs so
well.
The question for America's future is . . . does America "have" an Empire?
Or is America "is" an Empire?
If we "have" an Empire, perhaps we can get rid of it gracefully and preserve
our worthwhile national existence. If we "are" an Empire, then we may
delaminate into tens or dozens of mutually hostile nasty little pieces and
no-man's-lands between them. Because we don't have a core Mother
AngloSaxonia dominating other regions the way the USSR had a core Mother
Russia. We are a bunch of other regions with no core. If the "sum total" of
the regions is NOT a core, then there is NO CORE.
The elite in the USSR, especially those who ran the nominally state-owned
businesses, wanted to be capitalists, and ditching the nominally socialist
system was their ticket. What do the elites in the US want to be? And what
do they want to ditch the whatever-you-call-what-we-got-now system for?
(This is the biggest difference. The other big diff might be if the
general population arises in the US rather than a sector of the elites as
happened in the USSR.)
queues and being embarrassed by petty apparatchik:
Found at any
North American airport, stadium, coming to your local subway and train
station? Meanwhile oligarchy in private jets go unsoiled.
A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively
avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication
is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others
to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the
US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount
to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding"
back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm)
revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS.
With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.
One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through
the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the
primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires
and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London
to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.
The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger
sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian
and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a
caliphate.
Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even
if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise
the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite
militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.
Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and
Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also
ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around
Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped
his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.
So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels,
giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah
and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations.
Fine with me.
What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a
problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria,
not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other.
If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia
and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels
in Idlib, not sharing power with them.
I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot
to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for
free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste
dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?
This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the
biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni
terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.
Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump
should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged
the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.
How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria
when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?
Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.
Trump is a checkers player. King Me!
He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad
when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking
of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.
Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem
and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self
interested and big on hegemony.
Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.
Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama?
Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their
party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to
do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers,
and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect
plan.
That is the answer to your question.
The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the
literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the
world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and
political assets.
In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic
assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni
Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have
to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic
grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.
Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical
Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic
and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially
the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.
That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear
arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the
past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.
Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO
April 12, 2017
This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy.
There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There
is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the
Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls
from it.
Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction.
His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He
would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how
he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?
Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the
logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical
things are just being illogical.
In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical
thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to
do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.
But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There
is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader
protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.
Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial
ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his
desired image.
One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem
is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism
to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about
other people.
Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
"secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
(I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)
Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City
April 12, 2017
Commenting on Trump is degrading
All logic and sense he's evading,
Bankruptcy's his gambit
Illogic his ambit
His ego growth isn't abating.
A TV reality show
Is about the one thing he does know
A statesman he's not
The POTUS we've got
As a learner? Egregiously slow.
Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious
issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference.
So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts
April 12, 2017
"I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot
to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything
for free?"
Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done
anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a
daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?
As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say
yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized
Americans converted to jihadism online.
The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial
ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.
Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking
(not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks
focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of
eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's
(and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.
Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald
Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the
tweet? He doesn't know what to do.
Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems
after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked
upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he
should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy
professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and
"deal with it."
It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad
to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful
babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.
I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have
as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away
and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much
a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.
He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
April 12, 2017
"The Trump foreign policy team"
Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."
There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know
what he's doing. They slash at each other.
So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted
outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.
My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile,
there is no "foreign policy team."
Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back.
The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior
to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack
any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major
media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist
Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam
and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?
Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most
often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked
together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi
influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to
restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.
Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.
I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in
depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who
sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter
whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But
Mr. Friedman, there isn't.
Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary"
in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's
just figure out how to run him from office.
Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the
ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries
don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to
fall short:
"And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"
Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement
without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only
formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force
compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.
IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for
all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want
the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good
reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must
be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.
The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria
in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no
humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.
Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has
become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized
share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different
Middle East today.
These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest
military power resides.
Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability
and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.
To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is
never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more
of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.
Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will
only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile
democracy.
Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi
Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support
of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given
here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda
purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites,
knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population
ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of
Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under
threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have
no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison
gas.
ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?
Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President
Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But
both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will
inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His
Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the
facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after
59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would
do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade
While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone
is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is
as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are
ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes
well to the world's future
The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to
our country and the world.
He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he
has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to
be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies
and our adversaries.
Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between
the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking
while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the
intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.
There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other
neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen.
Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.
Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan.
He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning
brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady
and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the
family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to
clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House
as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.
Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.
Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and
programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop
strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments,
our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.
In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight
ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS.
He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out
without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.
The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away
from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in
his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening
of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was
thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".
Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will
cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile
draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't
cash.
"Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead
of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence
together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy...
never happen.
"... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
"... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
"... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons
who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.
After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with
Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate
war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr
Gage Skidmore)
Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in
a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for
his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk
missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although
no serious investigation was
even conducted).
Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with
emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully
played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians,
four of whom were children.
However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the
Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration
refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.
"But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian
people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the
Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's
policies over the past six years."
Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different
place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The
bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical
weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children.
It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."
A Seasoned Propagandist
Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never
been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013,
in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since
then, the evidence has indicated
that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)
Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)
But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out
that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted
logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that
Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."
But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights
onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.
"Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years
panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business.
Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S.
allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.
"Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact
of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million
Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."
Trump's Probation
Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would
have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would
have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for
their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.
President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013.
(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.
Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed
at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's
adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power
to defend its interests and the world order.
"The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile
strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the
stomach for confrontation."
And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:
"Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and
military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama
rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective
arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war,
and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.
"The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt
it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to
escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.
"Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the
course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."
On His Knees
To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees,
they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention
in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).
Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy
in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some
sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.
As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war
in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's "
A Family Business of Perpetual
War ."]
Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating
Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists,
who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy
promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")
In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological
operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their
angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election
became the argument of choice.
Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile,
Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional
Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.
However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from
any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached
such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.
Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon
favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war
in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning
point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.
It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia
for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the
service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
"... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
"... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
"... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
"... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
"... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
"... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
"... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
"... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
"... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far,
it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been
the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors).
This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental
state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability
to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to
the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is
not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to
protect Syria against Daesh.
If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have
Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands
that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations
which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.
So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means
as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.
I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only
works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran.
And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind
also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!
Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs
to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That
is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.
[Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but
the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to
be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress
in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.
I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere
near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very
energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and
Russia in record time.
So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely
terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda,
it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify
the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.
What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China,
the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction
operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese
either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?
Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear
wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group?
Think again.]
So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very
prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White
House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not
be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear
chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will
fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences
between the Americans and the Russians
The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans
are not.
The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate
the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the
West as a sign of weakness.
This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting
and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.
[Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated
with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems.
As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing
campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world"
as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome
their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now,
in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians
do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify
a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear
that the entire planet already knows the truth!
There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real
Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!
Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export
model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included
thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might
be changing.
Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first
use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had
nuclear underwater missiles
since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]
Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European
are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes
to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the
ECHELON /
FIVE EYES gang. Russia has
plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran
has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally
unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If
there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in
and tell the US to cool it.
In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope,
and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting
each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that
Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do
something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.
Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes
President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they
are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump?
I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.
US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'
by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017
Print This | Share This
With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration
officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House
saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national
interest."
Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US
attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an
accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.
Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against
Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria
is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.
That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria
designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes
against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense
will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.
Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting
that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government,
and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.
In an interview that aired on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that Mr.
Putin was partly to blame for the conflict in Syria and denounced him for backing President
Bashar al-Assad, whom he called an "animal." Later at the White House, Mr. Trump said that Russia
had likely known in advance of the Syrian government's plan to unleash a nerve agent against its
own people, and asserted that the United States' relations with Moscow were at an "all-time low."
... ... ...
Further punctuating the Syria dispute, Russia on Wednesday vetoed a
Western-backed resolution at the United Nations Security Council that condemned the chemical
weapons attack.
... But in a possible sign of Russia's isolation on the chemical
weapons issue, China, the permanent member that usually votes with Russia on Syria resolutions,
abstained.
The vote came the day after Mr. Trump spoke by phone to President Xi
Jinping of China, whom he hosted last week at a summit at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach,
Fla. White House officials said they credited the relationship between the two leaders that was
forged during the visit, and the conversation Tuesday evening, with helping to influence China's
vote
... ... ....
"I really think there's going to be a lot of pressure on Russia to make sure that peace
happens, because frankly, if Russia didn't go in and back this animal, we wouldn't have a problem
right now," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to Mr. Assad.
"Putin is backing a person that's truly an evil person, and I think it's very bad for Russia. I
think it's very bad for mankind. It's very bad for this world."
Later, after a meeting at the White House with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general,
Mr. Trump went out of his way to praise the military institution, which he called a "great
alliance," and to express disappointment with Russia.
... ... ...
Amid the rift with Russia, Mr. Trump made a striking reversal on NATO, saying the alliance had
transformed into an effective one since he took office.
"I said it was obsolete; it's no longer obsolete," Mr. Trump said, standing beside Mr.
Stoltenberg.
Mr. Trump attributed his change of heart to unspecified transformations within NATO, which he
said were a direct response to criticism he had leveled that the alliance was not doing enough to
combat terrorism.
...
Trump administration had supported the admission of
Montenegro
into NATO this week, in part to counter the influence of Russia in the small
Balkan nation. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official cited "credible reports" that
Moscow had backed a plot for a violent Election Day attack there last fall.
Mr. Trump on Tuesday signed the paperwork allowing Montenegro to
enter NATO, two weeks after the Senate approved the move in a March 28 vote.
"... Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over. ..."
"... Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times
over.
Gabbard is right to be skeptical of the usefulness and righteousness of missile strikes, but deeply stupid to carry water for
the denials by Assad and the Russian state media about complicity for the chemical weapons attacks.
Anne, real skepticism is when you question your own heroes and assumptions.
"... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
"... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
"... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history.
Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country,
President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical
attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to
happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles
(at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.
President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack
Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack
is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of
inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest."
Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on
the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.
From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about
the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as
he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks
regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military
advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA
-- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.
Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of
course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied
us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.
Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground
offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?
The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But
we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US
bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed
by poison gas or by a US missile?
What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison
gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow
claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone
in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move.
It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.
Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in
reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our
Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding
an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!
"... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
"... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
"... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
"... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
"... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province,
possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the
government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560"
name="I1">
"We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call
it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus.
They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said
at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.
Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical
weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.
The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles
at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.
"President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of
the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the
presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq
and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance
of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.
It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it
will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.
"The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this
kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer
said Monday.
Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that
the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.
"We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international
community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results
of such a probe," he said.
A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff,
which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern
Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.
"These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of
more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey
Rudskoy, the head of Operations.
YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain
should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This
jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed
execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL
OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL.
NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.
From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded
and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John
Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed
during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.
Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this
is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.
Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people,
and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan
should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because
of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence
and National Security.
If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)
It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as
president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's
"Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with
no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad
must go."
Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio
today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:
Trump surrendered to neocons. He is now Israel first instead of America first.
Notable quotes:
"... A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency. ..."
"... Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so. ..."
"... What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
"... Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants. ..."
"... For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain? ..."
"... Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war. ..."
"... And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary wars-may not be standing by him. ..."
"... We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
"... and the author of the book ..."
"... Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity? ..."
"... The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq? ..."
"... How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all. ..."
"... Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged the US national interest. ..."
"... Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that have damaged the national interest. ..."
"... Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President Trump. ..."
"... If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump. ..."
"... Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep. In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office. I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC. ..."
"... Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests. ..."
"... If you are on a diet, you do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual) war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult times. ..."
"... The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see. ..."
"... I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid. Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence" community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq. ..."
"... Surely; you jest . Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil; when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen.. ..."
"... "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?" – Ghandi ..."
"... I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within my power to take. ..."
"... Overthrowing Assad will certainly "do something about ISIS": It will grow stronger. ..."
"... John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks. You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice". Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count? How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA dare not thread ..."
"... There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field, and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing any soldiers." ..."
By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our "America First" president
may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.
Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back
to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.
Trump "will not stop here," warned UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. "If he needs to do more,
he will."
If Trump fails to back up Haley's threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him
as "Donald Obama."
But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and orders Syria's
air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaeda, but with Syria, Russia,
Iran, and Hezbollah.
A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency.
Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it
back into the Middle East?
Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened
us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.
Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.
What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children,
innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond
a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My
attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
Two days later, Trump was still emoting: "Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very
barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."
Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending.
But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.
Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli, and Turkish
planes and drones-and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels, and Shiite
militia.
Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians
in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible
for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?
Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?
For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was
no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's
rage, for no military gain?
Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America
into Syria's civil war.
And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president
has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom,
Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary
wars-may not be standing by him.
We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who
have causes they deem worth dying for.
For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaeda, it is about driving the Crusaders out
of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.
For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia
remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving
a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the
Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.
Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than
have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans
without a fight.
And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?
A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim
heretics? LGBT rights?
In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria.
We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue:
Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?
If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war,
the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.
Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but
Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see
that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity?
All he did was tell people what they wanted to hear but there was nothing in Trump's past that
would suggest he would ever deliver on them. At best Trump is just an opportunist who got in "over
his head" and will end up as "figurehead President" controlled by those who have done so much to
destroy what's left of the American Republic.
John Sharpe, April 11, 2017 at 1:45 am
Is it in America's vital interest that the use of WMD's never becomes a common tactic for unstable
regimes to punish/control misbehaving populations? I don't know. It's hard to argue for a world
where sarin gas attacks happen at the about the same frequency as car bombs. Could be a handful
of missiles bought the world another decade or so before that comes about.
john, April 11, 2017 at 1:48 am
The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now
they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship
Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq?
How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries
with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that
but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all.
Kurt Gayle, April 11, 2017 at 1:52 am
Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged
the US national interest.
Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers
who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars
– wars that have damaged the national interest.
This week's US bombing of Syria has set off alarm bells for many of us. We find it hard to
believe that – after just three months in office – someone in whom we placed so much trust might
be on the verge of betraying his promise to keep us out of unnecessary wars.
Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President
Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President
Trump.
If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military
confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying
the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump.
Instead, we will do what we have always done: We will support our country, the US, and its
national interest in staying out of unnecessary foreign wars.
The ball is now in President Trump's court. We, his supporters, are watching him closely –
by the hour.
"In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria."
Obama was much smarter than Trump. Now Republicans are trashing Obama for being weak and praising
Trump for being strong. The Republicans talk about rule of law when it suits them.
Trump sent a message. A pretty expensive and stupid and meaningless one. The majority of stupid
Republicans and spineless Democrats are supporting it.
Trump did what he was supposed to: he eliminated Hillary. Now we need to survive theses four
years.
Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep.
In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office.
I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC.
Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that
sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever
to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests.
If you are on a diet, you
do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual)
war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been
irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult
times.
The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken
to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up
toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see.
This administration has all the finesse of a bar fight with baseball bats.
"Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian "
Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? For
when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we launch
investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out
justice. At least that's the way we hope it works. No such thing happens on the Russian side.
Russia was complicit in this gas attack. In fact, Russia targets innocents regularly. And
there is no comparable scandal in Moscow.
"We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war"
Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?
I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid.
Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence"
community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow
government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian
revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one
million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass
destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq.
That list is just off the top of my head. Yet we're supposed to automatically believe this
same "intelligence" community knows beyond doubt what happened in that gas attack?
"For when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we
launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out
justice "
Surely; you jest .
Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil;
when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen..
IN the end; we will do what Israel wants us to do We did in Iraq; in Libya; yet to do in Iran;
and now we will attack Syria; all because Israel wants us to .
"Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? "
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction
is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
– Ghandi
I doubt that those on the ground really know who it is that are bombing them all the time.
A bomb is a bomb, a missile a missile. An errant drone strike that hits a hospital does the same
damage that an intentional one causes.
"Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"
Ah, to 'do something'. I can do a lot of somethings: I could wish really hard ISIS go away,
I could launch attacks on China thinking that would deter ISIS, I could paint a red line around
my house cause ISIS won't cross red lines. ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. They have no aircraft carrier,
no tanks, no transport ships. They will no arrive on our shores in a mass invasion. They are trying
to recruit those that are here, inspire attacks, and infiltrate in numbers less than a dozen.
Let our intelligence services do their job, not our military a thousand miles away.
"In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority
to take us to war in Syria."
In 2013, a GOP coalition came together to stop Obama getting credit for doing something the
GOP war party wanted to reserve solely for their own use – bombing brown people to inflate their
domestic polling numbers.
I think that is what you meant to say.
If you are under the illusion that the GOP stopped Obama from bombing Syria for any other reason
than the above, you are in need of a check-up.
I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in
Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within
my power to take.
Also to respond to John S.'s comment: "Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"
How does creating a power vacuum in Syria thwart ISIS?
John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks.
You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability,
we mete out justice".
Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD
and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count?
How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA
dare not thread
To our honor can we also add Afganistan where we displaced the government with a constant night
rides and drone attacks?
Oh by the way we lobbied bombs on a hospital operated by Doctors without borders, we first denied
then said may be and launched an investigation to nowhere?
Surely appreciate your thoughts.
words that have been uttered by stiffed contractors and workers for decades and now people
who thought they had elected a savior.
This is the problem with personality cults, Mr. Buchanan. Trump was a million different images
to a million different people. But, ultimately, he's a conman and selfish.
None of this is surprising, even if the details are frightening. Trump lied; he always lies;
he will continue to lie.
We need to check this frightening figure. I can only hope the Constitutional 'literalists'
grow a pair and do their duty. So far, it seems we have a party of sycophants to our own strongman
"Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have
also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that
have damaged the national interest.
"
There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field,
and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship
between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because
you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing
any soldiers."
If the Russians and Iranians starting laughing when Trump gave them 30 minutes advance warning
of the message he was going to send to Assad for using chemical weapons, they really doubled over
when Trump's people called for regime change in Syria. Talk about a meaningless gesture. The only
way there will be a regime change in Syria is if the Russians and Iranians decide Assad is no
longer useful and they want to put their selected puppet on the throne for reasons that they see
as vital to their national interests, which Syria very much represents to both of them.
"... I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran ..."
I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump
seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran
so trump clearly has no choice in things it's soo clear. everything that happens is decided
by the zionists. so let me get this straight, the CIA provide chemical weapons like sarin gas
to terrorists groups and when the Syrian army bombs the factory it explodes the gas killing the
civilians in the area, America proceeds to Launch 60 tomahawk missiles(and only half land) at
a Syrian air base and terrorist groups just happen to launch a quick offensive soon after.
didn't the trump administration say getting rid of assad is no longer on the agenda?
Trump campaigned on non-interventionism platform. Almost paleo--conservative platform.
And on April 6 he lost "anti-war right". And even some part of anti-war left ( Sanders supporters who really hated Hillary
for her jingoism and corruption ) who supported him holding the nose. Probably forever.
That might have consequences for him because he lost support from politically active and important segment of his electorate.
Which to certain extent protected him from impeachment as the last thing DemoRats want are fierce protests up to armed clashes
with alt-right afterward.
If his calculation was that DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats) are now also a War party, so it does not matter, he probably
badly miscalculated.
He now needs to worry what Russians might have on him because Wikileaks or other similar sites might get some interesting
materials. Of course Pence would be even more horrible POTUS, and revenge is a dish that better serve cold, but still he probably
did not sleep well after this "Monica" show of strength.
He also probably can forget about any compromises of the style "something for nothing" (as previous presidents enjoyed in
a hope of improving relations between two countries) from Russians for a while.
Only things prepaid with yuans from now on ;-).
The whole move smell with "Monica" stiles and Iraq WDM: Shoot first ask questions later".
Now he really can be impeached by DemoRats with impunity and there will be little on no protests. But now, when he surrendered
to neocons, why DemoRats take trouble to impeach him?
In other words from April 6 "Agent Orange" is walking in his new clothing like naked king from Andersen tale.
Actually, if one knew that Trump betray them in such a blatant way, why would one vote for Trump.
You can get Hillary who definitely would be better for domestic economic policy then "Agent Orange", yet another puppet
of military industrial complex.
Trump just started World War 3 -
as 59 Tomahawk missiles slam into a Syrian airfield.
Trump's excuse? Another false flag "atrocity."
Just like removing Saddam Husein from Iraq, CIA's Syria
strategy starts by demonizing the foreign leader (with a
staged Syrian "sarin gas attack"), then calls for United
Nations joint effort to seize control of the foreign
territory.
But this False Flag "sarin gas attack" in Syria was poorly
staged by CIA and Israel -- since emergency personnel
handled victims of the fake sarin attack using bare hands
(no protective gloves). That would never happen in a real
chemical weapons attack -- since the paramedics would get
contanimated with neurological toxins.
Is Trump's strategy against Syria just a replay of the
phony "WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse used to
overthrow Iraq? Is oil the goal -- or does the USA seek
something more?
For Updates, Subscribe to 'Barry Soetoro' Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzi...
Truthseeker 1060
4
days ago
To believe this false flag one has to be stupid or
corrupt. A smart person would not believe this lame
attempt to frame Assad. So if Trump attacks Assad he
will blow his cover and expose himself for the
globalist he really is. It's your move Mr. Trump.
Who are you? Let's see. The world is watching.
Natasha Vonoskabaya
4
days ago (edited)
Yup. Trump celebrates his first WMD White House
False Flag! I was always a skeptic of Trump, but
voted for him because Hillary.. Seems Trump, Hillary
and Bush are the same people.
Real Newsforever
3
days ago
60 Tomahawk Missiles just launched in 60 seconds for
a total weight of 60,000 pounds reported on CBS.
Sound like a pattern???
cloncar101 AJ
3
days ago (edited)
he was such an idiot to send those missiles
Internet Privacy Advocate
3
days ago
Impeach Trump now.
Jerry Fernandez
3
days ago
The first Trump strike to expand the Greater Israel
Project. (Is this the Jared effect?) Attacking Syria
is to start WW3. The Russians are not going to run
away from Syria, and the U.S. Military are going to
get their ass kicked. Obama destroyed the U.S.
Military advantage during last 8 years, and left $20
Trillion debt. Syria does not have a Rothschild
Central Bank as U.S. does (Federal Reserve). Israel
announced today that it will continue to strike
Syria. Israel does not do anything without CIA
approval. The sisters (Israel & Saudi Arabia) are
going all out on Syria. Qatar gas pipeline through
Syria. This Syria attack is to draw Iran in to the
conflict for all out war. WW3. President Trump, I
have believed in you and I want to continue
believing in you, and this looks very bad. I want
PEACE for our HUMANITY WORLDWIDE. NO MORE WARS! It's
Mars all over again.
Constitution_89
3
days ago
I am truly horrified with this news in the last 4
hours. I want to believe it has happened due to the
"intelligence/prodding/Lies of the
Bush/Clinton/Obama sycophants that are still all
over D.C. in every facet of the Fed and Pres. Trump
has been cajoled into this, but I can't believe that
he would be fooled by this. Anyone with a
functioning brain would understand that Assad
couldn't have done this, the consequences of such an
action on his part are just to insanely suicidally
Stupid. I'll say it right now that you can already
believe that the MIC Salesman, Muslim Brotherhood
Supporter, RINO Traitor and Trump hater Mumpface
McCain and his CIA Droogs have a hand in this Sarin
Attack if it even really happened. But Trump has
fallen for this??? I'm in shock, I really am --- and
very worried.
bob murphy
3
days ago
Where's the Proof that Assad did this, please don't
use fabricate b.s. from the White House.
DSWynne
3
days ago My main concern is how convenient the Syrian gassing
had occurred, just days after Trump re-affirmed his
commitment to avoid "messing situations" overseas,
especially since Assad is winning his fights (with
Russia's help, of course). Why start using sarin gas
now? Just doesn't feet right, as if there was a
script at work.
BG Hoover
3
days ago
I do not feel betrayed. I am concerned at the infiltration into the
White House by Jarvanka, Cohn and Powell.
Wylliam Reichart
13
hours ago
White house was not infiltrated, this has
been the plan for years, makes no
difference the talking head that implements
it. Trump did what he needed to do to gain
power, now he is doing the bidding of his
masters. You are in denial that you were
bamboozled by a fraud, join the crowd.
John Graves
4
days ago
Russian connection = Democrats Red Herring! They're
experts at it. In reality a Nothing Burger!
g bridgman
4
days ago
The whole Russian conspiracy thing is so
preposterous as to not even merit discussion yet the
MSM has been all over it from at least 6 months.
g bridgman
3
days ago
Yes, if credit is the right word, they
deserve an A+. It's amazing to me democrats
are stupid enough to believe this wild
conspiracy with no proof and the
politicians pushing the narrative are
cunning enough to realize their rank and
file will believe the BS and continue to
push it using the MSM as their vehicle. I
suppose it is a stellar accomplishment in
deception. It's also an extreme dis-service
to the nation and could ultimately lead to
the total destruction of the democratic
party.
RUHDD4HVN
3
days ago
I smell a deep state set up to distract from all the
crimes that are being committed within the US
government. Distract, Divert, to Deceive.......The
deep state doing what it does. They have now thrown
President Trump into a political stumbling mode that
will make it hard for him to catch his balance once
again. Such a shame.......
Aiz Mor
3
days ago
RUSSIA did not care who won. There purpose is to
make us look like police state, banana Republic.,
Embarrass us in front of the world. Which they have
succeeded. This deep state they probably knew about:
as well as the unmasking and leaking. The DNC
cheating sanders, 45% of americans are basket of
deplorable, christians are backward people, Pro life
woman expelled from woman march, News outlets giving
debate questions, it goes on and on. One caucus
refuses to respect President, the other bunch
wearing white...open riots to stop free speech.. it
goes on and on and on.One of the best qualified
Judges Fillabusted ( breaking 200 year od tradition)
causing a need for rule change. .Because of
political reasons mostly hurt feelings.. These
people, politicians are a national disgrace. Just
what Russia wanted..Russia did not care who won
election.
I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.
Yanin Rodriguez
Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are
by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????
War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to
more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?
Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???
We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...
Josh Hempfleng
The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering
on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.
Rumi900
+Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?
I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or,
are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides)
is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.
This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.
There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.
Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground
that is controlling things.
The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind
the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.
I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United
decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there
to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.
But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities
for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.
If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I
didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.
It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation,
mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.
Joanne K
They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along
with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous
oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).
They are deceivers.
Zack Edwards
So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!
Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter
and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most
important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic
facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus
and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered
to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also,
the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and
ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its
S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also,
the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.
The chemical attack
The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident
was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.
"It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been
planned well beforehand," he said.
"For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been
made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's
spokesman added.
Cooperation with Pentagon
The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents
in Syria.
"We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum
on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space,"
the ministry's spokesman said.
"The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation
of the memorandum."
"To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will
be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed
forces' air defense system," he added.
Syria' losses
US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
"According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed
and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and
other equipment have been destroyed.
"The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes
in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
"The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman
said.
Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase
On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk
Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack
came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4.
The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.
General Wesley Clark just asked what is Trump's policy towards Assad. As in is it OK for Assad
to kill his own people the regular way just so he does not use chemical weapons. Harsh commentary
but the key question.
I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.
BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence
service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin
from components bought in Turkey.
Yeah. It's not that I don't think some kind of 'false flag' or falsehood in general is possible
here. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I simply don't know. It's just that I see so many
loudly proclaiming that they know for SURE that it definitely IS a false flag, while providing
only the flimsiest evidence, if any.
People who are doing that are doing the same thing 'they' are when they say they know for SURE
that Assad is behind the attack. I don't trust either side, and I don't recommend anyone else
does either. There's a lot of agendas flying around, both personal and interpersonal.
"... I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves. ..."
"... I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin. ..."
This best way to see immediately that the victims have not died from sarin intoxication is
that in almost every case their skin is red/pink. Sarin turns people blue - always. Sarin makes
people puke on themselves, urinate on themselves, shit themselves. Show me the evidence of sarin.
Scores and scores of "sarin victims," not a single one has the constellation of symptoms produced
by sarin. Not a single one.
The red/pink color of the victims in the vids suggests the people were executed with cyanide
or carbon monoxide, which, in turn, suggests these scenes are staged after the executions. The
evidence for KS is just now being collected. The evidence for Ghouta is very, very strong: those
people were gassed by the terrorists using, probably, CO.
Please quit spreading the lie that these are sarin victims and sarin attacks. They are false
flags and now that there is a moron in the WH we see how effective those false flags will be unless
the public understands what is going on biologically.
My PhD is in pharmacology, specializing in neuropharmacology, University of Virginia. My postdoc
was at Harvard in neurosciences. I am a lawyer. I know bullshit when I smell it. This sarin bullshit
has to stop. " (Posted by: Denis | Apr 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM | 47)
I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the
people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any
protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves.
I'd
say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin.
If you thought
someone was the victim of sarin you would not want to expose your bare skin to possible residue.
I say this based on the CBR training I got in the Army thirty years ago. Maybe current doctrine
is different.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the
U.S.-led coalition and Russia has "significantly increased" after President Trump ordered the launch
of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in retaliation for a chemical attack that killed
scores of civilians.
Later Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has officially informed the United
States that it is suspending its obligations under the memorandum at midnight.
Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition
targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government.
Moscow was taking its action, the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike "as a grave
violation of the memorandum."
During a special U.N. Security Council session on the airstrikes Friday, Russia's United Nations
envoy condemned what he called an "illegitimate action by the United States."
"The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious,"
Deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said. "The U.S. has often talked about the need to combat international
terrorism," he said, yet it attacked the Syrian air force, which he claimed is leading that fight
in Syria.
"It's not difficult to imagine how much the spirits of terrorists have been raised by this action
from the United States," Safronkov said.
... ... ...
The council has set aside for now a separate discussion of whether to condemn the Assad government
for Tuesday's chemical attack. Russia is expected to veto a resolution supported by the United States,
Britain and France.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, earlier claimed that the Syrian government had no chemical weapons
and dismissed the Trump administration's explanation as an excuse to enter the conflict.
"President Putin considers the American strikes against Syria an aggression against a sovereign
government in violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext," Peskov
told reporters. "This step by Washington is causing significant damage to Russian-American relations,
which are already in a deplorable state."
... ... ..
Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter
jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected,
he said.
... ... ...
Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, also dismissed the U.S. assertion
that the attacks were a response to this week's chemical weapon attack in northern Syria, which left
scores dead in a village in Idlib province - one of the last strongholds of anti-Assad factions.
"It is obvious that the strike by U.S. cruise missiles was prepared well in advance," Zakharova
said on Russian state television. "It is clear to any specialist that the decision to deliver the
strikes was made in Washington before the Idlib events, which were simply used as a pretext for demonstrating
force."
Putin's spokesman said the Russian president considered the attack an attempt to distract attention
from the heavy civilian casualties caused by a U.S.-backed offensive to capture the northern Iraqi
city of Mosul from the Islamic State group.
Dan Lamothe and David Nakamura in Washington and Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this
report.
Jeff Black, 4/8/2017 3:46 AM EDT [Edited]
You Liberals lost the election because you had a failed candidate. This led you to your safe
rooms where you thumb sucked and did your bed wetting while playing with your tinker toys and
dreamed of a Russian conspiracy between Putin and Trump. Got any evidence on the Russian deal?
I didn't think so.
3August, 4/7/2017 9:52 PM EDT
For a British diplomatic official to call Assada a war criminal is beyond reason. He is a duly
elected leader of a sovereign country who is fighting not only opposition rebels but also international
terrorist within his country. He is not attacking other countries as is the West. Who has destroyed
Yemen with the help of the US, Saudia Arabia. They are the true war criminals!
georgex9 4/7/2017 9:31 PM EDT
The U.S. policy of trying change dictatorships has not been working in the Middle East. And, yet,
here we are in Syria trying to oust this brutal dictator who now has support from Russia. Our
objective in Syria ought to be limited to defeating radical religious fanatics like ISIS. If Assad
is replaced who knows what subsequent turmoil will follow. Of course, the warmongers in Congress
are happy with this missile attack in Syria. This means more profits for the makers of the cruise
weapons.
whatthe---- 4/7/2017 10:39 PM EDT
What's to complain about, more jobs now available in the munitions industry.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:18 PM EDT [Edited]
The President is prohibited from starting a war without the approval of Congress unless we
are under the threat of impending attack. This of course is not the case.
Once again Trump ignores the Constitution.
NS Bingo, 4/7/2017 8:32 PM EDT
Just like Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory without approval from congress.
ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:50 PM EDT
Why do neocons always try to defend the crimes of NOW by referencing the past?
Weak, pathetic, Sad.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:43 PM EDT
Why not Trump in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity? With 3 military actions he
has killed over 150 children.. Mosul 300 civilians, mostly children.. Syria attack last night
6 children... And the Navy Seal engagement a few days after his Inaugural.. 7 children.
And he hasnt even been office 100 days..
supermoe88, 4/7/2017 7:38 PM EDT
While the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should be condemned, since when was the
U.S. the globally elected policeman of the world? No country has the right to attack another sovereign
country, which has not initiated an attack on it, without an approved UN resolution. This is an
illegal act and a blatant violation of international law, as Putin rightly states. If Trump is
so concerned by the killing of babies then why has he not condemned the killing of babies by the
U.S. bombing of innocent civilians and babies in Iraq last week?? What a double standard!
Vladdie Luvs Donnie, 4/7/2017 7:39 PM EDT
We're the biggest Suckers.
BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:23 PM EDT
biggest winners today? ISIS.. That airfield launched bombing raids on them, as well.
AMR56 4/7/2017 6:53 PM EDT
I've been watching "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" recently. It's clear to me that history is
repeating itself in East Ukraine and Syria.
America is the world's most powerful country. It needs to make the right decisions about which
side to back...otherwise defeat beckons. Again.
sasha59 4/7/2017 6:44 PM EDT
So MAGA hat wearing Trump lovers, are you or your kids ready to take off that hat, put on a helmet
and some Kevlar, and go fight in Donny's new war if this escalates?
Was Trump's Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining
Presidential War Powers https://nyti.ms/2oaFfoB
NYT - CHARLIE SAVAGE -mAPRIL 7, 2017
WASHINGTON - President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack
on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization
from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he
had legal authority to commit the act of war.
Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment
for Syria's violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not
make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.
The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful
for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide - the
president or Congress - whether the United States should attack another country.
Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications
for using force on another country's soil without its consent: the permission of the Security
Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the
strike, and the Defense Department justified it as "intended to deter the regime from using chemical
weapons again," which is not self-defense.
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria's violation
of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying,
"The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates
existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response."
However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose "measures" if anyone used
chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons
treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators
as punishment.
Mr. Trump's attack was different from the United States' bombings targeting the Islamic State
in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the
collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use
its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.
Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?
Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from
the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting
such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints
on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful
absent Security Council authorization.
Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO's air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing
campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton
administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international
law. Instead, it cited a list of "factors" - like the threat to peace and stability and the danger
of a humanitarian disaster - without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful.
In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention
should not serve as a precedent.
Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?
The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and
how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted
Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents
of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization
from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large
standing army instead of demobilizing.
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in
chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest,
at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of "a 'war' in the constitutional
sense," as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention
in Haiti. ...
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act)
(50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United
States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted
in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President
can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory
authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States,
its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing
armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days,
with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military
force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds
of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. ... (Wikipedia)
(That is, IN THE SHORT TERM, the President
can do 'as necessary', i.e., as he pleases,
with US armed forces, overseas at least.)
'The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who
is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory," wrote Sun Tzu in his book
"The Art of War."
That's good advice - and advice that the author of "The Art of the Deal" should take to heart
when thinking about the act of war that he unilaterally ordered this week against the Syrian regime.
A cruise missile fusillade is an efficient way to wreck an airbase. But it is only a military
tactic, not a strategy for victory.
To be sure, there won't be any victors in the years-long human tragedy unfolding in Syria.
The poison gas used against civilians there is a stark reminder of man's capacity for indiscriminate
cruelty as well as the international community's inability or unwillingness to restrain it.
Restraint is important when it comes to waging war. It is the reason our constitution prevents
the president from launching one alone. Congress restrains the executive by approving or rejecting
war. Donald Trump certainly thought so when he tweeted, on August 30, 2013: "The President must
get congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Just so. Congress
considered military action in Syria after a poison gas attack and opposed it.
Trump must seek immediate congressional approval for continued conflict in Syria. The idea
that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is
somehow applicable here is farcical. The Assad regime is not Al Qaeda.
One of the first questions that legislators will - or should - ask, and which the president must
explain, is this: What are US goals in Syria, and how will these particular military actions help
achieve them? There may indeed be answers to those questions, but they have yet to be brought
before the American people, in whose name those missiles are being fired.
Articulating a coherent strategy and the way that strategy will be implemented is critical,
because it forces a unity of effort between military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and intelligence
efforts, which have often been at cross purposes.
The Trump administration is coming late to the war in Syria. Yet it seems keen to fight first
and afterwards look for a victory. What they should also be looking for is an exit strategy from
one of the world's bloodiest quagmires.
(Indeed, given that there ARE US troops on the
ground in Syria, and have been for some time,
an AUMF would seem to be necessary.)
Unless I see evidence of ordnance that delivered the volatile liquefied sarin, and there would
be plenty, I will not accept the unsubstantiated fake news from NYT.
To say Assad had nothing to lose is mind reading.
US will bomb away toward regime change and another Yemen for less truth than this.
And passing jihadi propaganda as reason for becoming their air support is insane.
... Victims of a suspected chemical attack in Syria appeared to show symptoms consistent with
reaction to a nerve agent, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.
"Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals,
a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents," WHO said in a statement, putting the death
toll at at least 70.
The United States has said the deaths were caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft.
Russia has said it believes poison gas had leaked from a rebel chemical weapons depot struck by
Syrian bombs.
Syria attack symptoms consistent with nerve agent
use: WHO http://reut.rs/2nWTdZo via @Reuters
(It is the Trump admin that says Assad is to blame.)
"... So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours. ..."
"... Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/ ..."
"... Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc. ..."
Pic: April 5 2017 - U.S. Ambassador to the UN
Nikki Haley
during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council
Nikki
Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday strongly
condemned the Syrian government in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack
perpetrated on its own civilians this week. "When the UN consistently fails in its
duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled
to take our own action," Haley said. She added that if the UN doesn't take collective
action, "we may."
Hacked emails from a British
mercenary company were posted online, leading to claims Washington was backing a
dirty war against Syria in which a chemical attack on Syria could be blamed on the
Syrian regime, thereby strengthening the case for immediate intervention on the part
of the United States military.
One of the hacked emails that has resulted in the most embarrassment for the U.S.
government concerned Syria. The email reads as follows:
Phil, we've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive
deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW
to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad
should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak
Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea but the
sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic
delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia
while his face stil sours.
If dead children are paraded in front of
cameras, it does not show a chemical weapons attack. It is proof of murder, someone
massacred these children and their families.
To
claim a gas attack
, you have to show photos and videos of the attack site; dead
families in or outside their homes. Dead animals. Rescue workers breaking into houses
and discovering the bodies.
The Western press is buying the hoax narrative. I have heard hysterical screaming
on the radio all day. No one ever asked or answered the essential questions: When and
where did the attack happen? How was the chemical delivered? What neighborhoods were
affected? Where was the wind blowing from? How were the victims taken to the place
where they were first filmed? Who did the rescue work? Where where the White Helmets
and their camera crews when this happened?
The
White Helmets
did not exist in 2013. Today they are an Oscar-winning film crew,
with GoPro action cams attached to their signature helmets. They film each and every
real and fake rescue operation they take part in. So why no video of the Khan
Sheikhoun rescue and recovery work?
This is just another staged hoax, like the
Ghouta chemical massacre
of August 2013. Hostages were kept in cellars and then
gassed with chlorine when the time came to make propaganda videos and call for a
No-Fly Zone.
The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 5, 2017 2:45:01 PM |
13
Actually, if Trump really does sneak attack Damascus and take on Putin if he tries to
intervene it would prove his Russian connections are meaningless and he's not a
quisling afterall, therefore, the news spectacle surrounding this issue and the
investigation by the Senate can be dropped even though there will be no one left to
set the record straight except a few cockroaches and last time I checked they don't
have opposable thumbs so therefore they aren't up to the task if they were so
inclined.
Over the last days I recall reading the UN-OPCW had taken ALL Syria's chemical weapon
on ship out to sea for destruction. Was I dreaming?
Here is a report for you
4 September 2014
Ninety-six percent of Syria's declared chemical weapons destroyed – UN-OPCW
mission chief
UN Link
The Special Coordinator for the Joint Mission of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations (OPCW-UN) told the Security
Council today that 96 percent of Syria's declared stockpile, including the most
dangerous chemicals, had been destroyed and preparation were underway to destroy
the remaining 12 production facilities.
"This is a chemical weapons disarmament process, it's been unique," said Sigrid
Kaag after her final briefing to the Security Council in her capacity as the head
of the joint mission dealing with Syria's chemical weapons, which is winding up
its work at the end of September.
"At the same time, we reiterate our strong hope that if this is achieved, that
conditions for peace and security and the political process will be centre stage
for the benefit of the people of Syria and that of the region, particularly in
these days of profound crisis."
Ms. Kaag told a press conference at UN Headquarters following her closed-door
briefing to the Council that the mission had overseen that destruction of 100
percent of "priority chemicals" and 96 percent of Syria's chemical weapons
stockpile, but the good offices of the UN Secretary-General on this issue,
discussions on monitoring verification, and accurate reporting to the Council will
be continued [.]
See..I did not dream that ship, it's real AND it was a U.S. vessel
"UN chief welcomes destruction of Syrian chemical weapons aboard U.S. vessel"
UN Link
The Secretary-General welcomes the destruction of the declared chemical weapons
material on board the United States Maritime Vessel Cape Ray. This marks a
significant achievement in the international community's efforts to eliminate the
chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic following the framework
agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The USUKEU should stop throwing sh**T. Propaganda Fatigue has taken root. There is
the Net for instant recall. As b observed, if it was sarin, how is it those timely
"rescuers" were not affected?
Every time Assad is winning, we have a chemical attack or humanitarian trajedy. Oh
sure, I believe it. The propaganda and false flags will continue until the SAA
finally wins. Putin best have his EW and S-400s ready and both Russia and Iran need
to send more troops to help Assad win already.
The Syrian opposition has stated their motive for the attack. Suspicions of who's
responsible lies strongly with the opposition.
A suspected Syrian government
chemical attack in Syria was a "direct consequence" of recent U.S. statements that it
was not now focused on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, a Syrian
opposition member said on Tuesday.
"The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American
statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to
stay in power," Basma Kodmani told Reuters in Washington.
Just checked comments & likes in a major conservative European newspaper: Roughly 5%
seem to believe that Assad is to blame.
Nikki Haley is as Neocon as Samantha Power,
now who would've guessed. As I've been saying for a year: Even if Trump has a
different foreign policy agenda (which I doubt), he's far too weak to stand up to
them. In times of crisis, a country needs a strong president, not a narcissist
showmaster.
"Jesus, these people are insane, why on earth do Trump that have
spoken out against useless war put this stupid woman in the UN?"
Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then
they will unite behind their Führer.
I fear you may be right. Neo-cons on a roll again. This chemical farce
is clearly designed to put pressure on Trump to see which way he turns. Looks like he
may move away from his 'America First' isolationist rhetoric in a desperate bid to
say something meaningful. Loads of Neo-cons on his back to push for more mayhem in
the Middle East. Things aren't the way they were in 2003 tho', so probably won't go
for the invasion. Cantonisation of Syria is probably what the neo-cons are after.
Shit crazy.
If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much.
"Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war,
then they will unite behind their Führer." 23
Yep. that's what it feels like to me.
The abject snivel of his response serves that purpose absolutely. God. How STUPID
people can be! Kidnap then murder then staging with the dead..fcking white helmets
necrophilia ..
ere's an alarming "hey, batter, batter" heckling "what'za matta, you chicken??"
quality to the media war drums. I can't tell if people actually want Trump to "do
something" (as they are demanding) or hoping that he punts or walks, this time at
bat. It's (presidenting) "harder than it looks" has been a popular refrain for weeks
and the still insulted Obama crowd seems more interested in seeing Trump shamed, than
that anything be "done" about Assad or Syria ... coming within two weeks of our 200
dead in Mosul, Trump's self-proclaimed change of heart wrt Assad (of course
undefined) seems right out of PT Barnum ... The timing really couldn't be better for
something showy, given China's Xi Jinping's imminent arrival at Mar-A-Lago ... want's
to top the theatrical show they he put-on Abe of Japan (on the event ot a Korean
missle launch) ... I am and have been nauseated with anxiety
These photos and videos that we saw of Khan Sheikhoun, some of them showed a site
with white rock in the background and sleazy white mud on the ground (like here:
https://youtu.be/fGPa0k3J4vI).
Some have described it as a rebel dugout.
Maybe it was hit by the Syrian Airforce, though almost certainly not with any
chemical ammunitions. I think that the hit on said site could be in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOMEDK_uVs
- third impact on the right, where
much brighter dust is rising, but much slower than from the other impact sites, plus
the height and shape of the cloud is very different.
I'm saying "maybe" it was hit by the Syrian Airforce because to me, it seems equally
likely that something was set off on the ground there - by rebels, in that case. It
would explain the strikingly different appearance of this one cloud that I mentioned
(and there
has
to be an explanation for it).
This whitish rock background that I mentioned in the beginning looks very much like
limestone or chalk to my eyes. Maybe it's a limestone quarry turned rebel hideout.
Anyway, for any makeshift Sarin production or storage facility a limestone/chalk
surrounding would be the perfect setting. Short of a state-of-the-art chemical plant,
you couldn't make up any better location, and there's two reasons for that.
One concerns possible manufacturing of Sarin. Whatever process you use, there will be
leftover acids in your end product. You have to get rid of those in order for your
product to have an acceptable shelf life. Even the most masterfully created Sarin
will be usable for only about 5 years. This time is strongly reduced if you don't
purify it by eliminating the excess acids in the product. This can only be done with
a nice base or alkaline substance, and limestone/chalk is the perfect raw material to
create such an alkaline (namely lye or brine or whatever you want to call it), large
scale.
The other reason a limestone surrounding such as seen in Khan Sheikhoun is a perfect
match for Sarin has to do with safeguarding against the obvious hazards of dealing
with Sarin – accidental spilling and poisoning. For decontamination and neutralizing
purposes any strong and simple alkaline is, again, the go-to substance. While Sarin
victims need to have atropine injected asap to even have the slightest chance for
survival, their clothes and the body have to be thoroughly rinsed with an alkaline
solution, too.
And even if you don't use the limestone for anything at all, just moving in a "limy"
environment when having to deal with Sarin release will help, and would have helped
the White Helmets in this case. This might help to explain why so many of them were
able to "do their thing" there and then without wearing any protective gear. As it
happens, limestone/chalk will also help with destroying any Sarin-related evidence.
We could also see some kind of tanker truck in the pictures. People were sprayed with
liquid coming from this truck. It's not just water that comes to mind here, it could
also have been ready-made lye solution in that tank.
But whatever had been going on in this place prior to the incident, I'm also
wondering what all those children and young people were doing there. Why would they
gather (or be gathered)
right there
, of all places? I know this will sound
gross, but some of the bodies I saw didn't look so "recently deceased" either.
This whole thing, it's just All the BS we're getting from western politicians and
the MSM right now - nothing adds up, nothing makes sense here, and yet it's cheered
as a pretext for more war?
"It's very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my
attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much," Mr. Trump said
"If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false
flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed
hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend
and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse
by force of habit, signifying nothing much."
Posted by: canuck | Apr 5, 2017
4:54:07 PM | 29
While I agree with your sentiment, war crimes are not defined by the perpetrators'
states of minds. Threatening the UNSC to go with the US 'or else' is a war crime
already, full stop. I'm sure many thought launching a war of aggression on Iraq and
Afghanistan was the 'right' or 'moral' position at the time (however deluded that may
be), but they are still war criminals.
I think many of us need to separate any actions in question from intent and
reasons when it comes to war crimes. It's like the US saying "well we bombed a
hospital by accident sorry but we thought we were striking a weapons cache. Terrible
tragedy and it won't happen again" - even if every they said was true it doesn't make
it any less of a war crime. Maybe easier for us as individuals to sympathise with but
that should be another question as a whole.
I think people would be well served to read a little about the subject (not
directing this at you cancuck so don't get me wrong). There's a lot of misconceptions
I see held by many, including here and other similar forums.
Regardless of all that, to threaten the security council to do what they want -
coming only hours after initial reports and with no confirmation for much of the
official western state sanctioned story - it doesn't look good. I follow developments
in Syria awful closely and I really am blown away and would never have expected such
a development. Really came out of no where. I had few if any hopes for change from
Trump re foreign policy but goddamn I def didn't expect this. I really hope its just
further bluster and big talk, but i doubt it would do that job effectively. Just
seems counterproductive towards western goals (unless goal is overt aggression and
occupation). Crazy day.
I implore everyone here to keep Syria and its people in your thoughts and/or
prayers these coming days. I suppose that goes for basically the entire MENA region
the way it'd go up like tinder if another US occupation force entered.
I may be biased, but Powell's performance at UN is a tough act to follow. Steady
delivery, deep baritone, and the gaze so straight that it could drill brain of any
doubter. That said, Tony Blair was a clear champion in the tenor class. While Powell
was all experience of a principled elder, Blair was in his own words "passionate",
like a 9 year old boy describing how he was personally instructed by Our Lady of
Fatima (together with two pre-teen girls, now we have 100-th anniversary*). Which
gives pointers to soprano section.
Condoleeza Rice was a total miscast in that
role. Shifty eyes, unsteady diction, twitching head. Perhaps I will check a video of
Nikki Halley.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip from the 2013 BBC documentary Saving Syria's
Children, where the filmmakers traveled with you, Dr. Rola Hallam, inside Syria to
reveal how children are impacted by the war. This is Dr. Hallam describing the
aftermath of an airstrike at a school playground, as patients pour into a hospital
in Aleppo.
The US doesnt want a military conflict with Russia over the Syria Crisis. Trumps
stance has changed towards Assad. Therefore expect a US response to events (as aluded
to at the UNSC). The only way to achieve all three of the above is a precision strike
against Assad personally.
SYRIAN AVIATION AIRSTRIKE IN IDLIB TARGETED CHEMICAL ARMS LAB - RUSSIAN DEFENSE
MINISTRY -
"MOSCOW, April 5. /TASS/. A Syrian aviation airstrike on the eastern outskirts of
Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday targeted workshops to produce chemical-laden projectiles, a
spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.
"According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and
12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern
outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of
terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility
housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents," Maj. Gen. Igor
Konashenkov said.
"From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to
Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international
organizations and official authorities of the country," he said.
The spokesman added that these projectiles were similar to those used by militants
in Syria's Aleppo, where their use was recorded by Russian military specialists.
Of course Trump knows this. No question. If he takes any kind of military action
whatsoever in Syria against sovereign troops, over a really lame propaganda campaign
all of us can see through, well, that's about as dumb as it gets. If I know this, a
lowly news aggregator blogger, you can damn well be sure Trump knows this.
Anyone and everyone who can read or talk or see knows for a fact that the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA'S military has not been invited into Syria by Syria nor has the
U.S. Congress passed a WAR RESOLUTION. Thus, if the U.S. Military takes aim at Syria
and her government it will be under the extremely nimble CIA article whatever for
covert action. And no lawyer worth chit can, not even Gonzalez, twist the law into
the pretzel necessary to take 'legal' covert military action.
If I'm wrong please feel free to inform me with the facts. I'm happy to be
wrong...
And I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and
Assad has changed very much.
[notice he says:
it already happened
therefore the plan for Syria was already in the works and the chemical attack was
like 9/11 for justifying the plan]
Syrian chemical attack crossed a lot of
lines for me...beyond a red line.
I now have responsibility.
[translation: I now have the excuse, cover to expand this war]
That
responsibility could be made a lot easier if it was handled years ago.
[don't
blame me for what I'm about to unleash; blame the other guy who hesitated to put
boots on the ground and kicked the can to me.]
I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or another, but I'm certainly not
going to be telling you.
[sneaky, opaque agenda]
Trump Neocon-speak in italics.
Sigh...if only Obama had put boots on the ground and expanded this war, then Trump
man-god wouldn't have to burst the bubble of his adoring followers here and we could
all keep on pretending we don't see the Emperor's naked ass and keep blaming Obama
for all Trump's screw-ups. Trump and Mattis met with the Saudi Defense Minister and
blacked-out the press on that meeting, but we're supposed to believe that a plan
wasn't in the works and that Trump is moved solely to defend the innocent in Syria,
while he helps the Saudis slaughter children on the brink of starvation in Yemen.
In the Various Issues thread, 'maningi' at #101 points out that young children don't
usually stray far from their mothers. This makes images depicting lots of dead young
children, but no dead mothers, smell a bit fishy.
Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means
that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on
Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything
else that is going on in the US.
Cream rises till its sours. Trump looks really out of his league atm.
The only woman I've seen in any of the MSM's 'news' was alive and purported to be
recovering in a hospital in Turkey which, imo, could be any hospital, anywhere, on
the planet.
Tillerson to meet Lavrov in Moscow next week
By MADELINE CONWAY 04/05/17 11:09 AM EDT
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will
travel to Moscow next Wednesday for a meeting with Russian officials, including the
Kremlin's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.
Tillerson plans to discuss issues including Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, and
counterterrorism with the officials while in Moscow, according to the State
Department.
The "trip is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure U.S. views are clearly conveyed, including on
next steps in Minsk implementation," the department said in a statement.
Matthew Rycroft
, the barking UK UN representative, once worked with NATO and also
Tony Blair. He was the author of the infamous secret memo about the lead up to the
Iraq war in which he said words to the effect that 'facts' and 'intelligence' were
being fixed to comply with policy. Nothing has changed. 'Facts' and 'intelligence'
are still being fixed to policy.
Nice to see you Taxi. This mass hysteria from Western Politicians and MSM against
Assad 'Sentance first, verdict afterwards' should only serve to instruct Putin and
Assad that regime change [by any means necessary] are the ultimate goals of the West,
and formulate their policies accordingly. Many in the West like neo con John McCain
think US aggression against Assad will not receive push back from Russia. Now might
be the right time for Putin to quietly disabuse the US of that notion.
Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you
don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy
'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to
Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he
wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc.
There won't be a 'full-scale' invasion like 2003, but an increased use of SF
embedded with the regional (or foreign jihadi) allies. To make sure the war goes on
for as long as possible, hopefully get Russia and Iran drawn deeper into that
quagmire, or at least prevent them from securing their positions.
There's no international support whatsoever (apart from the GCC), but Trump is not
the one who'd care. So it seems the only thing that could stop this would be the US
running out of money...
Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council
meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons
attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas.
The significant fact is that they say chlorine gas, not sarin. Chlorine gas
is dual use, easy to obtain and manufacture, and the "rebels" are known for using it.
It was not on the list of chemical weapons Syria was supposed to destroy.
The Russian version of hitting a warehouse where chlorine gas was stored is very
likely depending on how the wind blows. There are
accidents with chlorine gas
all over the world.
It is industrally used and produced - as simple as that.
Actually first reporting in German media was chlorine gas, I was surprised to hear
it was switched to sarin.
Turkish medics seem to have diagnozed "gas poisoning" - they keep it as unspecific
as that.
It is absorbed through skin, one drop is enough to kill.
If that was indeed sarin attack, there would be scores of dead people, dogs, cats,
rats, sheep, cows, chicken and white helmets littered all around in all kinds of
contorted positions.
Oxygen masks on vicims are pointless. The affected are in neural shock, muscles
twitching and spasming over all body. There is no coughing, because coughing
reflex is disrupted.
Only treatment is atropine injection straight to the muscle. You need gas mask and
full hazmat overall and gloves to enter the contaminated zone. Surgical mask over
face will help you nil.
You're spot-on.
Skin, any mucous membrane, Sarin will enter the body even through the eyeballs.
And even if you had full protective gear, you'd have to thoroughly decontaminate
that
before you could even think about taking it off again.
To think that hordes of college-educated, well paid, experienced people in
politics, in the media everywhere should be impressed by such a cheap stunt by the
White Helmet freaks, who are effectively using corpses for props - it just makes me
scream inside.
One might wonder what Trump actually understood when he declared ISIS the great
enemy:
Was he aware that ISIS was a PTB creature, and that his beloved Israel's IDF have
been low profile participants in ISIS?
For example: www.globalresearch.ca/israel-supports-isis/5492807
"Dec. 2, 2015 – Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitted Israel support for
ISIS"
A number of victims of the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun were
brought to the hospital, located about 60 miles to the north, near the Turkish
border. Eight people who were examined by MSF staff displayed symptoms consistent
with exposure to an agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds, including
constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation.
The MSF team provided drugs and antidotes to treat patients, and distributed
protective clothing to medical staff in the hospital's emergency room.
MSF medical teams also visited other hospitals treating victims of the attack,
and reported that they smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to
chlorine.
These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhoun
were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.
Nikki Haley barks very loudly and may be getting on Trump's nerves. He must regret
not having chosen Bolton at the UN. At least he was predictable and would have
submitted to Trump's authority.
Nikki is a wild goose.
Posted by: virgile | Apr 5, 2017 2:57:47 PM | 16
Nikki is the front for The Heritage Foundation. Trump seems to have outsourced US
foreign policy (along with most of domestic policy) the Heritage.
There was an interesting post on Zero Hedge:
""A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced "Tomorrow we are
launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the
usage of chemical warfare against civilians." This shows clear foreknowledge that the
rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV."
As Taxi 105 noted, If Trump attacks Syria he will lose the Independents and Dems that
rejected HC et al and voted for him. But more than losing them he may turn them
against him and they may well support the current Dem's Impeach Him effort. People
are tired of being lied to, they will not take much more IMO, from either side.
I agree with you. Trump always say that he will not reveal what he intends to do
and when.
In this case he will watch the current. There already voices in the congress
doubting that the Syrian president actually ordered a chemical attack that goes
against his interests. Why would the Syrian army be interested to randomly kill
dozens of civilians when it has to fight ten of thousands of well armed Islamist
terrorists.
Trump will come to his senses and do nothing. The neocons will certainly come up
with something else because they only want an Israel-friendly Sunni leader in Syria,
not an Iran-friendly leader.
Trump has a VERY tough fight against the Dems and the Neocons. It will be bloody
and the USA will weaken even further in the next 4 years.
Nunes taking himself off the investigation (presumably under White House orders) is
another sign that the Trump administration is surrendering to the Russophobes.
By
the sTrumpet's own criteria, every nation on the planet has 100% justification to
attack his Outlaw US Empire anywhere and everywhere until it's completely devastated.
Erdogan stating in an interview this evening that Trump should put his words into
action and that Turkey is willing to do anything it takes to support the US
militarily in Syria AND Iraq!! "Let's pull together all the strength of the coalition
with the US at its head..."
Erdogan also stated that he had spoken to Putin, but
that Putin was still questioning whether Assad had done it or not ...
This looks very much like Turkey seeing how far it can push Trump.
Southfront has posted an article first published by
Veterans Today
(yes, I
know about its unreliable nature) that is essentially an attempt to provide wider
distribution of a very damning report about the White Helmet terrorists by the
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization: "The doctors found that the videos
were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the
alleged "Rescue" in actuality is a murder."
https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/
Just caught Deutche Welle news on PBS World channel. They interviewed Abdullah with
White Helmets. The announcer said the Syrian government claimed it had hit a base
with illegal weapons. Then he asked Abdullah about this. HA HA HA!. Right! As if the
ones reporting the incident would ever reverse themselves. So Mr. White Helmet
reiterated the earlier strikes and govt denial and then said who would have such
weapons. Geeeeee, maybe those opposed to Assad who have a lot of outside help?
The United States tried to launch a war of
aggression against Syria in August 2013, following the #ChemicalHoax massacre in
Ghouta. It was prevented from doing so by the Russian Navy, which had taken control
of the Eastern Mediterranean.
The plan in 2013 was to coordinate the missile strike with al-Qaeda forces, so
that Islamist would quickly overrun the government bases and capture Damascus. I
believed at the time that Russia would respond to the attack, the secret orders to
the fleet were to sink any U.S. ship launching an illegal attack.
Will Russia respond this time? (Or has it already retaliated?) I do not think so.
The difference is that the Syrian government is no longer in a mortal danger. The
missiles are mainly symbolic. There is no al-Nusra army waiting for the signal to
launch their coordinated attack.
The United States launched a military strike on Syrian government targets in
retaliation for their chemical weapon attack on civilians earlier in the week, CNN
is told.
On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 50 Tomahawk cruise
missiles.
The strikes are the first direct military action the US has taken against the
leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's six-year civil war
and represent a substantial escalation of the US' military campaign in the region,
which could be interpreted by the Syrian government as an act of war. The US began
launching airstrikes in Syria in September 2014 under President Barack Obama as
part of its coalition campaign against ISIS, but has only targeted the terrorist
group and not Syrian government forces.
This cruise missile attack isn't totally pointless. It makes Trump look tough and
shuts the war party up temporarily. Syria loses a few planes and runways.
The
question is will Assad retaliate? If he lets it pass it's just a question of time
until the next 'gas attack'.
It is interesting that Trump et. al. executed an attack on Syria within hours of the
Xi/Trump meeting.
If we don't go the nuclear extinction route out of this I suspect
the China and Russia can take the US to the UN and see what happens. If nothing else
it may build a coalition to stop funding further war crimes by buying more US
Treasuries.
That is the high road that I think that China/Russia and ??? will take.
Sigh! May you live in interesting times. Call it a curse or a blessing, either
way, live this interesting time honorably.
"... Trump supporters aka the "deplorables" are flipping out and feel incredibly betrayed. Bipartisanship at last–ex-the neocons. ..."
"... The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are angry at Trump for this. ..."
"... According to Wikipedia, the last country the USA declared war on was Hungary (during WW2). ..."
"... With Flynn gone and Bannon marginalized, Trump has suddenly transformed into another GW Bush!!!! ..."
"... This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria: We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists. We will intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required (thanks Turkey). Do not stand in the way of our interests. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica among other reasons. ..."
"... If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A television special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions. Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and Presidential eh? ..."
"... I highly doubt this was Trump's call. I believe the powers that be done got to old Donnie and helped him get his mind right. ..."
"... My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC standards? ..."
"... Who is pulling all those strings? ..."
"... It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. ..."
"... In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy ..."
"... Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and after corporate divestitures and acquisitions , is now made by Raytheon . Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security) ..."
"... So that's what, another $150 or $200 million out the launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?" ..."
"... . I think that Trump's Presidency will be a disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. ..."
"... It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks. ..."
"... I think it's more complicated than that. You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been about getting its Russian war. ..."
"... It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to who we have now who could have done that. ..."
"... In his book The Brothers ..."
"... I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100 – even if they all were ISIS. I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one. ..."
"... Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact. How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan, for example? ..."
"... The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric (scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly naive. ..."
"... It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and more absurd as we go forward, I predict. ..."
"... Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what Trump did. The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT VOTING FOR EITHER ONE. ..."
"... I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just be because he had no record as a public official at all. ..."
"... The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events. ..."
"... Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext for an unconstitutional act of war. ..."
"... In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. ..."
"... congratulations, america, you are once again al-qaeda's airforce. make america gullible again! ..."
"... Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the bullshit that has always been there. ..."
"... The way he spoke when decrying the horrors of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. ..."
"... Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !" ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. ..."
"... "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder." ..."
Posted on
April 6, 2017
by
Yves Smith
So the military/surveillance state got its war against Russia after all. My,
that was fast. Merely implementing a no-fly zone was widely seen as tantamount
to instigating a war with Russia, and this move is far more provocative.
Perhaps the US thinks it can engage in a show of muscle and stop there. But as
Lambert has pointed out, some things can't be unsaid. Even if this attack was
meant as an over-the-top message to Russia regarding its support of Assad, some
things can't be undone either.
Another line of thought is that this airstrike was meant as a warning shot
to Xi Jinping regarding North Korea, that the US is willing to take aggressive,
precipitous actions. Unlike Syria, North Korea would be a bona fide threat to
the US if it succeeds in its efforts to build long-range missiles.
... ... ...
Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post points out via an e-mailed alert that:
Donald Trump does not have the legal authority to launch airstrikes
against Syria, yet he has done so tonight, multiple news outlets are
reporting, and confirmed by an intelligence community source
The U.S. military launched a series of strikes against a Syrian air base
Friday, a response to mounting calls for a display of force in the wake of
this week's suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.
U.S. lawmakers had urged Mr. Trump to strike the Assad regime. There is a
growing consensus that the regime used banned chemical weapons in the
attack, which killed at least 85 people, including 27 children, and injured
about 550.
CNN reports that Trump will address the nation shortly.
If you see the press pictures of the runway damage of the Syrian
airfields, the amount of damage is so minimal they'll be back in operation
in under a week. IOW, it was just a very expensive fireworks demonstration.
Had Hair Furor really wanted to send a message, they would have had to
actually destroy the runway with a bombing mission-that's a very high-risk
move, but would have sent a far more serious message that we're not fucking
around.
This may be giving Team Trump way more credit than is due. However, any
action against Syria, even if Trump was sold on the idea that this was a
warning shot disguised as an apparent act of war, it is first very risk and
second has the effect of committing Trump psychologically against Assad, when
before he was pretty indifferent.
"There is a growing consensus ."
God speaks in quite whispers to the faithful ..
So now we get the calls to depose Bad Guy Assad. Our good guys are
Al-Qaeda and ISIS, so I guess they take the helm, then. Jolly good,
olde chaps. I'm glad I don't have to explain that to Putin.
Yes, it is the evil that invokes God's name to justify acts of violent
aggression. It is the worldwide religion of warmongering and profiteering
that rules the hearts of our leaders. The exact sort of evil the Bible
warns about. Think: who did Jesus condemn while on earth? The self
righteous Jewish religious elders. And summarily they fought for his
execution.
Isn't it evident? God does not have to move world events. The evil in
human hearts, throughout history, has slowly but steadily led us to the
brink of total annihilation. That is the price of free will.
The question then is: does it stop there? Or is there a God that will
redeem the earth at the end of it all?
Personally I believe the Bible, the principle of resurrection bringing
eternal life out of death, and the promise that we will be judged by our
works, not merely our "religious" "faith."
I hope that we can all find some sliver of hope to keep our heads up
in these times, whatever that means for you personally, because despair
is a bottomless pit.
I just tried calling my so-called Congressional representatives. I can't
even leave a message after business hours. I am so angry right now I am seeing
red! Who are these people that think they can declare war on a sovereign
nation–with a legally elected government–when we haven't been attacked or
threatened? We've just experienced a military coup if Congress no longer has
the right to declare war. Insanity!
Thanks for the out-of-cycle post, Yves. NC continues to be my first source
for real, accurate news.
their candidate certainly proved deplorable enough. Bunch of dead
Syrians killed by U.S. missiles, are they deplorable or just dead? Yea the
deplorables that aren't lucky enough to live in the U.S. get murdered
outright and not slowly either.
And then Trump won't even allow the refugees this war will create into
this country. F the man.
The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the
only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to
dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are
angry at Trump for this.
Not even then, as it was characterized by Truman as merely a
"police action". Sure it was, Harry. Oh, and thanks for authorizing
the Security State, too.
Funny how there's always money for lobbing endless flights of Tomahawk
missles at countries on the other side of the world, but never enough to
fund things at home like healthcare, education, environmental protection
and infrastructure. I guess you go with the priorities you have, not the
ones you wish you had.
This isn't a game of bluff ffs A major war affects everyone on the planet.
How f'ing selfish and blind to the destruction and the killing of human beings.
This is not (yet) a major war. In fact, it's less than I expected, which
was a US/Israeli attack on Damascus to try to take out Assad. It's not the
first direct US attack on Syrian forces, and it won't be the last. There
have been plenty of US boots on the ground for some time now. You can start
worrying when coalition forces try to take out Syria's air defenses.
This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria:
We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists.
We will
intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We
need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required
(thanks Turkey).
Do not stand in the way of our interests.
The message can be seen as a direct response to Assad's statement,
reported yesterday
, that there is no "option except victory" in the
country's civil war.
"If we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted
from the map. We have no choice in facing this war, and that's why we
are confident, we are persistent and we are determined."
"Hillary Clinton calls on the US to take out Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad's air fields"
(Tweet links to a CNN story too, but too slow to load.)
Apparently Neera hadn't heard the speech:
Neera TandenVerified account @neeratanden
I'm not saying we should have a year long debate on use of force but
perhaps more than 24 hrs btwn Trump doing a 180 on an issue and bombing
Many. Millions. This is exactly what the Clintonite Shitocrat Scum were
voting FOR when they voted FOR Clinton. They must be surprised and delighted
to get the Assad Must Go from Trump that they thought only their preciousss
Mommy Wokest would have delivered unto them.
Not all of them. I haven't been on for a couple of hours, but I saw
quite a few trying to say this proves Trump was always the real warmonger
and Hillary is the dove of peace.
The standard view for most good "liberals" regarding Hillary's
militarism was that it was merely a cynical ploy in currying favor
with the MIC in her attempt to gain the Presidency. After entry to the
White House she would be a good little diplomatic internationalist and
dial back the iron-lady persona. So why is she calling for air-strikes
NOW when she has NO CHANCE IN HELL of ever gaining any real power in
the few remaining years she has left on this sorry planet? What does
it matter to her now and who does she need to please? Also doesn't
this kinda neutralize any anti-Trump / anti-war push by Team Blue.
I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia
without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica
among other reasons.
If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise
missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional
impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the
attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning
that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially
scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A
television
special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest
president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep
his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know
America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions.
Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and
Presidential eh?
The more things change in Washington the more they stay the same. I
hope this little cruise missile stunt blows over without a major
escalation of the Syrian proxy war, but given the recent glimpses of
behind-the-scenes crazy emanating from the power struggle in Washington I
have a bad feeling about this. Who the hell is driving the ship at the
moment?
I think the TPP zombie is still out there, unkilled. But Trump slowed all this down. If Hillary had been elected,
drafting women would already be law, and we'd already be on the
Russian front.
We did throw a wrench in, but if the machinery is strong enough,
it will still grind that wrench down. We need a nice acid bath, or
maybe a pool of molten lead. Isn't that what finally took out that
last piece of the Terminator?
Maybe someone with an ego like he has is just easily manipulated. All
you have to do is push the right buttons, in the right order. We all
signed up to find out what was under the smirk, and now we are finding
out. Fun times ahead.
Oh, it was his call. He got up and made a speech. He's got too much
ego to do anything like that if he wasn't on board.
But what this says is the people around him are increasingly figuring
out how to manipulate him. Even if they can only drive him in a direction
for a short vector of action, as in make isolated decisions, that's
enough for them. A series of short vectors in the direction they want
will get them to their destination, even if the path is herky-jerky.
My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room
and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is
remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar
treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC
standards?
It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are
taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with
Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. It
puts approving establishment Dems in the awkward position of having to
"normalize" Trump for carrying out the same neocon agenda Clinton
campaigned on – the worst possible thing for their version of the
party's future. And I bet that if someone who has his confidence
explained it to him that way he'd have signed on in a heartbeat.
Now, the dems also know there are Trump voters who believed his
campaign's pro-detente, anti-regime change rhetoric but they aren't
going to morph into a peace party just to win back a few misguided old
hippies. Most dems* will ultimately have to support, in some way,
Trump's action at the same time they're kissing goodbye all the
establishment GOP and neocon endorsements Hillary got. The Dems will
never get those again. Trump may have just coopted the bellicose
center/right space that Clintonism aspired to.
I bet his approval ratings go up.
Meanwhile, the doomsday clock inches ever closer to armageddon.
*I will be particularly interested to read what Gabbard and Sanders
have to say
Only time will tell, but I've been wondering the last week or so
if Trump has decided to take the Kissenger line on Vietnam, as in
'don't do anything, Nixon is crazy enough to do something stupid'.
In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians
and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are
dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy. In the mind of
Trump and his crew, they may feel this gives them cover for
achieving broader aims. For a man obsessed with 'the deal', playing
the crazy card while someone else (Kushner?), plays the good guy
would make a lot of sense. Trump is not intelligent in the
conventional sense, but I think he has some grasp of his
limitations, long term diplomacy and strategy being one of them.
If he thinks some missile strikes are going to get the anti-Russia fanatics
off his back, he's mistaken. They won't be satisfied until the U.S. starts
killing Russian soldiers.
But McCain's not worried
https://twitter.com/LoopEmma/status/850097784816586752
McCain, even inside his protective bubble, is a lot closer to "passing
on" from natural causes than the people who are going to have to try to make
their way, on a screwed-up planet, and in a screwed-up political economy.
Tillerson says "we know Assad did it." Really? Proof? How Fooking dumb do
he and the rest think we all are? Wait, wait, don't tell me
I've written before about a sci-fi story from 1962, originally titled "A
Sense of Obligation," re-titled "Planet of the Damned" to boost sales. The
framing is that the rulers of a hot desert planet are planning to launch
nuclear weapons at a larger, cooler world, regardless of the ability of the
people of the other planet being able to destroy the desert world if they
try. Turns out the desert planet's rulers, the "magter," actually have a
brain symbiote/parasite that's turned them all "neocon," so they do not give
a sh!t about the consequences, and apparently do not even understand why
they are going ahead with the attack, other than something like the Dalek's
motivational chant: "KILL! KILL! KILL!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWED5zcgnxM&ytbChannel=MrHarrisonChase
Here's the whole book, read it for free:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35204?msg=welcome_stranger
Here's the
wiki article, for a short version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Damned
We naked apes on Planet Earth don't, unfortunately, have a wise,
honorable, fortuitous hero and his fortuitous native sidekick in place, able
to take action and stop the MADness All the institutions and incentives and
rewards and shibboleths and hair triggers are in place, just waiting for the
magters (the epitome of credentialed monomaniacs) to start the dance of
death . Part of what it's about: "more than 50" Tomahawk Land Attack
Missiles [have to include the obligatory, "I'm in the know" acronym,
(TLAM)], 1,000 pounds, 550 mph, range 1,500 miles, warhead W-80
thermonuclear ("retired" – what does that mean?), or 1,000 lb high
explosive, or "submunition dispense,r" or PBX (see this for detail,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive
). And most
important, to "our" political economy,
Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially
designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be
launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and
after corporate divestitures and acquisitions
, is now made
by
Raytheon
. Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by
General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
And the most important subset consideration is that, per "FY 2017
currently budgeted", each TLAM (not including the launch platform, a billion
dollar "destroyer" or many-billion submarine) costs the political economy
$2,981,000 each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
So that's what,
another $150 or $200 million
out the
launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?"
Will there be special medals handed out to the Navy crews and contractors
who ran this attack? Maybe the kinds of gold stars handed out to kids who
graduate from pre-K to K? "Participation awards," "earned" from far out to
sea, beyond the range of anticipated Syrian defenses and counterattacks (in
the hope that "the Russians," who do have the ready means to "reach out and
touch them," will continue to "exercise restraint" since we gave them a
phone call warning the attack was on the way?
I got the sinking feeling that tonight I'm going to have one of those
horrific recurring dreams I mostly have mislaid, hangovers from the war
thing I was dumb enough to enlist in
We who participate here at NC can jaw and perceive and understand and
parse all we want - too bad that does nothing, can apparently do nothing, to
stop those "magters" from launching this set of missiles, and going ahead
with all the other stuff they have in hand, to complete the Fokking up of
the planet
@JTMcPhee – Thanks for that. Your analysis is spot on, and the details
on the Tomahawk are quite interesting.
I'm not sure they think we're dumb, however. I think they either
believe that we are too busy trying to live our oppressed lives to pay
attention, or they don't think about it at all and just do what they damn
well please and Fokk the rest of the world.
There's likely layers to it, their lies do keep the propagandized
and poorly informed on board (yes everyone is propagandized to a
degree but it really is a matter of degree, I mean the folks that
never woke up from the American dream and American exceptionalism).
Meanwhile those who see right through the ever repeating BS, well what
can they really DO about it anyway? And yes survival keeps people
poorly informed and even when not it keeps them too busy.
If I was conspiratorial, I'd almost say this is why we can't have
nice things, like really basic things like the rest of the world has,
because a more secure population might actually oppose the empire that
purports to represent them.
Anyway at least TWICE they have already LIED about Assad being
behind gassings, and now we are supposed to believe them. Yes indeed
what rubbish.
This is a very serious mistake. I think that Trump's Presidency will be a
disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. If he were remotely serious, he would end the wars abroad, bring the US
troops home and then use the money on rebuilding America's infrastructure.
This could easily spill over into other nations, lead to a large refugee
crisis, and get a lot of people killed needlessly.
It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks.
No U.S. interests are threatened by the Syrian government, and at present
the Syrian government's patrons are to some degree on the same side as our
government in their hostility to ISIS. Attacking the Syrian government would
be a boon to jihadists, the start of a new and unnecessary war for the U.S.,
possible direct confrontation with Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Syria,
and a potentially disastrous provocation of a nuclear-armed major power.
Trump is always emphasizing how the U.S. gets nothing from its foreign wars,
so it bears repeating that the U.S. would most certainly get nothing from
picking another fight in the region except increased costs and new enemies.
If Trump were half the realist or even the 'Jacksonian' that some of his
supporters have claimed him to be, this intervention would not be under
consideration, but then Trump is first and foremost a militarist and seems
inclined to favor military options to the exclusion of everything else. If
Trump were remotely serious about his "America first" rhetoric, the obvious
lack of any threat to American interests would ensure that there would be no
U.S. military action taken against Syria's government, but his use of that
phrase has always been opportunistic and it has never meant that he is
interested in staying out of foreign wars or minding our own business.
Deeper intervention in Syria seemed to be something that Trump was
unlikely to do as president based on what he said during the campaign, but
he could never be trusted to do what he said and his foreign policy views
have always been unformed (and uninformed) and can be easily changed.
Trump's lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge make him much more
susceptible to bad advice, and his lack of any firm convictions means that
he is more likely than most to yield to demands that he "do something" in
response to an ongoing conflict.
I think that ideologically the left has more in common with the
Paleoconservatives these days than we do with the Clinton Liberal faction,
which also wanted to go to war. They are pretty much neoconservatives.
We disagree with the Paleocons on social issues and they are a lot more free
market oriented, but when push comes to shove, they seem to be a lot more
ideologically honest than the rest of the political spectrum. They also seem to
be pro-middle class.
We should also pay a very close eye on which Democrats choose to vote for
this war. Who is going to play bad cop this time around? Everyone knows that
like Iraq, this is going to be a disaster. Washington seems determined to not
learn from its past mistakes perhaps to make the military industrial complex
very rich.
I'm thinking that in 2020, if there is a Sanders like President, they could
criticize this decision and go from there.
So did you believe Trump during the campaign then? That he was for
curtailing the Empire and its maneuvers? One of the most frustrating parts
of this entire debacle has been smart minded folk deciding Trump was the
lesser evil based on what he said. As if what he said meant anything at all
or was related to what he might do. Ever.
I thought there was a 90% chance that he would screw up and a 100%
chance Clinton would. I guess we lose nothing since Clinton clearly was
itching to go to war.
Some things he might do are good, but some things will be bad. If he
actually makes a serious attempt at trying to crackdown the H1B, that's
step forward in my book. So is any attempt to rebuild infrastructure and
manufacturing. That said, some things are awful like his selling of
private surfing data.
I think it's more complicated than that.
You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has
revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been
about getting its Russian war.
Trump was pretty consistent on not wanting to escalate in the Middle
East, although he seemed to believe you could fight Muslim terrorists we
had helped create surgically and that was naive.
But he knows even less about foreign affairs than he does about
domestic policy, and because he was such an outsider, his team has lots
of people from various fringes because either no one would join even
after he won and some marginal types were willing to sign on early and
Trump felt he owed them. So his team never embodied a consistent view,
even on the issues where Trump kinda sorta had them.
And the the Borg went really hard to get out the folks who were not
fully on board with neocon orthodoxy and get more warmogers in.
Put it another way: Trump is obviously over his head in DC. I've been
stunned at the willingness of the CIA to attempt openly to unseat a
President. Even if he were deeply committed to not escalating in the
Middle East and/or versus Russia, how long do you think he could have
held out even if he were seriously committed, a seasoned bureaucratic
infighter and had a loyal, aligned core team?
It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial
complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have
been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great
President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to
who we have now who could have done that.
Eisenhower. But that was a long time ago. (Actually, I think he
presided over the initial growth of the CIA and the National Security
State. But even I was a kid then, so I'm not real sure.)
And he had been the Commander in Chief of the Allies in Europe
WWII. He could have stared anyone down.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk did in a more limited way in the
Cuban missile crisis. JFK had ordered a naval blockage and Rusk
asked the Chief Admiral what would happen as Khrushchev 's ships
approached. The Admiral said first they'd make a warning shot. Rusk
then asked what would happen if they didn't change course. The
naval officer gets angry and starts to tell Rusk the Navy has been
running blockades since 1812.
Rusk cut him off and berated him along these lines:
This is not about your pettifogging Navy traditions. This is
a communication between the President and Khrushchev. You will
not take a single action unless it has been explicitly
authorized. Have I made myself clear?
You made me dig up my book Humanity, which is based on
extensive archival research, by Jonathan Glover, and it was
indeed McNamara. However, that scene takes a lot of artistic
liberties. The Navy was leashed and collared before the
blockade was put in place.
I might as well write up the exchange as recounted by
McNamara:
"We'll send a shot across the bow," he said.
"Then what, if that doesn't work?"
"Then we'll fire into the rudder," he said, by now
clearly very annoyed.
"What kind of ship is it?" I asked.
"A tanker, Mr. Secretary," he said.
"You're not going to fire anything without my express
permission, is that clear?" I said. That's when he made
his famous remark about how the Navy had been running
blockades since the days of John Paul Jones and if I would
leave them alone they would run this one successfully as
well. I rose from my chair and said this was not a
blockade but a means of communication between Kennedy and
Khruschchev; no force would be applied without my
permission; and that would not be given without discussion
with the President. "Was that understood?" I said. The
tightlipped response was, "Yes."
In his book
The Brothers
, Stephen Kinzer asserts that John
Foster and Allen Dulles coordinated with each other beforehand
to present a united front during meetings on national security
issues with Ike, and this usually crowded out other viewpoints
on whatever was being discussed.
I'm aware of healthcare, although I had been hoping that Trump would
have the guts to actually fight or not have his ego pushed around.
As for healthcare well I"m in Canada so I do know about how terrible
US healthcare is (lived in the USA for 5 years). We need universal dental
care, but yeah American healthcare looks to be in even worse shape!
President Kennedy fired the Deep State's godfather in 1961, after
the Bay of Pigs calamity and Dulles's never-acknowledged support for a
failed coup against de Gaulle (believe it, the French president).
Taking this to the ultimate, Talbot, who founded Salon 20-odd years
ago, makes a persuasive case that Dulles retreated to Georgetown,
gathered his loyalists, and probably architected JFK's assassination
two years later. Talbot's book does not include this incident, but I
have it from a former spook of great integrity, now noted for blowing
whistles: A few years into Barack Obama's presidency supporters asked
at a fundraiser, "Where's our progressive foreign policy, Mr.
President?" Obama's reply: "Do you want me to end up another JFK?"
Yeah something is going on behind closed doors for sure that we need
to know about.
Has NC linked to this interview with Seymour Hersh regarding his story on
the first Sarin attacks in Syria? It has implications regarding what is
happening now.
The NYT is floating a story from unnamed intelligence officials about how
the Russians connived to elect Trump. It is terribly disturbing to watch the
manipulation of the mechanisms of thought control contrive the grounds for yet
another war.
So far the US missiles seem to be landing on Syrian air bases and not
Russian targets but a very dangerous game. It must be hoped that the Russians,
who seem to be the rational actors, will seek to avoid confrontation with the
US war machine.
"A constitutional referendum will be held in Turkey on Sunday, 16 April 2017.[1] Voters will vote
on a set of 18 proposed amendments to the Constitution of Turkey."
This is all about Turkey. The photo they released of Turkish soldiers running with a litter,
dressed in full heavy haz mat suits, within Turkey proper, is over the top.
Yes, Bob, thanks for pointing this out. Turkey! Who let arms and men
cross into Syria unobstructed from their territory for years? Turkey.
Where did the endless lines of oil tankers travel to from Isis
held-territory. Turkey. Which country wants to put an end to any Kurdish
political aspirations. Turkey. Which country demanded Assad's removal on
basically religious grounds Turkey. And on and on. Erdogan will win his
referendum by hook or by crook. Donald Trump could never get this in a
thousand years. Most people could't, so I can't fault him for being
especially thick. Turkey is NATO's heartthrob who has taken over the
place. And Turkey receives 'victims of the chemical attack' to public
acclaim, proving its case against Syria. Long live the nostalgia for the
Ottoman Empire. Long live the utter stupidity and callousness of the US
government towards its own people and the world.
I still await a shred of credible evidence that it was in fact the regime
which used said weapons.
But the neocons talking heads on the TeeVee sure like it! All we need is
another Hillaryesque 'we came, we saw, he died [chortle, smirk]' soundbite.
Watching the coverage on RT right now to get the taste of paid MIC shills
like George Stephanopopopopopopoulos out of my mouth seems the admin. called
the Rooskies to give them advance notice, and strikes were on just 1 airfield.
The wild-eyed optimist in me hopes this was a staged 'show of force' to assuage
the domestic-side warmongers, but said optimist is currently being roundly
shouted down by the 'this is nuts!' voices.
Putin and Xi have domestic audiences too. The Kennedy boys acted
aggressively because they believed the Russians would know the were only
kidding. The Politburo had to react to the street as much as any government,
and the street hated how the US treated Cuba. Obama didn't understand this
either.
It was ludicrous when Democrats claimed Obama played 853rd dimensional
chess, and it's ludicrous when people try to make excuses for Trump.
both parties, rotten to the core. i thought there was a possibility
trump meant it when he repudiated the iraq war. or maybe he just meant it
at that minute.
the maine and the tonkin gulf and iraqi wmd's, and now this shit. i never
really got why it was necessary to risk ww3 in cuba; still less here.
from my POV, literally no one in the rank-and-file deplorable crowd is
happy. At the very best, people are confused and tow the "maybe he knows
something we don't" line.
I've been reading the comments on Sic Semper Tyrannis. Lots of
speculation and not too much consensus, but a few things seem clear:
1. It wasn't sarin that was used (lack of hazmat suits/protective
precautions from medical personnel in the videos, who were not falling
down/dying in consequence)
2. It would have been extremely counterproductive for Assad to order this
and give the US an excuse to intervene, given the current political/military
situation.
Point #2 doesn't rule out him having done it as a big middle finger to
the US if he thought he could get away with it, but I don't find that idea
particularly credible.
At this point I think all Syrian sources should be regarded as highly
suspect pending verification and evidence. Alternatively you could just pass
on the whole evidence thing and just conclude that if it's bad then Assad
done it. This seems to be the line the US government is taking (I've yet to
even see an acknowledgement from them that evidence is needed, much less
that they have any).
One wonders what Republican Congressman Massie thinks about his statements
on CNN that he thought it very unlikely Assad authorized any gas attack. Will
he stick to his opinion, or fall in line and follow the money. Anyone, are
there any component makers for Drones/Cruise Missiles in Kentucky?
CNN's Bolduan, visibly taken aback by what the man is saying - as though
it were inconceivable a U.S. lawmaker might have an original opinion on
matters - fumbled for words a few moments before managing a simple: "Who do
you think is behind it?"
Massie began to answer, but Bolduan cut him off. Unsurprisingly, she
asked him directly if he was saying he believes what the Russians are saying
- that Assad had nothing to do with the attack that killed dozens in Syria
on Tuesday. Reuters reported Wednesday that the attack has sparked renewed
calls to oust the country's president.
I saw some news stating the gas attack area was "in rebel held
territory". But Syrian military stated it was a civilian part. So I would
think someone should check the bodies for guns first then there was the baby
pictures.
I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be
wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100
– even if they all were ISIS.
I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it
worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one.
in reality Trump lost a lot of goodwill today. I'll even dare say, solidly
on the path to Jimmy Carter status. as Yves predicted.
all in less than 100 days!
Are you sure about Carter? WW1 and WW2 are representative of European
core attacking the European periphery, but the current World War is about
U.S. hegemony.
Both Seven Years Wars and the Napoleonic Wars were world wars.
yes, reagan did far more to arm the middle east, and push the cause
of us hegemony. giving saddam wmd's in the first place, after giving
iran weapons for holding the hostages till inauguration day. the roots
of us hegemony seeking in the middle east go back at least to ike.
carter wove one strand in a large rug, but there was pushback against
the us in the form of hijacked planes well before carter, and because
of our interference in the middle east in the 50's and our support of
israel in the 40's, 50's and 60's. jfk almost got us into ww3, and
johnson of course may have been even more militaristic than kennedy.
as I don't watch cable news I can't verify this tweet but sounds like MSNBC
is doing a great job as the voice of the "Resistance" (gallows humour sarcasm)
Sam Sacks
@SamSacks
49m
Guest after guest is gushing. From MSNBC to CNN, Trump is receiving his best
night of press so far. And all he had to do was start a war.
There was an emergency meeting of UN Security Council to address Syria chem
weapons. Looks like it was US, UK, and France on one side vs Russia and Syria
in the meeting. After the the meeting ended without a vote the US took military
action.
I don't think Maddow et al. quite know what their position ought to be. Like
that moment in
1984
when the speaker switches the war from Eurasia to
Eastasia. The bought courtier press is confused. Based on about 25 minutes on
MSNBC, I noticed:
- Maddow sounded her first cautious, not-hysterically-Russophobic notes in
months. If Trump's for war, she will once more become "anti-war" as she was
when first climbing the greasy pole. (Rachel, those of us actually opposed to
war and empire notice you're only against it when it's not your Party doing
it). Then as the evening goes on it seems she may be warming up to the idea.
- Matthews is stuck in Cold War mode. Makes numerous references to "the
Soviets." Seems to worry about intervention on the one hand, worry about
failing confidence in us by our client states (al-Sisi he mentions) if we don't
do something, on the other;
- Brian Williams references "The American President", seems to think we are
in an Aaron Sorkin script.
- Not on MSNBC, but on NBC Nightly News tonight, Hallie Jackson intones
breathlessly about "the ULTimate test of a Commander in Chief", is clearly
dazzled by the prospect of a war nobody she knows will have to fight.
Sisi huh? Not that anyone here doesn't know but the USPTB/MSM are truly
the worst kid of shitbirds. On 14 August 2013 Egyptian security forces
raided two camps of protesters in Cairo: one at al-Nahda Square and a larger
one at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square. The two sites had been occupied by
supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi, who had been removed from
office by the military a month earlier, following mass street protests
against him. The camps were raided after initiatives to end the six week
sit-ins failed and as a result of the raids the camps were cleared out
within hours.The raids were described by Human Rights Watch as "one of the
world's largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent
history". According to Human Rights Watch, a minimum of 817 people and more
likely at least 1,000 were killed in Rabaa Square on August 14
With further sleepless thought, I'm also reminded of Truman at Potsdam.
Xi is in town, and Trump is doing a war dance. This can only have the result
of driving the Russians and Chinese closer together. Let's throw in Iran as
well.
Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to
some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's
showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to
play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact.
How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan,
for example?
I'm through giving leeway to the Trump apologists who said during the
campaign that he was less likely to start a war or drop the big one and that
this alone was reason enough to not support his opponent. Totally absurd.
Nothing he said meant anything in the real world. He will do what he wants in
the moment and that is all. The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric
(scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly
naive.
It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by
certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any
question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about
Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and
more absurd as we go forward, I predict.
On the other hand, I don't think he's really doing what he wants either.
More like he's along for the ride at this point, as are we all. It's
possible that Trump still thinks otherwise.
Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what
Trump did.
The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT
VOTING FOR EITHER ONE.
Right. And let's not forget that the media as well as the Clinton and
Obama people have been doing everything in their power to scandal Trump
into
not
changing course on foreign policy. Clearly they've
succeeded and now say look, toldja, just the same.
Yves probably sized up Trump best at the very beginning–all hat, no
cattle. There's yet to be any indication that he knows what he's doing
and I strongly believe he never expected to win in the first place.
Election night he seemed a bit stunned.
But for Clinton supporters you can't say aha Trump doesn't know what
he is doing when he has just done what she recommended that he do.
I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in
order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of
interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his
mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward
Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the
invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just
be because he had no record as a public official at all.
Now that I'm getting my head around this .there's a couple of minor rays of
hope .
1) When I heard "tomahawk cruise missiles", I flashed back to the plans that
Obama drew up in 2013 to basically destroy the ability of Syria to function as
a state. They were going to take out bridges, airfields, fueling stations, and
tons of important infrastructure. It would have had the potential to provoke a
Libyan-style collapse.
Thankfully, this is NOT that plan. Just a limited attack on one airbase and
surrounding infrastructure.
2) At least they gave the Russians a heads up.
Beyond that, this is a complete nightmare. Iran's going to be bullshit mad,
Russians are going to be bullshit mad. Chinese won't be happy, either. Egypt
will run straight into the arms of the Russians and the Chinese. They all know
Assad is the only thing standing between them and the jihadi head-choppers.
As far as Yves' comparison with Clinton's stated views. I could easily
envision her doing something similar after a staged chemical incident like
this.
The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their
most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events.
Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence
of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext
for an unconstitutional act of war. The one participant with the strongest
motive to not stage a poison gas attack was Assad-but the MSM immediately
started a coordinated chorus of blame, the "intelligence" agency warmongers
called to the Presidential briefing room read from a script prepared during the
Obama administration, and our Idiot-in-Chief started searching his desk for the
cruise missile launch codes
In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by
brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical
fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. After a success
like that, the deep state Overlords have obviously concluded that they don't
even need to try to cover their tracks. As well they might, having acquired
full control of propaganda organizations like the Washington Post, NY Times,
and Google News. And now they have as a front man an individual so mentally
deficient that he can believe almost anything as long as he thinks it is his
own idea.
Some voters concluded that placing an egotist like Trump in the Presidency
was preferable to having a wholly-owned Neo-Con like Clinton at the helm of the
Defcon button, but it hasn't taken long to prove them wrong. Trump has shown
himself to be nothing but a bloated ego with a delusional pea sized brain
hiding under a rag of fake hair.
So the immediate fate of the world rests upon the diplomatic skills of
Russia's chief oligarch, Vladimir Putin. One can only pray that there is a way
to escape from the rush toward the cliff of Nuclear war.
One of these days we will lose our perceived/real impunity to retaliation to
those ships of ours who conduct these cruise missile attacks .then all hell
will break loose.
I can't imagine anyone believing that this president, or possibly any other
will slow down the march to Armageddon that we are on and willing to provoke to
achieve, "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the world, especially of the ME.
We are becoming crazier and crazier by the minute.
I'm not. Are you? Is the American, Russian, or Syrian man on the street,
just making their way through life, on a crazy train to murder and
Armageddon? It's just a handful of people, a minuscule minority, who cannot
be content until they have everything. ALL of the wealth. ALL of the power.
They stand and point around to everyone else on Earth and say "You all owe
us! Bow down to us, or else.." They're afraid. They know there is an
awakening going on. They know we're coming, so they have to immanetize the
echaton, push things over the edge. Push everyone into hating and fighting
each other, and those who won't? There are plans for them too, I'm sure.
CNN's Don Lemon and Fareed Zakaria are singing Trump's praises, it's
obnoxious. Cruise missile launch video is on a loop. Not sure how much I can take .
Make American great was always BS, I want to make America good FOR THE
FIRST TIME. Although clearly it just gets more and more evil. I suppose it
is just in the nature of empire.
Depending on what happens going forward this could also turn out to be one
of those "gotta look resolute" nothingburgers. We gave the Russians some degree
of advance notice through the "deconfliction" channels, knowing they'd pass
that on to the Syrians, which probably minimized casualties at the airfield.
And if this is a one-off, whose main purpose is to make the Donald look
resolute, his people could be aiming to just go back to the track they were on.
If not well, we have people on the ground in known locations all over the
place, and "accidents" do happen.
Provocative in the truest sense of the word. our best hope is his tipoff to
the Russians is seen as an olive branch of some strange kind.
Trump is not deep and plays things how he sees them in tit for tat
increments. The big concern is standard diplomacy does not view things that
way. Diplomacy must adapt or we are doomed.
Well I wrote in Bernie so I can't say I regret my vote. I figured Trump
would be hooking up his business buddies and gutting worker interests, but at
the same time I had hope he could resurrect some old style business-first
isolationism - the former would have been a price I would gladly pay for the
latter.
I could care less about Russia or being friends or enemies of Russia.
Chemical attacks in a far region of the world are not my concern - no matter
how cruel that statement is. That war is a regional concern, not my concern.
Trump, America First indeed. What a piece of %$#!.
Day 77: the neocons fear Trump, NAFTA is scrapped, ISIS has been destroyed,
the swamp has been drained, repealed Obamacare, Mexico made to pay for the
wall, Muslims banned, wiretapping evidence presented, nobody lied, nobody
seeking immunity, nobody recused themselves, no FBI winning streak continues
Swarms of drones, suicide speed boats, subs and mines will sink the whole US
Navy. Just check the pathetic war gaming exercises since 2002 all structured to
make the empire appear victorious.
Karma gonna come a calling to the US of A and it ain't gonna be pretty.
Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is
ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the
bullshit that has always been there.
The way he spoke when decrying the horrors
of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious
cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but
with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. I have to say I am surprised at the
speed at which this unfolded but of course in retrospect in makes sense I
suppose. Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I
sympathize with but I am much more of a pessimist.
One of the few things I truly credited Obama in a positive way with was the
fact that he avoided direct "boots on the ground" involvement in Syria (thanks
in part of course to Russia), how swiftly and brutally it was undone.
He is totally in thrall to Ivanka who tweets before he does. He donated in the past to Schumer and McCain and Clinton.
He was a Democrat. His daughter and President-elect Kushner are both
Democrats. Kushner was funded by Soros to the tune of $250 million
> Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I
sympathize with
Trump may think that, or have been sold on the idea –giving the Russians
a heads-up, for example - but that doesn't mean it will turn out that way.
We're getting volatility, alright. Just internationally!
Those who voted Trump ( I was not one of them) have been vindicated tonight.
Trump one way or another delayed the neocon war with Syria for at least two
months.
Only after being blackmailed by CIA he was put on leash and submitted. And all those on the phony left, touchy feely peace loving snowflakes who
hate Bannon as reincarnated evil have been fatally discredited since it seems
that Flynn and Bannon were the very few who opposed open war with Syria and
Russia.
The air base in Homs that was attacked was also Russian training and Repair
base for Syria aircraft, first causalities reported.
Are those first shots of WWIII?
Let's hope we see the same anti-war sentiment as we did popularly with the
first gas attacks, which, we should all keep in mind was shown by Seymour Hersh
to be essentially a false flag operation mainly conducted by Turkey with the
Syrian opposition:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Anti-war is the most important thing right now, and can be a rallying cry to
unite leftists, liberal progressives, blacks, browns, white Trump voters (such
as this one,
https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/850070150594351105/video/1
).
There is no hope if we insist on dividing amongst each other. There's the rich
and there's the rest of us. That's it. The only thing that can unite us is a
common struggle, anti-war can be a site of that common struggle, given that
class politics in the Marxist sense won't ever
really
catch on in the
United States.
Oh I get caring about war as an issue, even one's primary issue (though I
would probably say caring about the survival of the biosphere is mine). I
get that emotionally and even intellectually entirely, and am in great
sympathy.
However I do think we can DO more about economic and even environmental
issues than we can about the issues of empire (locally if nowhere else, but
also even nationally). It's not just about what plays in Peoria to the
masses, but about what the masses actually CAN influence. And I don't put
the empire itself high on that list. They are never ever going to let us
have a say in that! And the masses being united and having no power doesn't
accomplish much unless it then shifts it's focus to somewhere it might have
some power. Basically what bones we can get even though we are ruled by
sadists.
I certainly agree with you that much can be done with popular
organization with regards to economy and the environment, and I also
agree of course that the planet is the most pressing threat to human
life, but I think you underestimate the possibilities of anti-war
movements and their central importance. The military-industrial complex
is constitutively tied to capitalist expansion and environmental
destruction, and therefore must be fought with the same virulence. This
is why Bernie, even in the bizarro world where he was elected, would have
ultimately fallen into line just as Trump did. There was a large anti-war
voice back in 2013 when the mainstream media was beating the war drums,
and thankfully we avoided intervention. Now though paradoxically Trump is
able to do this unilaterally. Paradoxical because one would think the
mainstream liberal center-"left" could be anti-war again given all the
Trump hate, but on the contrary this will be great PR for Trump with the
likes of CNN, as this is precisely what Hillary would have done back in
february.
President Assad and his regime were WINNING the civil war - there is no
reason that they would launch a gas attack against a non-strategic target when
they have more than sufficient conventional force directed against armed
fighters. This alleged "gas attack" only makes logical sense as some sort of
false flag incident intended to provoke a reaction from the thin-skinned
ignoramus in the White House.
"It is noteworthy that in the hours before Trump ordered military strikes
on Syria,
Hillary Clinton
emerged back into the public
spotlight to demand that Trump carry out military strikes against Syria.
Again,
following a tried and true script,
U.S.
imperialist military actions against an independent, sovereign Middle
Eastern government takes place under the pretext of protecting civilians
from weapons of mass destruction."
Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove
that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !"
Anyway, I'm taking confort in the fact that it seemed the mildest things he
could do: bomb an airfield with missiles after having warned the other side
(pretty sure the US has already intervened much more decisively in Syria, even
if it wasn't official ). The Blob will be so pleased he could almost make a
deal with Assad now. Of course, I'm just trying to convince myself that the
Hair is not crazy.
Yes. So far, nothing substantial, just "perpetual war as usual". The
question is what happens next, in any of Syria, DPRK, Iran, the Baltics, and
Ukraine.
I'm agreeing with you, not being sarcastic. See my comment
here
upthread.
The big unknown is of course, does it escalate? It won't stop, in the
sense of cease completely.
Ah yes. If I read you correctly, you say this attack is a message
to Assad. That's where I don't agree. This is way too public and
ineffective so it looks more like a PR operation aiming at a domestic
audience (based on the fragments of info we have, so this is very
speculative). Trump needed to kill the gas attack story and he did.
I'm sure Putin would understand.
On the other hand, I agree that it creates very bad incentives. If
I'm a Syrian "rebel", I know what I have to do now The best case
scenario is that escalation (fake or not) creates finally the
conditions for a settlement. Worst case well
President of China visits USA and President Kushner causes huge
embarrassment to him with Chinese Military elites. That is major disrespect.
The US has used nuclear weapons on Asians and now deploys THAAD radar solely on
the approval of a Korean President now under arrest who sought no Cabinet
approval, a radar that offers Seoul no protection whatsoever.
China and Russia and Iran know there can be NO agreements with USA that will
last more than hours. the ABM treaty was torn up just like Hitler's
German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 24. Aug 1939.
Russia knows war is coming from the USA. China is planning a 500 ship Navy
and clearly needs more submarines and more bases near the equator. The US has
chosen the path of global war and permanent warfare
It is not the USA deep state. It is a Western 'blob'. The USA just happens
to have the biggest stick and so they use it when they see fit. The European
states add the "moral" texture for US actions when they condone or ignore the
use of the stick, as they have consistently done for the last few decades. (The
UK, god bless, sends out a few ill-equipped soldiers and does the annoying
yapping noises. Le Monde went into neo-liberal reporting mode before the attack
[Assad is evil] and has basically sanctioned the actions since then.)
Obama (the hallow man) was horrible but he had one "virtue". He knew how to
analyse a situation, and he knew that every situation has an upside and
downside potential. (Of course, he only did this analysis on how it affected
his view of himself and what others might think of him – ego analysis, if you
like.) He decide Syria wasn't giving enough upside to provide a good PR
opportunity – probably too many unknowns and too many variables.
Trump seems to have a sales rep type of personality. The only goal is to
close the deal. These rep types know, at some level, that the deal might have
negative consequences but they ignore these in order to get the deal done. They
hope to collect their commission now and that a dodgy deal derails at some far
off date. (Trump often reminds me of the Crazy Eddie[?] TV commercials I
watched in NYC in the 80s.) Therefore, when confronted with a situation, the
main focus becomes on the immediate action.
Trump is not evil incarnate. He's just basically does what a sales rep does,
imho.
Couple of PSs – did the neoliberals of the USA and the EU do an inventory of
Russian resources during their tenure in the 1990s? Is the allure of easy
Russian resource lucre just too much of a temptation? Will the Chinese see the
USA's actions as a slap in the diplomatic face – launching the attack when
their Premier is in the USA? Did the USA/EU just cement the ties between
Russian and China?
Trump did us a favor by breaking the Clinton and Bush dynastic ambitions.
And disrupting the real ruler's electoral illusions. But they're fast
reasserting their power.
Tossed out the TPP after it was a dead letter anyway and "saved" a couple
hundred air conditioner jobs in Indiana–until they get un-saved.
That's about it.
Anyone imagining he would be transformational, in a good way, was
delusional. I hope you're over it.
All he just did was prove–again–the executive can attack sovereign nations
without a shred of legality or authorization from Congress or the UN. They'll
give their own emasculation a standing ovation at the next possible
opportunity. Not sure if they'll bow or bob for apples. Sanders and Warren will
try to lay low, but when pushed will support it. Their scribblers are working
on it right now.
Tweaking Russia and supporting our terrist twoops in Al Nusra is always a
bonus. McCain must have wet his diapers.
Trump's out of his depth, with a thin bench of Kushner and Ivanka, and will
do what the spooks tell him. He might even believe all the posturing about the
"babies."
Trump's problem always was, and is, his ego and the related thin skin. I
wonder how much was this 180 driven by the constant "worst approval ever"
messaging by the media, which now are gushing over Trump left right and centre,
an ego massage he hasn't got for a while. He's now also disocvering the old
truism that solving domestic problems is hard, and failyure
TBH, what I'm really surprised on, is that no-one bombed one of "Trump
hotels", as that I suspect would lead him around very nicely thank you very
much. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time..
Matt Stoller
@matthewstoller
"That awkward moment when Trump notifies Russia he's about to strike Syria, but
not the US Congress." pic.twitter.com/mRwX7ESZgg
11:10 PM – 6 Apr 2017
I wonder how the United States Navy feels about becoming the tactical
support group for Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria? Are their fellow Americans to
thank them for that particular 'service' when they eventually come back home?
Gaacchhh!
If Trump thinks that he has gotten the Deep State off his back by fulfilling
one of their wishes, he is much mistaken. All this means is that the Deep State
has found that all they have to do is pile on the pressure and Trump will fold
like a lawn-deck chair and give them what they want. Trump has just paid his
first installment of Danegeld.
Actually I thought the 'man on the ground' military would be most
confused by Trump changing course in Syria and working with the Russians
counter to what has been going on for several years.
Other than some top brass it seems that most of the military are also
subjectable to the onslaught of the neocon mainstream media.
Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war
hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian
government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead
civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists,
and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could
lead to nuclear war.
"This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of
the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for
the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If
President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent
civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the
International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this
investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a
successful prosecution will be much harder."
"... While he said this Susan Rice was "unredacting" the politically motivated surveillance of republicans, calling it "counter intelligence" while none of these people had any critical sensitive information to share unlike Clinton's 30000 e-mails. ..."
"... Those "unredactings" have been leaked to attempt to discredit the US elections. ..."
"... Seems Obama was surrounded by no one who was "serious/sensible" but many who used his office to attack the US Bill of Rights. ..."
In Oct 2016 Obama said "there is no serious/sensible person
who believes the US election could be hacked...."
While he
said this Susan Rice was "unredacting" the politically
motivated surveillance of republicans, calling it "counter
intelligence" while none of these people had any critical
sensitive information to share unlike Clinton's 30000
e-mails.
Those "unredactings" have been leaked to attempt to
discredit the US elections.
Seems Obama was surrounded by no one who was
"serious/sensible" but many who used his office to attack the
US Bill of Rights.
Since 9 Nov 16 the DNC and its media tools have tried a
coup by discrediting the US election using the security
apparatus to assault privacy and they got nothing!
Former CIA operations officer Scott Uehlinger, co-host of
The Station Chief
podcast,
talked about the
Susan Rice "unmasking" story
with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday's
Breitbart News Daily.
"I think it's an
issue which deeply concerns people like myself and other people, working-level
officers in the intel community," Uehlinger said. "Even though at this point,
there seems to be no evidence of breaking the law, this 'unmasking' of people was
ill-advised at best. I think it really shows that abuse of power and the fact that
many people in the Obama administration were willing to violate the spirit of the
laws designed to protect Americans, perhaps rather than the law itself."
... ... ...
"As a working-level CIA officer, we were always
told by upper authority, you're always told to – and the quote is – 'avoid the
appearance of impropriety,'" he said. "Well, this does not pass that smell test,
definitely."
Uehlinger said another thing
that concerns working-level officers in the intelligence and military communities
is "the American people, average Americans like myself, are tired of seeing two
sets of rules followed by the higher-ups and then the working-level people."
"This is just part of that again. A
working-level officer would have gotten into big trouble doing anything remotely
like this," he observed. "But now, we have a lot of people saying that she should
just be given a pass."
"While I understand, you know, it's important
that the Trump administration has to move forward with its domestic agenda, but
these allegations demand to be further investigated," he urged.
Kassam proposed that Democrats and their media
would not allow the Trump administration to move forward with any part of its
agenda until this "Russia hysteria" is cleaned up. That will be a difficult task
since, as Kassam noted, the hysteria has been burning at fever pitch for months
without a shred of evidence to back up the wildest allegations.
Uehlinger agreed and addressed Kassam's point
that media coverage alternates between "no surveillance was conducted" and "we
know everything about Trump's Russia connections."
"The Obama administration relaxed the rule that
allowed raw intelligence that was gathered by the NSA to be shared throughout the
government," he pointed out. "First of all, to relax that, there is absolutely no
operational justification for doing that. With all of the counter-intelligence
problems, with espionage, with Snowden, all these things we've had, to raise by an
order of magnitude the access to this very sensitive information makes no
operational sense at all."
"So for someone to approve that, it's clear they
had another intent, and I believe the intent was to allow for further leakage," he
charged. "To give more people access, thus more leaks, which, in fact, would hurt
the Trump administration. It seems very obvious when you put that together and
combine it with the actions of Susan Rice and other people in unmasking people.
That is the true purpose behind this."
"I say this as somebody who – you have to
remember, when I was a station chief overseas, this is what I was reporting on. I
was in countries like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kosovo – countries which constantly
had the offices of the prime minister or president using the intelligence services
to suppress the domestic opposition. So I've been to this rodeo before, many a
time. I saw the storm clouds gathering several weeks ago, and everything I've
suspected has so far come to fruition," Uehlinger said.
He pronounced it "very disappointing" that such
transparent abuse of government power for partisan politics would occur in the
United States.
"An intelligence service has to have the trust
of the people and the government in order to function effectively," he said. "With
all of these scandals happening, and with the name of perhaps the CIA and other
intelligence community elements in the mud, this makes the object of protecting
our national security more problematic. The agencies have to have the trust of the
American people, and they're losing it, because it seems as though they've been
weaponized – perhaps, like I said, not breaking the law but playing very close to
the line."
Kassam suggested that leaking the information
might have been illegal, even if Rice was legally entitled to request information
on Donald Trump's campaign and unmask the U.S. persons monitored during
surveillance of foreign intelligence targets.
"That's absolutely the case," Uehlinger agreed.
He went on to argue that the absence of hard evidence for any wrongdoing by the
Trump campaign in all of these leaks was highly significant.
"Since basically the Obama administration has
sort of loaded this with these rule changes and all to allow for leaks the fact
that there is no 'smoking gun' of Trump administration collusion with Russia
indicates that there isn't any. There is nothing substantial here because a juicy
morsel like that would certainly have been leaked by the same people that have
been leaking everything else. The fact it hasn't been leaked out means it does not
exist," he reasoned.
Kassam said some of the Russia hysteria came
from imputing sinister motives to conventional business dealings, arguing that
Trump's organization made deals around the world, and it is exceedingly difficult
to do business with any Russian entity that is not somehow connected to the
Russian government.
"That's an excellent point. You're absolutely
right," Uehlinger responded. "It shows these people who are doing these gambits
are relying on the relative ignorance of the American public of the actual nuts
and bolts of intelligence to make their point. Anyone with any background in this
stuff can see it for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit an
administration because they were crushed in the past elections."
Breitbart News Daily
airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
From a trading perspective, the big news was at the top: "The minutes will
show it will be unlikely that the labor market improvement will be
substantial enough to stave off new Treasury purchases into 2013." And in
the sixth paragraph it describes how the Fed was likely to vote as early as
December to stop the part of its MBS buying designed to counter the bonds
being paid off (due to foreclosures, home sales, refis) and buy roughly $45
billion a month of Treasuries instead.
The amount of granular detail was stunning. For instance:
The committee will attach a predictive timetable outlining the
duration of these purchases The monthly MBS purchases of around $40
billion will continue along side the new program Tomorrow's minutes will
reference a staff paper The minutes will show the dovish majority was
ready .[to make] open ended MBS and Treasury purchases as early as last
month.
This is so specific that it comes of as if Medley either got its hands on
an advance draft of the FOMC minutes or someone read it to her.
The report also describes, again in depth, how the decision process prior
to the September meeting departed from established norms as well as
voyeristic tidbits, such as that finalizing the text of the policy
recommendations kept staffers up until after midnight.
Given how extraordinarily revealing this note was, Lacker's departure is
unsatisfactory. Specifically:
Either Lacker lied or the investigators aren't even close to
getting to the bottom of this
. Lacker has admitted only to taking a
call from the Medley analyst, supposedly having her run insider detail by
him, and indirectly confirming it by not getting off the phone. From his
resignation letter, which was released by law firm McGuireWoods, not the
Richmond Fed:
During that October 2, 2012 discussion, the [Medley] Analyst
introduced into the conversation an important non-public detail about one
of the policy options considered by participants prior to the meeting.
Due to the highly confidential and sensitive nature of this information,
I should have declined to comment and perhaps have ended the phone call.
Instead, I did not refuse or express my inability to comment and the
interview continued. Additionally, after that phone call, I did not, as
required by the Information Security Policy, report to any FOMC personnel
that the Analyst was in possession of confidential FOMC information. When
Medley published a report by the Analyst the following day, October 3,
2012, it contained this important detail about one of the policy options
and I realized that my failure to decline comment on the information
could have been taken by the Analyst, in the context of the conversation,
as an acknowledgment or confirmation of the information.
This reads like the equivalent of a plea bargain, that Lacker and his
lawyers negotiated him to 'fess up to the most minimal breach possible
provided he resign.
Alternatively, if Lacker is being truthful, it means that one or more
additional people provided the information to the Medley analyst, Regina
Schleiger.
"That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt
with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical.
That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."
The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael
McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who
was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.
Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job
and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.
McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered
in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.
But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could
have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are
preposterous, they say.
"Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good
at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize
that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American
political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government
was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."
National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials
have handled the Russia issue poorly.
Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.
And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during
the transition period when Obama was still president.
Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a
whiff of Russia is out of control.
"It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump
or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There
is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be
an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing
the target."
National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations,
potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his
successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
"The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them,
more often than not they'll do it back to us."
McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers,
accused of fomenting revolution.
"I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans
to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S.
Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent.
Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is
dangerous."
It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors,
according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.
From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke
the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even
basic levels.
"Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really
creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's
an actual major challenge from them."
Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program
director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.
"It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars,"
Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes
the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.
"Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not
striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations
with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit
this." Tags Jeff Sessions
"... CIA officers penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose: ..."
As the facts about who surveilled whom during the transition get sorted out, it is useful to remember why Trump's team and his
supporters have reason to be suspicious, thanks to a long documented history of Obama using shady surveillance tactics on both political
opponents and international allies. Rhodes himself knows this history but that doesn't seem to matter as he once again attempts to
make people believe he fell out of the sky and onto Twitter on January 21st, 2017.
... ... ...
1. Fox News reporter James Rosen
In 2013 the news broke that Eric Holder's Justice Department
had spied on James Rosen . Obama's DOJ collected Rosen's telephone records as well as tracked his movements to and from the State
Department from where he reported. Rosen was named as a possible co-conspirator in a Justice Department affidavit. Rosen claims that
his parents phone line was also swept up in the collection of his records and DOJ records seem to confirm that. Despite the targeting
of Rosen, there were no brave calls to boycott the White House Correspondents Dinner.
2. Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA
CIA officers
penetrated a network used to share information by Senate Intel committee members, including Sen. Diane Feinstein, the committee's
Democrat chair. The bombshell New York Times report went on to disclose:
The CIA officials penetrated the computer network when they came to suspect that the committee's staff had gained unauthorized
access to an internal CIA review of the detention program that the spy agency never intended to give to Congress. A CIA lawyer then
referred the agency's suspicions to the Justice Department to determine whether the committee staff broke the law when it obtained
that document. The inspector general report said that there was no "factual basis" for this referral, which the Justice Department
has declined to investigate, because the lawyer had been provided inaccurate information. The report said that the three information
technology officers "demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities" during interviews with the inspector general.
The Obama White House defended CIA director John Brennan's actions and response. Imagine that.
3. Associated Press Phone Records
Much like James Rosen and his shady al Qaeda looking parents, Obama's Justice Department
secretly obtained months of phone records belonging to AP journalists while investigating a failed terror attack. And much like
the Rosen spying, this was personally approved by Attorney General Holder.
Mass surveillance and expansion of such under the Patriot Act is one of the most historically prevalent things about the Obama
administration. There's even a Wikipedia page
dedicated to that alone . So why
do the media and former administration officials act shocked and surprised when someone points the finger in their direction and
asks if targeting an incoming President is possible?
There is a long, decorated history of questionable-even unconstitutional-surveillance from the Obama administration none of which
proves Trump's twitter ravings to be true. But it certainly is enough to raise suspicions among Trump's supporters and even some
of this critics that he could be perfectly correct.
"... Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. ..."
Speaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election,
Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if
Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody
else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.
Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama
administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week
highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by
members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members
of his campaign.
Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made
remarks
as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's
removal from office "pretty quickly."
Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton
administration, Farkas stated:
It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the
Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to
vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute
repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out
there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And
I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day
and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove that even
if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a
lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument –
they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the
fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances.
And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached
pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not
even joking.
Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the
conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied
Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the
Nov. 8 presidential election.
Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on
MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the
comments
, she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to
collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the
Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President
Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.
She continued:
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the
senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy
that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their
the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those
sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that
Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.
White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week
stated
:
[I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out
there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this
information around, that they went around and did this.
They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff.
And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious
questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think
that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.
Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned
in 2015.
She
told
the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I
had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have
access to any," she said.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas
denied
being a source of any leaks.
The Post reported:
Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she
"didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and
had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I
was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports
of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.
Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council,
which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released
numerous reports
and
briefs about Russian aggression.
The Council is
funded
by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and
NATO ACT. Another Council
funder
is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire
George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder
of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment
about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch
is a
nonresident senior
fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic
Council.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey
confirmed
that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to
confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines
themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that
ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never
asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not
in our job."
If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who "stretched
the truth" about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members
of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she
told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately
spied on members of the Trump transition team.
"The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political
purposes," Rice told Mitchell. " That's absolutely false.... My job is to protect the American people
and the security of our country. "
"There was no such collection or surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals, it is important
to understand, directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals," Rice said.
EXCLUSIVE: Susan Rice says the claim that intelligence was used for political purposes is "absolutely
false" Watch: https://t.co/JdbgCtSgEN
"I don't solicit reports," Rice said Tuesday. "They're giving it to me, if I read it, and I think
that in order for me to understand, is it significant or not so significant, I need to know who the
'U.S. Person' is, I can make that request." She did concede that it is "possible" the Trump team
was picked up in "incidental surveillance."
"The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American
person is the same is leaking it - that's completely false," Rice said. "There is no equivalence
between so-called unmasking and leaking."
That said, Rice did not discuss what motive she may have had behind what Bloomberg, Fox and others
have confirmed, was her unmasking of members of the Trump team.
Rice also flatly denied exposing President Trump's former national security advisor Michael Flynn,
who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence
about the contents of a phone call with the Russian ambassador. Asked by Mitchell if she seeked to
unmask the names of people involved in the Trump campaign in order to spy on them, Rice says: "absolutely
not, for any political purpose, to spy, expose, anything." And yet, that is what happened. She was
then asked if she leaked if she leaked the name of Mike Flynn: "I leaked nothing to nobody."
In a follow up question, Rice said that when it comes to Mike Flynn with whom she had "civil and
cordial relations", that she learned "in the press" that he was an unregistered agent for the Turkish
government.
WATCH: Susan Rice says she learned from the press that Flynn was an unregistered agent for the
Turkish government https://t.co/xD41R2fbBL
We doubt that anyone's opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that,
in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his "honorable service"
and claimed he was captured "on the battlefield", and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that
she didn't know anything about the unmasking.
It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been "refreshed" about her role in the
unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.
On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request
she sidestepped on Tuesday. "Let's see what comes," she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify
on the matter. "I'm not going to sit here and prejudge."
"... This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration." ..."
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President
Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in
surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at
the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including
former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect
Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being
posed by the sources late Monday.
... ... ...
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former
Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly
speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get
as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration."
... ... ...
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader
powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability
to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several
Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks
on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Here are the highlights of Mitchell's interview with Rice, which took up the first
quarter-hour of Mitchell's show.
Rice admitted asking for the names of U.S. citizens in intelligence
reports to be "unmasked."
Rice said: "There were occasions when I
would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not
provided, just U.S. person. And sometimes in that context, in order to
understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was
necessary to find out, or request, the information as to who that U.S. official
was." Rice argued it was necessary for her and other officials to request that
information, on occasion, to "do our jobs" to protect national security.
Rice admitted asking specifically for the names of members of
Donald Trump's transition team.
She argued that she had not done so
for political purposes, however. Mitchell asked: "Did you seek the names of
people involved in - to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump
transition, the people surrounding the president-elect in order to spy on them
and expose them?" Rice answered: "Absolutely not for any political purposes to
spy, expose, anything."
Rice denied leaking the name of former General Michael Flynn.
"I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would." She added that
to discuss particular targets would be to reveal classified information.
She later walked back her denial. Mitchell: "The allegation is that you were
leaking the fact that he spoke to the [Russian] ambassador and perhaps to
others." Rice: "I can't get into any specific reports what I can say is there
is an established process."
Rice denied reports that she prepared a "spreadsheet" of Trump
transition staff under surveillance.
Mitchell asked specifically about
the
Daily Caller
story Tuesday: "They allege there was a spreadsheet you put out of all of these
names and circulated it." Rice: "Absolutely false. No spreadsheet, no nothing
of the sort." She said that unmasked names "was not then typically broadly
disseminated throughout the national security community or the government."
Rice said that even if she did request the names of citizens to
be unmasked, that did not mean she leaked them.
"The notion that by
asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it,
is completely false."
Rice admitted that the pace of intelligence reports accelerated
throughout the election.
She said she could not say whether the pace
of her "unmasking" requests accelerated, but she said there was increasing
concern, as well as increasing information, relating to the possibility of
Russian interference in the election, particularly after August 2016.
Rice implied that President Obama himself ordered the compilation
of intelligence reports on Trump officials.
" the president requested
the compliation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January
[2017]."
Rice said that she was unaware, even while working with Flynn
during the transition, that he was working for the Turkish government.
Mitchell
asked: "When did you learn that?" Rice answered: "In the press, as everybody
else did." Mitchell, incredulously: "You didn't know that, when you were
National Security Advisor?" Rice: "I did not."
Rice reiterated that President Obama never tapped Trump's phone.
"Absolutely
false there was no such collection [or] surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump
individuals directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals."
She did not deny that there might have been some surveillance by other
agencies, however. She said it was impossible for the White House to order such
surveillance, but that the Department of Justice could have done so.
Rice seemed aggrieved by Trump's claims.
"It wasn't
typical of the way presidents treat their predecessors."
Rice would not say whether she would be willing to testify on
Capitol Hill before Congress.
"Let's see what comes. I'm not going to
sit here and prejudge," she said. But she insisted that the investigations into
Russian interference in the presidential election were of interest to every
American citizen, and should be followed wherever the evidence leads.
White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested
the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to
the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's
policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic
eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted
from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting
the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's
multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition
activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed
more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign
officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members
of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said
they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team
was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the
identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations
surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.
Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates
and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the
House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White
House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates
incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.
Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked
on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were
swept up in incidental intelligence collection,
Rice said : "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman
Nunes on that account today."
Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate
Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There
remains no evidence to support that claim.
But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence
reports during the transition period does
highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs.
The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that
it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This
suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.
The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It
emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive
allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he
said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive
branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council
that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.
The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports
on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these
reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself
and other members of the committee.
Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly
how and why it was disseminated.
"... And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact, the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway. Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump campaign might have committed? ..."
"... The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow" double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign officials' communications. ..."
"... And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame. ..."
"... Multiple senators are now demanding her testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow to emerge. It appears that Rice has issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia investigations will somehow deliver for them and become this president's Watergate. ..."
"... The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions under oath. ..."
"... How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors? ..."
"... Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama? ..."
It is said that Watergate wasn't about the crime, but about the coverup. Well, at least in the Watergate scandal, there was a
proper crime - specifically, the break-in and wiretapping. The media hasn't even settled on what to call its quest for a potentially
nefarious Russia-Trump link. The whole pursuit is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links," "ties," "associations"
or "contacts" with Russia. Since this is Washington, let's give it an acronym: L-TACs. With no end in sight, the manic pursuit of
L-TACs has produced a basket of denials, lies, half-baked plots, evasions, one-off non sequiturs, side tracks, conspiracies and suspicions
between the Trump administration, Democrats and the media. The frenzy has created a scandal without perpetrators or a crime. There
is a sense that Washington is on the brink, but no one can say on the brink of what.
When they have to be specific, some Democrats have settled on the idea that the Trump campaign may have collaborated with Russia
on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the John Podesta emails. There is no evidence of this, but it is worth remembering
a few things. First, the FBI was
aware of the DNC
hacking when it occurred. This was
confirmed again yesterday
in Politico's interview with Lisa Monaco
, who served as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism in the Obama White House. She said the
hacking was handled as a law enforcement matter. I assume she was referring to when the FBI called the dolts at the DNC, but the
DNC took no action.
Then-national security adviser Susan Rice is seen last year on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated
Press)
And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton
and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact,
the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway.
Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political
junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump
campaign might have committed?
The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow"
double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to
unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign
officials' communications. To unmask, or reveal, the identities of U.S. citizens whose names and conversations were gathered
through incidental collection is unusual.
And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump
campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security
adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame.
So, what was going on? Why did she do it? And with whom, in the government and the media, did she share the information?
Multiple senators are now
demanding her
testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow
to emerge. It appears that Rice has
issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that
there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia
investigations will somehow deliver for them and
become this president's Watergate.
The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search
of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions
under oath.
Washington is as scandal-primed as I've ever seen it - there is a lot of smoke right now, but no clear fire. So the noise and
finger-pointing will continue. And I have no idea who is winning. The pursuit of Trump may have caught the Obama White House
Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush White Houses and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which
he founded with former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour in 1991. Follow @EdRogersDC
Bigly Fan 5:38 PM EDT
How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors?
theworm1 5:37 PM EDT
"The whole pursuit [ of Trump's Russian engagement] is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links', 'ties', 'associations'
or 'contacts'" . These are the same nouns the media uses to describe the alleged "connections" between al Qaeda and Saddam and
between ISIS and whoever we don't like today. They carry meaning or they don't. I think most people think they do.
Io fifty 5:37 PM EDT
I just read in Breitbart, sure you have too Mr. Rogers ...... that Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place
within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama?
"... A Monday report by Bloomberg's Eli Lake said that Rice requested the unmasking of Trump officials. Names of Americans swept up incidentally in the collection of intelligence are normally masked, or kept redacted, in intelligence briefings ..."
"... the former official did not dispute the reporting by Bloomberg. ..."
A Monday report by Bloomberg's Eli Lake said that Rice requested the unmasking of Trump officials.
Names of Americans swept up incidentally in the collection of intelligence are normally masked, or
kept redacted, in intelligence briefings . However, the law provides for much leeway when it
comes to unmasking by National Security Council officials, which suggests that Rice's request was
legal.
This type of request was not a special practice related to the Trump transition team, though
the former official did not dispute the reporting by Bloomberg.
As a procedural matter, an intelligence briefer would have had to clear a requested unmasking
with the head of the agency providing the intelligence. It is unclear why these intelligence intercepts
were considered so important that they would need to be shared with the president's national security
adviser.
A former national security official told CBS News that when such information on U.S. individuals
is approved and provided by the intelligence community, it is typically given directly to the senior
official who made the request and is not broadly disseminated.
On some occasions, the official added, it is necessary to know the identity of U.S. persons in
order to understand the context and substance of the intelligence. There is nothing improper, unusual
or political about such requests.
President Donald Trump tweeted last month
that Trump Tower had been wiretapped by President Obama , a claim for which there is still no
evidence. Later, House Intelligence chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.,
said he had obtained evidence showing that the names of Trump associates that were swept up incidentally
by intelligence agencies had been unmasked. That evidence is believed to have been provided to Nunes
by the White House.
Rice had said that she was unaware of the names of Trump officials being swept up incidentally
by intelligence agencies. "I know nothing about this," she told "PBS NewsHour" last month when asked
about Nunes' claim.
"... Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the " most influential " people in news media in 2016. His new book, ..."
"... , is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak . ..."
President Barack Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly
ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign aides during the last election,
and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.
The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by
blogger
Mike Cernovich
and
Eli Lake
of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides' names to be
"unmasked" in intelligence reports. The alleged "unmasking" may have been legal,
but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to
disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the
aim of leaking them to the press.
At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News
compiled
the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking - all based
on mainstream media reports - the mainstream media dismissed the story as a "
conspiracy
theory
."
Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader
allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of
the Obama administration's alleged surveillance continue to emerge.
"What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice
were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump
associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told
The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
"The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the
Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short,
the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the
calls."
The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly "ordered one year
before the 2016 presidential election." According to a
Fox
News
report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.
Rhodes and Rice were both implicated in a disinformation campaign to describe
the Benghazi terror attack in Sep. 2012 as a protest against a YouTube video.
Rhodes also boasted of creating an "
echo
chamber
" in the media to promote the Iran deal, feeding stories to contrived
networks of "experts" who offered the public a steady stream of pro-agreement
propaganda.
On Monday, Rhodes
retweeted
a CNN story quoting Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claiming that the alleged
unmasking was "nothing unusual."
To the extent they have reported the surveillance story at all, CNN and other
news outlets have focused on Trump's
tweets last month
that alleged President Obama had "wiretapped" Trump Tower,
describing the claims as unfounded.
CNN continued treating story dismissively on Monday, with
The Lead
host Jake Tapper insisting allegations of Russian interference in the election
were more important than what he referred to as the president's effort to distract
from them.
Later in the day, host Don Lemon
declared
he would ignore the surveillance story and urged viewers to do
likewise.
The potential abuse of surveillance powers for political purposes has long
troubled civil libertarians, and could affect the re-authorization of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act later this year.
Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on former National
Security Advisor Susan Rice to be brought in front of Congress under subpoena and
asked questions about allegations she was behind the unmasking of American
identities in raw surveillance.
Paul also said she should be asked about former President Barack Obama's
knowledge of these alleged activities.
"For years, both progressives and libertarians have been complaining about
these backdoor searches," Paul said. "It's not that we're searching maybe one
foreign leader and who they talk to; we search everything in the whole world.
There were reports a couple of years ago that all of Italy's phone calls were
absorbed in a one month period of time. We were getting Merkel's phone calls; we
were getting everybody's phone calls. But by rebound we are collecting millions of
Americans phone calls. If you want to look at an American's phone call or listen
to it, you should have to have a warrant, the old fashioned way in a real court
where both sides get represented."
"But a secret warrant by a secret court with a lower standard level because
we're afraid of terrorism is one thing for foreigners but both myself and a
Progressive Ron Wyden have been warning about these back door searches for years
and that they could be politicized," he continued. "The facts will come out with
Susan Rice. But I think she ought to be under subpoena. She should be asked did
you talk to the president about it? Did President Obama know about this? So this
is actually, eerily similar to what Trump accused them of which is eavesdropping
on conversations for political reasons."
Below are five facts from Susan Rice scandals every American should know.
1. Susan Rice allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's 2016
election campaign aides as part of a political intelligence
operation.
Rice allegedly maintained spreadsheets of Trump aides' telephone calls "one
year before the 2016 presidential election," according to the Daily Caller.
"What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice
were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump
associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told
The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
"The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the
Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short,
the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the
calls."
... ... ...
5. Susan Rice was the driving force behind a misinformation
campaign about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attacks.
Then-UN Ambassador Rice, acting as the Obama White House's spokeswoman,
appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly claimed that the
Benghazi attacks had been caused by an anti-Islam video.
Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN and regurgitated talking
points purporting that the protests that had erupted "spontaneously" near two U.S.
government facilities in Benghazi, Libya and were a result of a "hateful video"
that was offensive to Islam.
But government
documents
,
released following a Judicial Watch lawsuit, reveal that government officials
monitoring the attack in real-time did not cite an anti-Islam video as an
explanation for the paramilitary attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in
Benghazi.
In May 2015 interview, former Obama CIA Director Mike Morell said Rice's
Benghazi talking points blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video crossed "the line
between national security and politics."
"I think the line in there that says one of our objectives here right on the
Sunday show is to blame the video rather than a failure of policy," Morell
said
on Fox News'
Special Report.
"And as you know, I say in the book
that I think that that is crossing the line between national security and
politics."
"... If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years. ..."
"... As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility. Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State, are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing. ..."
"... "Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language. Maybe they should pay their employees more ..."
"... this is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry of falsehood. ..."
"... Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses. ..."
"... "The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions," No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some personal responsibility. ..."
"... Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance, taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings. Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing the business. ..."
"... So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay his taxes with. ..."
"... I'm curious: If you pay the interest on the 401k loan with already-taxed money, is that interest taxed again upon withdrawal from the 401k? ..."
"... Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket (income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly 10%. ..."
"... many 401k accounts tend to have higher costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research. ..."
"... No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard. ..."
Since American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet, the real reason
for the objection to 401K withdrawals might as well be that selling overpriced stock and using
the cash to pay bills, reduces the opportunity of the chief corporate psychopaths to cash out
on their stock options.
It's personal. How dare a peasant beat a corporate bigwig by cashing out early, and reduce
the bigwig's monetary takings by even a penny.
Tapping or pocketing retirement funds early, known in the industry as leakage, threatens
to reduce the wealth in U.S. retirement accounts by about 25% when the lost annual savings are
compounded over 30 years, according to an analysis by economists at Boston College's Center for
Retirement Research.
That's 25% less available funds that Wall Street can steal from customers. Starve the beast?
How do we cut them off from the teat of the FED?
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
precisely. If I had a 401K, I would not be trusting those jackals with my money. My ex
lost pretty much everything after he had contributed for 12+ years.
Re: " American companies are run by the greediest psychopaths on the planet "
I have a quibble with this point of view. Greed takes many forms, and greed for power is just
as motivating as greed for wealth. So I'm of the opinion that corporate psychopaths have plenty
of company in the halls of government, particularly in the National Security arena. These people
have shown that killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the lives of millions more is not
enough to satisfy their lust for power and control. Oh no, not nearly enough. The beast you speak
of must eat every day.
As far as cutting off Wall Street from the teat of the Fed, this is a virtual impossibility.
Wall Street, the Fed, and the Federal Government, and particularly the National Security State,
are all just different faces of the same entity. It would be like trying to separate the front
and the back of a dollar bill. You can't do it without destroying the whole thing.
And if I was Marc Jones, I wouldn't be crying "ovens" too loud. It's happened before, and by
people who may not have been all that much further along the psychopath curve than the ones we
are dealing with now.
I have friends who are just past their mid-30s and borrowed against their 401k to make a house
purchase. A promotion lead to a desire for a bigger home in a nicer town (i.e. schools) and when
they sold their current house a combination of real estate transaction fees and being slightly
underwater on mortgage (I thought housing prices always went up!?) meant the only place they could
go for excess savings was their retirement accounts. Now that's something I would never do, but
I understand the motivation. And from their perspective, things are still on the upswing in terms
of their age and career expected earnings.
I have another colleague who has been at our large company long enough to still have a pension
plan, while our U.K. colleagues are still in a union. Instead of wondering why our older colleagues
have it so good with regards to benefits and time off, they just joke about the days of a pension
being gone and make with the old man cracks.
"Companies are worried about their employees retirement prospects" Gotta love the language.
Maybe they should pay their employees more
If you actually believe that's what companies are concerned about but seriously this
is why I don't read the news anymore. The ongoing casual lies are embedded within a broader tapestry
of falsehood.
Well they could just make contributions to the 401ks for employees themselves without even
requiring the employee to put anything in (without requiring matching). Some companies do do this.
Probably better than just paying them more if they are really worried about their retirement funds,
because if they just paid them more there's a good chance it wouldn't go to retirement. I'm not
opposed to more pay, just realistic about how much might go to retirement. A pension of course
is better but small companies aren't going to manage that financially even if they wanted to.
Even of the boomers I bet many of them don't have pensions. Why? They didn't work for government
or fortune 500s, and it was probably never that many people with lifetime at careers at small
companies that got pensions. But much of the employment is small businesses.
"The great lie is that the 401(k) was capable of replacing the old system of pensions,"
No kidding. There are so many great lies with 401(k)'s, the biggest being that it is now expected
that people should be able to save enough for their own retirement if they would only assume some
personal responsibility.
But the math has never worked. According to Reaganomics, personal responsibility is the solution
to retirement needs, medical costs, education costs, child care costs, unemployment, etc. No one
has ever been able to produce a household budget for a family in the lower half of income that
would ever come remotely close to fulfilling the conservative's fantasy of personal responsibility.
It. Can't. Be. Done.
The great lie that is the 401(k) and Reaganomics serves the same purpose as so many other conservative
lies: it allows more money to flow to Wall Street and the richest Americans. It also is used to
justify tax cuts for the rich and cuts in social programs. It is about the greed of the few against
the living standards of the rest of our society.
The 401(k) was intended to be a supplemental income to a pension, but those pensions no longer
exist and are never coming back. In the face of what has happened, particularly the graft Wall
Street and financial managers have imposed on 401(k)'s and other retirement investments, what
is needed is a much more muscular Social Security system for retirement.
Does anyone know what percentage of boomers (or even older boomers) have pensions? I'm guessing
it's not all that high (even if it's 50%, that means half would be relying on SS and other savings
etc.).
So if all benefited from well funded DB plan wouldn't the economy be smaller from less spending
and markets even more overvalued?
Oh no, the economy would have been smaller so there would have been less money to save
My head hurts thinking about all those what ifs!
It just seems to me that the cost of living for the vast majority will always equal disposable
income because there is alway someone out there younger, willing to work longer hours, willing
to take a pay cut or pay extra for a house. Arbitrage rules.
Asking everyone to save for 30 years of retirement is a farce and sure to fail. And we are
currently witnessing its failure. There are just too many variables.
All it takes is for someone out there to plan using a life expectancy of 80 while another with
the same income uses 95. This gives them way more cash flow during their working years to increase
the price of everything screwing up the plans of those using more conservative assumptions.
Since companies don't care if you survive after you leave them and I bet in many of these big
box stores newbies and old timers probably earn about the same amount 10-15/hr. What is the real
reason they want to stop leakage? That 25% drop in gambling money & earnings for fund managers.
I am guilty moved on to new job and cashed it out. I didn't put any money in, don't care and don't
see this as a real way to ?retire.
After 2008 it seems like 401ks are just a place to dump garbage. What do I know, I am young &
dumb.
Question:
So my spouse has changed jobs 4 times in the last 5 years. Each time we have to cash out the old
401k and deposit it in the new one. Some times this rollover was done by direct wire transfer
from old to new, but one time they sent us a check, which we signed over to the new 401k account.
Are these somehow being counted as "cashing out"? We though these are really rollovers? Just curious
The Wall Street crooks through the governments they own have convinced the majority of the
people that 401(k)s are good because of (1) tax deferral and (2) company contributions. Americans
are obsessed with paying lower taxes that they let the Wall Street Banksters get their claws on
their savings. The laws dictate that only the banksters/brokers can keep and handle your savings.
Each trade results in a commission. Add to this mix the myriad of so called financial consultants
who churn the account for their own benefit. When Wall Street crashes, Good Bye!
BIL (high-level TV executive mostly unemployed for two years) withdrew his entire 401k without
understanding the tax consequences. April 15 a very large number is due to the Feds. Oops.
Over the years, I have been astonished at how little many executives understand about finance,
taxes, and business. I have always wondered what they actually do in their cocooned meetings.
Generally speaking, those meetings result in hilarious memos re-organizing people that don't appear
to have anything to do with the normal business while cutting costs that are essential to executing
the business.
So it is not a surprise to me that a high-level executive would be unaware that a 401k
is tax-deferred, not tax-exempt. He probably also thinks that a hedge fund is guaranteed to outperform
the S&P 500 and has already moved his money into one, which means he will have less money to pay
his taxes with.
Borrowing against your 401k is only an issue if you are saving in it at a low rate. The really
big issue with 401ks is that companies generally do not put much in matching funds in – typically
far less than their old pension fund contributions would be. Instead, those funds have been going
to pay for exorbitant healthcare insurance plans in the vastly over-priced US healthcare system.
I have borrowed against my 401ks over the years. However, I also save at a pretty high rate,
generally at the highest rate that the company permits. So I get the tax savings (been in some
of the highest tax brackets for over 20 years and live in a high income tax state, so about 35%
or so tax deferral) while building an asset base.
Occasionally, something comes up that needs some cash, so I take a loan against the 401k (generally
the value is less than a year's worth of contributions) and set up a schedule to pay it back over
a couple of years. Some years the interest rate on the loan (that you are paying to yourself)
is higher than the portfolio returns and other years it is lower. In the end, I have come out
ahead because I am not trying to save those chunks of money after tax in a bank savings account
that pays little or not interest.
Yes it is a 35% tax savings, even if not in the highest bracket. Say in the 25% fed bracket
(income of $37,950 to $91,900). Then California income taxes for that income can come to nearly
10%.
Mostly true, but it depends. If the new 410k has good, low cost investment options that one
wishes to utilize then it's probably fine. That said, many 401k accounts tend to have higher
costs for equivalent funds than one can get in a rollover IRA. Buyer gots to do their research.
No, he's correct. 401(k)s have TONS of hidden fees. You can't even get full disclosure
of the full fees. You are guaranteed to have lower fees and more choices at Vanguard.
Not just the corporation investing in equities or stock buybacks, or workers investing in equities,
but also the corporations turn themselves into finance/insurance businesses (Westinghouse, etc.)
It's funny that they can't see how they have defeated themselves – and they are blaming leakage
when spending the money is the antidote to stagnation as the system now works. It's hard to imagine
that the corporations want to retire the old workers to make room for new – I don't believe that
for a second because they'll gladly retire 4 olds and hire 1new. It's "flexibility" they are looking
for.
What is CAPE, or the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio, exactly? Bear with me.
This is a bit technical: It is real, or inflation-adjusted, stock price divided by a
10-year average of real earnings. It is usually measured using the price and earnings
of the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, adjusted for inflation with the
Consumer Price Index
. In 1988, John Y. Campbell (now at Harvard) and I
showed in
a joint article
that such a
ratio
has, since 1881, forecast returns somewhat well in the stock market. That
"somewhat" is important because the ratio has its limits as a forecasting tool.
We found back then that averaging earnings over 10 years smoothed short-run or
cyclical fluctuations, providing a better indicator of fundamental value. The CAPE
ratio has successfully explained about a third of the variation in real 10-year stock
market returns in United States history since 1881.
This is the important point: In 1988, we found that CAPE had averaged about 15 since
1881. In years when CAPE was lower than that, subsequent 10-year returns for the
stock market tended to be good. In years when it was higher, the 10-year returns
tended to be bad.
That's why today's CAPE is sending a troubling message. The ratio is now almost 30.
Using monthly data, it has been higher only in 1929, when it reached 33, and in the
few years around 2000, when it reached 44. In both instances, sharp market declines
followed those very high readings. The current level of CAPE suggests a dim outlook
for the American stock market over the next 10 years or so, but it does not tell us
for sure nor does it say when to expect a decline. As I said, CAPE is useful, but it
does not provide a clear guide to the future.
Investor sentiment is another factor, and current readings also give us cause for
concern.
I have been involved in regular opinion surveys of institutional and individual
investors in the United States since 1989. These surveys are undertaken and published
online
by the Yale School of Management.
From these data, I created a Valuation
Confidence Index, which is the percent of respondents who think the domestic stock
market is not overvalued; a Crash Confidence Index, which is the percent who think
that a 1929- or 1987-style crash in the next six months is highly unlikely; and a
One-Year Confidence Index, which is the percent who think the stock market will go up
in the next year. The indexes are measured in six-month intervals, and our latest
data are for the six months through February, which includes the election of
President Trump on Nov. 8, 2016.
Valuation confidence in February was quite low. The only time it has been lower was
in the years surrounding the market peak of 2000. In February, crash confidence was
quite low too, though it has been slightly lower on a number of occasions since 1989.
These two indicators might seem to confirm the apparent signal of the CAPE ratio:
trouble ahead. They are certainly saying that investors aren't confident that current
prices are reasonable or that the market is stable.
But one metric went the opposite direction. One-year confidence is at a record high
for institutional investors, and it is at the highest level since 2007 for individual
investors. (That means, by the way, that in 2007, the eve of the Great Recession and
financial crisis, most people had no clue that big problems were imminent.)
The Upshot
Get the best of The Upshot's news, analysis and graphics about
politics, policy and everyday life.
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again
later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
It is hard to reconcile these results. One possible interpretation might be that
respondents perceive a stock market bubble: They think valuations are high and there
is a non-negligible probability of a crash. At the same time, they are hanging in
because they think the Trump boom will probably last for at least another year.
That doesn't provide much reassurance. The high fraction of our survey respondents
who think that the stock market is unlikely to fall in the next year may simply
reflect a failure of imagination about how a Trump bull market could suddenly end.
There are scores of ways, of course. Just because people can't picture a big decline
doesn't mean that they won't react very badly if the market comes under real stress.
Many people appear to believe that a business-oriented president will preside over a
long stock market boom. At a glance, there appears to be some precedent for this,
first with the 1920 election that brought in President Warren G. Harding and Vice
President Calvin Coolidge (who took over when Harding died in 1923) and then with the
1980 victory of Ronald Reagan. These elections were followed by the Roaring Twenties
of 1921 to 1929 and the Millennium Boom market of 1982 to 2000.
But in both cases, during the initial election campaigns the economy was in recession
and the CAPE ratio was extremely low - around 5 in 1920 and 9 in 1980.
We are in a very different situation now. The economy has largely recovered from the
last recession, and CAPE shows us that stocks are now relatively expensive.
There is no clear message from all of this. Long-term investors shouldn't be alarmed
and shouldn't avoid stocks altogether. But my bottom line is that the high pricing of
the market - and the public perception that the market is indeed highly priced - are
the most important factors for the current market outlook. And those factors are
negative.
We don't know where the market will go this month or this year. It could well rise a
lot. But investors should not let themselves be tempted to bet aggressively on the
Trump bull market.
This is largely a politically-based rally by ardent
pro-business retail 'investors' that cannot help but to harken back to the
overglorified 80's--giving far too much credit to a deregulation-fueled boom. The
institutional investors (hedge funds and professionals) have locked in gains and are
holding a whole bunch of cash. It's amazing that the current irrational exuberance is
heavily tied to politics and faith in a supposed pro-business agenda that has not yet
materialized, and that the former cash-holding Republicans that missed the Obama
rally, and have now thrown their cash into this Trump gamble, will be the ones that
suffer the losses. Sad!
-->
With all of Trump's talk about: Taxation; repealing
Dodd-Frank; the AHCA Debacle; Infrastructure--"sometime this year", it's hard not to
expect the economy to be moving in opposite directions. Then his attempted
micromanagement by thinking that CEOs will base business decisions on Trumpisms,
Isolationism,a d Trade Wars, and the nonsense goes on and on.
I wouldn't be surprised, at all, to see a return to 1970s style Stagflation, and
Trump doesn't have the nerve to pul;l a Volcker. Trumpie is in over his head, and
grasping for both the anchor and a cannonball!
Yes, it is good to have plenty of cash indoor portfolio.
Schiller brought this up 1.5 years ago. Like everyone else (I
listen to and talk with), I think the stock market is definitely over-valued. There
has been no recession since 2008-2009. Worst of all stocks have not made money
because America's companies are investing in capital equipment and making more goods.
Instead they were/are using cheap rates to buy-back stock and do other corporate
money maneuvers to make the company look attractive. The GDP remains fairly dismal,
especially when you take into account demographic growth. I would say the market is
due for a downturn. When Shiller talked about this the last time he said the downturn
would be on the order of 30%. He's being more conservative. I don't blame him. We
live in a world of declining real investment and sliding real productivity, along
with wages that have been stagnant forever.
-->
The market is indeed overpriced, might not show any signs of
correction any time soon. Current level might be supported by "political delusion"
for quite a while, just like all other "bubbles" before.
-->
Over your time scale, the nature of investors has changed.
There are more "asset classes" of investors: HFTs, Investment houses, hedge funds,
instutional investors, pension funds, 401ks and Uncle Buck with more money than
sense.
All the goodness of a lagged tie series aside, the think to look at is the second
derivative of these curves. It's the velocity of the changes that matters. Has that
changed? Now it's six trillion in 401k's heading for the exit in a downturn, with the
people in the expensive seats jamming in ahead; taking all the lifeboats to mix
metaphors.
When someone yells "fire" in a theater the results are always the same, and they
never have anything to do with whether there is one or not.
-->
The stock market is fueled by the flow of easy money and the
near zero interest rate credit. Beginning this year, FED will start tightening credit
by not continue buying bond when they are due to mature in 2017 and after. When the
easy money and credit become dry, the stock market will feel the pinch and shrink
dramatically. Otherwise, how could Amazon have such a large free cash flow and in the
meantime her depreciation exceeds capital investment & expense? And the stock is
still blooming?
-->
I have another index that I use to reduce stock in my
portfolio.
It is called: Doctor Investment Sentiment Index.
My daughter and her husband are both doctors. When they tell me that they just
invested in the stock market because they here that it has gone up and their
colleagues have also recently "made money", I take that as a signal and reallocate.
This is sentiment is not limited to doctors. In fact, stockbrokers and MBA students
in finance have the same problem. There have been experiments involving MBA students
who have sufficient information to see that they are participating in a bubble, but
they continue playing the game, believing that they will be able to withdraw "just
before" the crash, knowing that a crash will occur. You can see the experiment in a
lecture by Professor Charles Plott here at around 1 hour into the lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJWy-cLbqh8
-->
Read John Hussman (Phd)'s weekly newsletter. He has charts
of the other best historic indicators of future returns, including Buffet's
favorite Total Market Cap/GDP. All of them are right up there with CAPE, meaning
look out below.
-->
I agree with Prof. Shiller about the risks in the
stockmarket. The PE (forward 12 month earnings) at 17,6 is high indeed. And earnings
for S&P 500 are projected to increase by 10,1 % (17/16) and S&P500 has increased more
than 12% last 12 month. But compared to the last 10 years interestrates are still low
- 10 year T-bill was at approx. 4,75% in 2007 and now stands at 2,4%. In addition to
this, one of the goals of president Trumph is to lower corporate tax rate, from 35%
to 15%. The last will increase EPS. Corporate tax rate in Sweden stands at 22%. (But
we do not know if there will be financing for such a tax decrease.)
My question to prof. Shiller is how this will effect the interpretation of the
Shiller PE, as this is based in different tax rate and higher interest rate. Are
risks still that pronounced?
-->
doktorij
is a trusted commenter
Eastern Tn
2 days ago
One should have been treading on eggshells since the
primaries and definitely since the election. Take some profits, if you have them, and
patiently wait. Yields are a bit better and patience is a virtue we've seemed to have
forgotten.
Schiller is right to sound these warnings although he's
something of a permabear and his cape index is iffy. Stocks aren't in bubble
territory yet but they are certainly expensive and moving in that direction. The
market has priced in totally unrealistic expectation about Trump policies. Thus a
huge crash doesn't seem probable but a substantial correction is very likely.
Different investors have different goals but most people with any sense were doing
some profit taking two weeks ago.
-->
While the usefulness of Professor Schiller's research is
indisputable, there some issues that he doesn't account for sufficiently, that cloud
his conclusions.
Chief among them is his negative bias, the opposite of exuberance, a perfect word for
which, doesn't even exist. Granted, his negative bias is entirely rational, unlike
the irrational exuberance he's famously written about. Nevertheless, like a
weatherman predicting a Tsunami weeks prior. There's no way to dismiss it because the
weatherman is obviously qualified, but to credibly play climate scientist, must first
distance himself from weather forecasting.
With critique out of the way, and more than sufficiently-distanced from the
number-crunching, let's take a closer look at Mr. Shiller's backward-looking
statements. We have two components: Price and Earnings, with Price in a gallop. So we
have to ask, what gives? One very plausible reason is irrational behavior, which
Shiller has eloquently written about. But may well be other reasons, as Schiller
himself admits.
Let us give the market the benefit of doubt. What is the market saying, really? That
they expect future earnings to rise. Which, given these are not normal times,
perfectly rational. En-masse stripping of regulation, job growth, increased
manufacturing, consumption. All pointing to higher earnings.
Provided of course, as Shakespeare would say, taken at flood. We just have to
figure-out who will, and pick their stocks wisely. Good luck.
Yes, but what guarantees do we have of job growth? If the
government cuts back on its expenditures, as it is promising to do, we may look
for layoffs in the public sector which could offset any gains in the private one.
Furthermore, such layoffs could minimize consumer consumption-as will consumer
cautiousness once necessary regulation is removed, and we have a few gross
examples of how it should not have been removed. All of this could even waylay the
predicted increase in manufacturing..... I'm not saying this will happen, I am
just suggesting that all of the pie-in-the-sky predictions that Trumpeters have
been making are to some extent contradictory...
Shortly after Trump was elected (LOL--I almost accidentally
wrote "arrested"), a Trump supporter beamed in a NY Times comment about how Trump had
already made everything better. Why, look at the stock market! Soaring!
I guess the promises of a one-trillion dollar ($1,000,000,000,000) tax cut for the
wealthy and pro-corporate tax reform (i.e., additional tax cuts for the wealthy)
really put a bounce in the step of all those mighty Wall Street warriors. You'll
remember them as the folks who brought you the Great Recession.
Trump's government-by-Twitter and hostility to all the major world players but Russia
could wreck the markets in any number of ways. Some of his tweets praise or criticize
individual companies, picking stock-market winners and losers at the president's
whim.
Yes, the stock market is on fire and breaking all the records! But the Trump
conflagration could too easily spread and burn the house down.
-->
The market does seem "frothy" to me, just from my quite
unacademic standpoint after reading my quarterly statements. It's counting on tax
reform, especially corporate tax reform.
Unfortunately, tax reform is now in the hands of politicians who seem to me
completely incompetent. They control two branches of the federal government, and they
can't pass any legislation. Trump "the businessman," moreover, is a fiction. The
guy's a real estate salesman, and those people don't always have a good track record
of total disclosure.
What are we amateurs to do? Set a ratio of stocks to bonds in our mutual fund
portfolios that suits our appetite for risk (mine's moderate). And then we can use
tools like a good retirement estimator to predict how much money we'll have at a
certain age, using the most pessimistic assumptions in a Monte Carlo simulation. If
one has enough money at the estimated age of demise under severely underperforming
market conditions, one will probably be all right.
Tax reform as a way to boost valuations is yet another
'bubble". It undercuts investment which is what ultimately makes companies and
stocks worth more. The financial equivalent of empty carb calories.
Monte Carlo simulation is useful, however you won't know what the underlying model
is unless you do it yourself. I have three separate 401ks and administrators that
have this feature and using the same data, they have different results.What's
important is how they handle "absorbing barriers" in stochastic process terms. In
gambling it's when you run out of money, or close to it.
You also need a monte carlo model for when you need money. That's the probability
of significant life time events. They can be good: selling your house, or bad,
full onset alzheimers at 68. Most models use average life expectancy, not survival
curves (ie if you are now x years old you have y% chance of living to X+1). Some
companies let you plug in "best guess" for these events. Use it.
As a result I build my own MC models, but I'm a mathematician, and I have access
to a small supercomputer. But the guidance that comes of all this simulation to
keep a large cash buffer, bigger than you might like, given the return on fixed
income investments. That's the real problem in today's investment market. The
traditional diversified portfolio model is broken, and those 401k models don't
acknowledge this.
The main point of the article about over valuation seems
to be correct. Higher stock prices are driven mostly by
low interest rates and high liquidity created by the Fed
to prop up the economy. Economic growth rate doesn't
justify high price earnings ratio. It is profitable to borrow
at low rates and invest in stocks. With the expected
rise in interest rates stocks won't be so attractive.
World economy is sluggish. US and Europe have growth
rate of less than 2%, China and India report high rates but
most economists believe the rates are fake.. Japan as usually
is in doldrum. Recent rise in stock market is based on
expectation of tax rate cuts, infrastructure spending. Trade
wars would offset the impact of rate cuts and sugar rush
of infrastructure spending.
If you want to see poverty, one can go to Michigan or
Wisconsin.
Or try India and China where perhaps 1 billion do not have enough to eat, no
government programs for health care nor for education. Yes, they grow at 5 or 6%,
but from a very low base. Or try all of Africa, Egypt, Turkey, the Middle East:
and what do we in the USA have, tsurus. The President who does not understand
people, nor tries to. A president who will not even go to the opening game in DC
because he knows he will get the biggest boo ever heard!
Sell now. Don't wait for May. The lunatics in the House will kill the
budget bill and we will have our credit rating downgraded once again.
Impeachment cannot be far behind, in my opinion.
To those who pooh pooh Dr Schiller, please remember that he won the Nobel Prize
for Economics.
The so-called "stock market" is not a barometer of economic activity, but a
caricature of failing fiscal and monetary policies. It is mostly nurtured and
sustained by political expedience and fraudulent accounting practices in accordance
with the misguided principles(!) of the ruling elite.
Conference Board Index of Consumer Sentiment is the highest
since December 2000. Who says they don't ring a bell at the top of a bull market?
Saying this, I haven't witnessed folks drinking champagne out of cowboy boots which
signaled the end of the oil market boom in the 1970's, nobody has run their Ferrari
off the road and killed themselves which occurred at the peak of the 1983 bull
market. Companies and consumers are not highly leveraged. There's more anxiety than
"irrational exuberance" for which reason the equity markets are up more than 20% for
the 12 months ended Feb 28.
With respect to Shiller's work, II have the same opinion as of an accordian. It makes
music when it hits the ash can.
I agree the market is overvalued especially given that
interest rates will be rising, and the risk premium Trump adds all by himself with
his threats to free trade. But there is so much liquidity in the capital markets and
the owners of that liquidity are looking for anything, just anything, to buy to put
it to work. This could be a bubble created by the quantitative easing monetary policy
of the Fed. The sad thing is that machinery and equipment is worn out and corporate
America chooses not to reinvest all that liquidity to replace it. Instead it buys
back stock and issues special dividends, and adds to the bubble.
There is certainly value in CAPE and the index is
extraordinarily high. But by focusing on the cyclical but ignoring the structural
changes in earnings, it may miss the big picture.
For most of the past decade, the global economy has been flat, owing to the wreckage
caused by the GFC. But that is not the likely long term scenario. The Asia-Pacific
share of the global middle class is estimated to grow from 28% in 2009 to 66% in
2030. Just under half the S&P 500 revenue today is generated outside the US, and that
will grow substantially.
The global glut of savings will keep interest rates historically low, holding down
capital costs of automation, renewable energy and resource extraction and creating
greater leveraging of equity.
Highly inefficient bricks and mortar retail will concede further share to on-line
sales, freeing up capital for more productive uses.
These are just a few of the structural changes already underway. Some of this is not
pretty for some categories of US workers, unless we can address the gaps in our labor
supply, as we are chronically short of qualified workers at all levels.
Bloomberg reported this week that corporate profits rose 22% in 4Q2016 vs 4Q2015,
suggesting some structural changes underway.
gary brandwein
NYC/ fomerly of Sheffield GB
2 days ago
Note that revenue growth did not expand by 22% but is
contracting making these numbers fungible.
"... Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. " ..."
"... Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave EVERYTHING to the banksters, period! ..."
"... And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation! ..."
"... We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted for Bernie. Twice. ..."
"... Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of them. ..."
"... You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then why did they twice vote for Obama? ..."
"... I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change is daunting. ..."
"... The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future." ..."
"... Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party. ..."
"... I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left aggressively. ..."
"... Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY. ..."
"... I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt. ..."
"... Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate. ..."
"... This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew". ..."
"... I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing of religious tolerance. ..."
"... And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along. ..."
"... Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe 'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't make one automatically a racist. ..."
"... Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians. Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk retreat from any debate. The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN . ..."
"... Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways? Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense to them? ..."
"... Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success, a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism. ..."
"... a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people. ..."
"... This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it. ..."
"... replace corrupt tax farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) ..."
In an earlier post, "Political Misfortune: Anatomy of Democratic Party Failure in Clinton's Campaign
2016" (parts
one and
two ) I looked why Clinton lost (summarized by two political cliches: "It's the economy, stupid"
and "change vs. more of the same", with Clinton representing "more of the same," as in "America is
already great"). I should write a post on how Trump won, but I'm not yet ready to tackle that yet
( exit polls here ).
My goal in this short post is far more modest: I want to introduce the idea that Trump voters took
their votes seriously, and that their motivations were - dare I say it - more nuanced and complex
than typical liberal narratives suggest (Jamelle Bouie's
"There's No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter" is a classic of the genre[1]). To do this, I'll
look at things Trump voters actually said, using some material from Democracy Corps (
"Macomb County in the Age of Trump" )[2] on Obama voters who flipped to Trump, and more material
from Chris Arnade. Both sources can be said to be reasonably representative, given that Democracy
Corps used a focus group methodology[3], and Chris Arnade was been traveling through the flyover
states for two years, talking to people and taking photographs. I'm going to throw what Trump voters
said into three buckets: Concrete material benefits, inequity aversion, and volatility voting.[4]
Concrete Material Benefits
One concrete material benefit is no more war and a peace dividend.
Arnade :
I found a similar viewpoint in communities such as West Cleveland: Donna Weaver, 52, is a waitress,
and has spent her entire life in her community. "I was born and raised here. I am not happy. Middle
class is getting killed; we work for everything and get nothing. I hate both of the candidates,
but I would vote for Trump because the Iraq war was a disaster . Why we got to keep
invading countries. Time to take care of ourselves first ."
"Bring the jobs back, bring the jobs back to the States." "He's trying
to create jobs , trying to keep jobs in the United States." "I just like
the talk about bringing the jobs back." "To me, it's going to get us our jobs
back, he's going to boost our economy, boost their economic growth for families, to bring
our future generations up."
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is
Democracy Corps :
10. [Trump will fix health care. The cost of health care dominated the discussion in these
focus groups . They say Trump "promised within the first hundred days to get rid of Obamacare"
and fixing the health care system is one of their great hopes for his presidency. They speak of
the impossibly high costs and hope Trump will bring "affordable healthcare" which will "help [us]
raise our families and make us be prosperous."
The experience of Trump voters is our health care system is similar to the experiences of many
commenters here.
Democracy Corps :
"My insurance for the last three years went up, went up, went up. Started out for a family
of four, I was paying $117 a week out of my paycheck. Three years later I'm paying $152 a week
out of my paycheck. I don't even go to the doctor for one. I don't take medicine."
Such a deal. And here's a lovely Catch-22:
"They cut my insurance at work My doctor, because my back is bad, said, 'Well, cut your hours.
You can only work so many hours.' Now I have to work more hours, take more pain pills, to get
my insurance back, and now they're telling me I can't get it back for another year."
Inequity Aversion
Here's a description of "inequity aversion" from
the New Yorker , as shown in the famous experiment from Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal with
female capuchin monkeys:
[T]hey found that monkeys hate being disadvantaged. A monkey in isolation is happy to eat either
a grape or a slice of cucumber. But a monkey who sees that she's received a cucumber while her
partner has gotten a grape reacts with anger: she might hurl her cucumber from her cage. Some
primates, Brosnan and de Waal concluded, "dislike inequity." They hate getting the short end of
the stick. Psychologists have a technical term for this reaction: they call it "disadvantageous-inequity
aversion." This instinctual aversion to getting less than others has been found in chimpanzees
and dogs, and it occurs, of course, in people, in whom it seems to develop from a young age.
So who's getting the short end of the stick? One perceived inequity is immigration in the context
of scarcity[5].
Democracy Corps :
"Well I mean we're all talking about illegals, I made a straight up post that in America we
have hungry, we have veterans, we have mental illness, we have so many problems in our own
country that we at this point in time just can't be concerned with, I feel bad but our country's
in dire straits financially." "I mean we need to take care of home first . We need
to take care of the veterans, we need to take care of the elderly, we need to take care of the
mentally ill, we need to take care everyone instead of us worrying about other people in other
countries, we need to take care of our house first. Get our house in order then you
know what, you need this and this and then we'll help you."
A second perceived inequity is bailouts for bankers and not for the rest of us.
Democracy Corps :
[Obama] brought the country to a macro recovery by the end of his term, but not a single person
in these groups mentioned any economic improvements under his presidency, even after the president
closed the 2016 campaign in Detroit making the case for building on his economic progress. They
have strong feelings about him, but in the written comments only one mentioned anything about
the economy in positive impressions – specifically that he saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
– and just five mentioned anything economic when elaborating their doubts. Some described him
as a steward for the status quo: "I think he just maintained. He didn't really do much for the
country. And he let a lot of jobs go." Some did recall the bailout of the banks even though the
crisis "affected millions or people," leading them to think he favored the elites – "the wealthy,"
"the richer people," "the big wigs," and "the lobbyists." They know he "didn't help the lower
class, he didn't help the middle class" people like them, they insisted over and over.
And:
Taking on the reckless banks told them who you are really for. Some said they were "really
irritated about the reckless banks" and "protecting consumers from Wall Street and reckless banks
was very important." They recalled that "we lost our home because of that" and "with the bailout
all the money went to the banks and it affected millions of people. And, then, a short time later,
the banks were back to these huge bonuses" and "there's never really punishment for them."
Trump voters may not vote the way I want them to, but after having spent the last five years
working in (and having grown up in) parts of the US few visit, they are not dumb. They are doing
whatever any other voter does: Trying to use their vote to better their particular situation (however
they define that) .. Frustrated with broken promises, they gave up on the knowable and went with
the unknowable. They chose Trump, because he comes with a very high distribution. A high volatility.
As any trader will tell you, if you are stuck lower, you want volatility, uncertainty. No matter
how it comes. Put another way. Your downside is flat, your upside isn't. Break the system.
The elites loathe volatility. Because, the upside is limited, but the downside isn't. In option
language, they are in the money.
People don't make reckless decisions because things are going well. They make them because
they have reached a breaking point. They are desperate enough to trying anything new. Especially
if it offers escape, or a glimmer of hope. Even false hope.
That might mean drugs. Politically that might mean breaking the system. Especially if you think
the system is not working for you. And viewed from much of the America the system doesn't work.
The factories are gone. Families are falling apart. Social networks are frayed.
Lori Ayers, 47, works in the gas station. She was blunt when I asked her about her life. "Clarington
is a shithole. Jobs all left. There is nothing here anymore. When Ormet Aluminum factory closed,
jobs all disappeared." She is also blunt about the pain in her life. "I have five kids and two
have addictions. There is nothing else for kids to do here but drugs. No jobs. No place to play."
She stopped and added: "I voted for Obama the first time, not the second. Now I am voting for
Trump. We just got to change things ."
"I felt like it was – it's time for a change, not just a suit to change, it's time for
everything to change . Status quo's not good enough anymore." "Just a lot of change, no
more politics as usual. Maybe something can be changed." "I was tired of politics as usual, and
I thought if we had somebody in there that wasn't a Clinton or wasn't a Bush that would shake
things up , which he obviously has, and maybe get rid of the people who are just milking
the office and not doing their job. I'm hoping that he's going to hold people more accountable
for the job that they're doing for us."
Conclusion
The
Democracy Corps pollsters conclude - and I should say I'm quite open to the idea that they were
trying to sell the Democrat Party on a strategy the party was ultimately not willing to adopt, as
shown (for example) by the Ellison defenestration - as follows:
Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base. We can learn an immense
amount from listening and talking to the white working class independent and Democratic Trump
voters, particularly those who previously supported Obama or failed to turnout in past presidential
contests.
Clearly, I agree with this conclusion. It's also clear that a Democratic Party that had come out
for #MedicareForAll, wasn't openly thirsting for war, and was willing to bring the finance sector
to heel would win a respectful hearing from these voters. (At this point, it's worth noting that
the Democrats, as a party, are even less popular than Trump and Pence . So I guess focusing like
a laser beam on gaslighting a war with Russia is working great.) Whether today's Democrat party is
capable of seizing this opportunity is at the very best an open question; the dominant liberal framing
of Trump voters as Others who are motivated solely by immutable and essentially personal failings
and frailties - racism; stupidity - would argue that the answer is no.
NOTES
[1] This is not so say that no Trump voter was motivated by racism (or sexism). However, that
is a second post I'm not ready to tackle, in part because I find the presumption that liberal Democrats
pushing that line are not racist (
"İ cried when they shot Medgar Evers"
) at the very least open to question, in part because the assumption seems to be that racism is an
immutably fixed personal essence (in essence, sinful), which ignores the role of liberal Democrats
in constructing the profoundly racist carceral state ("super-predators"). However,
this passage from a Democracy Corps focus group gives one hope:
But despite all that, Macomb has changed. Immigrants and religion were central to the deep
feelings about how America was changing, but black-white relations were just barely part of the
discussion. Detroit was once a flash point for the discussion of racial conflict, black political
leaders and government spending. Today, Detroit did not come up in conversation until we introduced
it and Macomb residents see a city "turning around for the good" and "on an upswing" and many
say they like to visit downtown. Even the majority African American city of Flint provokes only
sympathetic responses. They describe the area as "downscale" and "poor" and lament the water crisis
and the suffering it caused.
[3] "Democracy Corps conducted focus groups with white non-college educated (anything less than
a four-year college degree) men and women from Macomb County, Michigan on February 15 and 16, 2017
in partnership with the Roosevelt Institute. All of the participants were Trump voters who identified
as independents, Democratic-leaning independents, or Democrats and who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012
or both. Two groups were among women, one 40-65 and one 30-60 years old. Two groups were among men,
one 35-45 and one 40-60 years old."
Stephen King has an interview with a panel of fictional Trump voters . They sound quite
different from the voters of Macomb county, and I don't think the difference is entirely accounted
for by geography, much as I respect Stephen King, who has done great things for the state.
[4] A fourth possibility is that Trump voters were engaging in altruistic punishment, where people
"punish non-cooperators
even at cost to themselves ." (Personally shushing a cellphone user in the Quiet Car instead
of calling in the conductor is a trivial example.) Altruistic punishment would provide an account
for why Trump voters (supposedly) don't vote "in their own interests," but I couldn't find examples
in the sources I looked at.
[5] Democracy Corps puts legal immigration, illegal immigration, and refugees in the same bucket
as, to be fair, some voters seem to. I think they are three different use cases. In my personal view,
we need to accept refugees, particularly those from wars we ourselves started. For legal and illegal
immigration, the United States should put United States citizens first. I would love to emigrate
to Canada to work there and take advantage of its single payer system, or to any of a number of countries
where the cost of living is half our own. However, if I travel and overstay my visa, even as an "economic
refugee," I would expect to pay a fine and be forced to leave. I don't see why my case is any different
from any other illegal immigrant in this country. Canada does not have an open border. Nor need we
(except to the extent our goal is
beating down wages ,
especially in the working class, of course ).
Trump voters that I know well said the following: "The system is broken, and at least Trump
is saying something about it. Whether he actually does anything about it is anyone's guess given
his unpredictability, but at least he acknowledges what is so plainly obvious to so many. "
I am neither racist nor sexist, and do not appreciate being called that. My staff was 30% black,
over half female and everyone got along. Don't penalize or demonize me for trying to do the right
thing, and then expect me to vote for your platform.
Anyone but Hillary as she is the anti-Christ with corruption, debt, war and entrenched bureaucracies
bent on their own sick agendas. I know Trump is crazy, but less than alternatives.
Anyone but Hillary is something I can at least accept, since anyone with a brain in America
realizes that the Clintons (and that's the entire family, for the ignoramuses out there) gave
EVERYTHING to the banksters, period!
And while I greatly appreciate this article, it is really so bloody obvious by 2016, that
only the dumbest, most ignorant and mentally lazy among us cannot grasp the simple arithmetic
of waaay over 100,000 factories and production facilities offshored, of all the imported foreign
visa replacement workers (i.e., scabs), etc., etc., etc. Plus add to that the offshore creation
of jobs by American companies and corporations, instead of inshore job creation!
I hear your frustration, but why take that out on the democratic candidate? All of your gripes
should be directed at the 1%. The moneyed oligarchs, like the Koch brothers, that have used their
money to buy politicians and shape policy to suite their needs. They are ones that hire immigrants
with H1Bs, they are ones that dictate wages. They took away healthcare coverage and pensions.
They choose to close factories and open up in China and Mexico. Why did we vote for elected officials
for the last 40 years that passed legislation to allow this?
Again, why do people reward Republicans with the presidency, both houses of congress, and state
legislatures when the republicans, starting with Regan, busted unions and fought for deregulation,
free trade, and globalization. These things happen under Republicans and Democrats.
America is a capitalist society. Private business exists to make profits. Why an American $40
an hour for a job that can be done in China for $4? What can government do to stop that? Would
the people really vote for the policies needed to achieve that? Show me one politician office
that is willing to return to a Reagan era tax structure.
We only have ourselves to blame for the mess we are in because we continue to vote for
people that support corporate interests over those of the people. Then again, that is how American
was founded. Only land owners (read: rich white men) were able to participate in American democracy
at is founding. Not much has changed now that money is speech.
Squanto and twenty other Indians were kidnapped by Thomas Hunt and sold as slaves in Spain
in 1614. He somehow escaped and made his way to England and then back to New England. This is
how he learned English well enough to translate for the Pilgrims in 1620. The first documented
delivery of African slaves to the Massachusetts Bay Colony was in 1638, eight years after the
Colony's formation. [All my info above comes from 'New England Bound'.]
There had been slavery directed by Europeans in the Caribbean for a hundred years prior to
the European settlement of New England. Columbus's first words upon seeing the natives of Hispaniola
were: 'They will make fine slaves'.
The Democratic candidate was the candidate selected by and for the 1%. So was the LAST
Democratic candidate. The Democratic party is how the 1% makes sure the citizens cannot get their
needs met peacefully. They are therefore the ones to blame. Not "us." Definitely not me. I voted
for Bernie. Twice.
forwarded far and wide with prefix "For those interested in why actual people actually do things,
who aren't placated with comforting thoughts that all those who disagree with them are irredeemable
racist know-nothings."
"Democrats don't have a white working class problem, as so many have suggested. They have a
working class problem that includes working people in their own base."
Well put. Still haven't received anything other than a flummoxed look from any Clinton apologists
when I asked if *all* the 2012 Obama voters that went Trump are racists.
I see the U.S. political duopoly as a Juggernaut. The tea party, a grass-roots movement toward
the common man, was subsumed by the Kochs into an battering ram to destroy moderate Republicans
and those not hopelessly bought-off.
The Occupy Movement, which I credit with paving the way for Bernie, simply ran into the Democratic
Establishment Wall.
No to single-payer, yes to ACA. No to federal tuition assistance, yes to student loans. No
to deficit spending to improve the economy, yes to austerity. And, heaven forbid we tax the wealthy,
or run a socialist (gasp) for president. We came close to defeating that wall in 2016. We can't
stop now.
so much of flyover country is comprised of single-issue voters. Not all, of course, but I would
rank the prevalence of those issues as 1) abortion 2) gun rights. I believe #1 here dominated
the thinking of Trump voters. There was no chance in hell they were going to let Hillary Clinton
have a shot at nominating SC justices over the next 4 years.
Sure there's a few racists in the group (there almost always are) but by and large I think
Trump voters pulled the lever in spite of his hysterical rantings on the topic, not because of
them.
You're missing the point of this article. Counties that had twice voted for Obama voted
for Trump. If these counties are "single-issue" voters dedicated to abortion & gun rights, then
why did they twice vote for Obama?
without knowing the nuances of the counties in question, my hypothesis would be that turnout
was lower for Clinton-voting democrats as compared to Obama-voters in those counties while Republican
voters was the same or perhaps a bit higher. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that single-issue
voters aren't voting for the Democratic candidate in any national election and I interpret your
point as to suggest that they switched their votes ( voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 but Trump in
2016).
I'm not saying this is the only reason, just that IMO it's a vastly under-appreciated one.
It's expressly about why Trump voters say they voted for Trump: your "single-issue" hobby horse
isn't in evidence.
You do, however, raise an interesting question: in these swing counties I'll try to find the
time to look at how much of the swing came from collapsing turn out rather than actual Obama to
Trump votes.
I personally know at least three people who voted Obama and then Trump and none are "single-issue",
all I would put in Lambert's/Arnade's "volatility voters" class.
But I'll grant that's not a meaningful polling set.
I know a bunch of people who were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. And they voted
for Trump because at least he was change and he wasn't insulting them. Some of them have now gone
all in on Trumpian conservatism because they are recoiling from the murderous hypocrisy of the
corporate Democrats, so they're giving "the other side" a chance. It saddens me, but there's nothing
I can do about it. I understand that standing the wilderness of the real left pushing for change
is daunting.
The Middle Eastern small business owner who went all-in for Trump and hugged me sympathetically
for being a Bernie supporter had a point of view yet to be disproved. "Your guy is the better
man. He would have given us better policies. But they were never going to let him win. Trump can
win, and perhaps clear out the viper's nest so that someone decent can win in the future."
Lots of the people who sat out 2016 rather than vote for Clinton will probably continue to
sit out for Booker/Harris/Clinton (shudder) - whatever neoliberal gets coughed up. They aren't
going to become activists. They're too exhausted, disgusted or drugged.
It has nothing to do with complacency. Activists have been pushing for decades for better choices.
If we had had our way, Bernie Sanders would now be president, busily browbeating Chuck Schumer
into passing his free college bill, having already shoved Improved Medicare for All through the
Congress.
Lambert was very clear, and you don't seem to be disputing his evidence. The Democrats lost
their voters because they killed, jailed, starved and immiserated their voters. Democrats stole
their homes, pensions and jobs. Democrats said they were deplorable and showed they thought they
were disposable. Enough of their voters understood their self-interest well enough not to vote
for their oppressors, whether they came out for Trump or just stayed home. That is how Clinton
lost and Trump won.
Like it or not, the Democratic Party betrayed the left, betrayed the New Deal, and became
a second pro-war, pro-Wall Street Party.
Trump, despite being widely disliked at least was offering the economically devastated an opportunity
potentially to improve their lives. That was assuming that he kept his promises. Most people voted
for him out of despair knowing that even if he did not keep his promises, they would have lost
nothing since Clinton would not have either.
As for the wealthy Democrats? They wanted the bottom 90% to preserve their "upper class" and
"upper middle class privilege". That's what this is about. They want the people making less than
30,000 a year to vote the same way as big city Liberals making more than 130,000 a year.
I think that this is what identity politics is about. Had Clinton won, she would not have done
much for the minorities. Maybe she would have called them superpredators again. Same with the
constant Bernie Bashing. They desperately wanted to shut down Bernie Sanders because he called
out, if only briefly, what a terrible candidate Clinton was. She would have suppressed the left
aggressively.
Bernie Sanders's style of class politics - and his program of mild social-democratic redistribution
- did not gain much favor in New Canaan, Connecticut (where he won 27 percent of the vote)
or Northfield, Illinois (39 percent). For some suburban Democrats, Sanders's throttling in
these plush districts virtually disqualified him from office: "A guy who got 36 percent of
the Democrats in Fairfax County," an ebullient Michael Tomasky wrote after the Virginia primary,
"isn't going to be president."
Clinton was their candidate. By holding off Sanders's populist challenge - and declining
to concede fundamental ground on economic issues - the former secretary of state proved she
could be trusted to protect the vital interests of voters in Newton, Eden Prairie, and Falls
Church. They, more than any other group in America, were enthusiastically #WithHer.
To some extent, Clinton's appeal even carried over to wealthy red-state suburbs. In Forysth
County outside Atlanta, and Williamson County outside Nashville - the richest counties in Georgia
and Tennessee - Clinton lost big but improved significantly on Obama's performance in 2012.
But wealthy, educated suburbanites were never going to push the Democrats over the top all
by themselves. Despite Clinton's incremental gains, in the end, most rich white Republicans
remained rich white Republicans: hardly the sturdiest foundation for an anti-Trump majority.
The numbers show it.
As for the Liberals freaking out, they can be split into a few categories:
1. The ones who profited economically from the status quo, like the professional 10%ers. They
don't want someone who is going to rock the boat. The Fairfax County Jacobin article captures
them brilliantly. They hated Bernie Sanders.
2. The SJWs, intersectionalists, second generation feminists, and other identity politics groups.
They are not all wealthy, but unifying them is their identity politics ideology.
3. The hardcore Democratic partisans who "vote blue no matter who".
The Liberals want to pretend like it was racism or sexism or Russia that prevented their "chosen
one" from winning. In reality it was economics and the fact that people could see what Clinton
really was. For all the talk of the most progressive platform ever, Clinton was really the anti-thesis
of Bernie Sanders.
Did they really think their identity politics was going to fool anyone? We saw upper middle
class well off people lecturing less well off Bernie Sanders supporters this election to check
their "white privilege", even though the Sanders supporters were often poor and had their future
destroyed by the economic policies that neoliberal politicians like Hillary Clinton advocated
for.
I think it is because they don't want to appeal to working class people, because if they did,
they would have to serve them.
This election has been a real eye-opener as to who our allies and opponents are in this class
struggle. I think that in the coming years we will see a Liberal Left split of sorts. The best
possible outcome is a third party or even better the Democrats going the way of the Whigs.
The question is, how to build such a party? There is clearly the votes. Bernie showed that
and the left might even find some common ground with Trump voters. Keep in mind they are paleoconservatives
who are anti-war, want manufacturing and good benefits. By contrast the Clintons are pro war and
economically have more in common with the GOP Establishment than the Trump "economic despair base".
Excellent comment thank you, I agree the opportunity is there.. the question of how to mobilize
seems to be the problem. Trump is a total unknown, and who knows what the midterms will bring.
The fact the bernie got as many votes as he did as an old, socialist, by no means charismatic
jew gives a lot of hope for the future, as well as the demographic that voted for him (mostly
young).
These paradigm shifts are generational and take a lot of time, and for some reason that remains
unclear it still seems like Trump is necessary right now. Perhaps some internal political destruction
is needed before we can get a clear handle on the path forward.
This Trump voter liked and listened to Sanders early on. But as his profile and possibilities
rocketed, he abandoned his anti immigration platform.
Immigrants from anywhere - yes anywhere – in a zero sum economy don't benefit the working middle
class. It's not racist, but realistic. Someone had "the talk" with Bernie and his speeches became
more and more party line.
And his voters should have jumped to Trump, but for the hysteria from institutional DC insiders
in both parties. Trump is no knuckle dragging Cheney Goper.
He's fighting the bad guys on both fronts. With no help from natural allies too afraid to bolt
the herd and call out the enemies of the middle class.
Even the phony baloney "Russians Are Coming" meme should be challenged by voters on the right
and left. Putin is a more valuable ally than Merkel. He's a Russian nationalist. A populist. Globalists
like Pelosi, Graham, Obama and McCain use dog whistles on their respective demographics to thwart
Trump's efforts to make Americans first in fevered, corrupt swamps of DC and NY.
All Americans should be rallying around the first president to shake up the party identity.
Bernie had his chance and caved to party insiders. He is no hero.
I decided to judge Trump by his enemies left and right. Hollywood hates him, not because of
his human rights record but because he killed TPP. Without international copyright protections
hidden deep in that well, the studios are bankrupt.
Meryl Streep is a huckster, a fraud, and a tool of the same people we all hate.
This reminds me of the arguments Zionists use to deflect criticism about Israel's actions towards
its neighbors – as in "That's just the sort of thing people who hate Jews would say. Why do you
hate Jews? Oh, wait, you're Jewish? Well, obviously, then, you're a self-hating Jew".
The answer always is that the other side is all about the hate, even if they clearly don't
hate the people they're accused of hating, because what they're saying is "discursive", and, you
know, sooner or later it will be hate, because people just can't help themselves
I actually got called a self hating Jew when I identified myself of Jewish descent and backed
MintPress News in an argument that she was having with a Pro Israel person. It utterly killed
and undermined his position me doing that and he just turned on and attacked me.
I'm neither Muslim nor Jewish (self-hating or otherwise), but back in the '60s and early '70s
I was generally supportive of Israel. The idea that only Jews could criticize Israel without being
accused of hating Jews bugged me, and then the meme of the "self-hating Jew" really made it obvious
what the game was. Just another ad hom argument, dressed up in the respectable clothing
of religious tolerance.
And this idea that Trump voters need to justify their votes, while HRC voters (or Stein or
Johnson voters?) don't, is pretty much the same. Don't mind those people, they're just hateful
bigots until proven otherwise. Nothing to see here, move along.
Racism, racism, racism, sexism, sexism, sexism, transgenderism, transgenderism, transgenderism
- this commenter is the perfect example of the purely ignorant American today (assuming she/he/it
is an American) - everything robotically repeating the Identity Political meme, no thinking or
independent thought allowed.
Nope, you just don't want to ever address the plight of the American worker, now do ya????
Admittedly, Not a Trump fan, I don't have television or listen to radio in the car. But every
time I heard cries of racism and I could find/read actual transcripts rather than just believe
'reports' I was not alarmed, at least no more and probably less than Demo/Clinton policy for decades
running. But then, just being against more immigration with 320 million people already here doesn't
make one automatically a racist.
Trump's going to have to work real hard to out deport Obama who has by far the record in that
department.
Many people are simply sick & tired of the smug self righteousness of "Identity" politicians.
Sick of their belief that the mere suggestion that one is sexist/racist will cause a knee jerk
retreat from any debate.
The Identity crowd has been playing this nasty little game for decades now & it has WORN THIN .
One does not "call these ways of thinking" anything, especially not words that are so overused
as to have lost all meaning except as a kind of profane slur. Rather, one characterizes ways of
thinking in all their complexity and examines their origins and likely political outcomes and
affiliations, as Lambert has done. One describes them and tries to see if they are justified in
the context of the lives as lived by their thinkers; how they are adaptive, and how they are maladaptive-not
judging ex cathedra , based on utterly inadequate information, not to mention an almost
complete moral imbecility, whether they are "orthodox" or "heretical" according to the schema
of rainbow righteousness, and then categorizing them with what has now deteriorated into a grade-school
epithet, rather than the damned ideology it once connoted.
Yea I think many of them may not be justified though, but may be based on the world view of
the voters. In other words it may be what they believe is true even it isn't.
For example they might think they are all losing their job to immigrants and in a few cases
this might be true, but I don't think statistics bear this out as a major source of job loss compared
to say outsourcing. So if they think the reason the job market is so bad is because of immigrants
that's not necessarily racist per se but it may be inaccurate.
"So what should does call these ways of thinking if not racist and/or sexist?"
You should call them: "Nobody cares about racism and sexism, because banksters, insurance companies,
defense companies and other crony capitalists use tools like you to distract from their robbing
the public blind."
You are part of the problem, so I don't care about you. FU.
Whom should they have voted for to strike against bigotry? Hillary "bring black criminals to
heel"/against gay marriage until 2013/"the future is female" Clinton?
"Besides, shouldn't one ask these voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly
sexist actions caused little or no offense to them? Did I miss that somewhere?"
Why did Hillary voters ignore her explicitly racist, corporatist, corrupt, war-mongering ways?
Why did all the blood on her hands (from Libya, Honduras, Iraq etc) cause little or no offense
to them?
Perhaps because she was what many of them aspired to be: a member of the 1%, a shining success,
a winner whose failures, lies, betrayals and foul deeds were easy to ignore if you had swallowed
the vile, anti-human propaganda of neoliberalism.
I am not satisfied with this whole "white innocence" subtext
The subtext is there for you to impute. It seems like the only way you can be convinced that
it is not there is for the interviewees to be explicitly condemned as racist because they voted
for a racist. You and others who hold your stance overlook the fact that there were only two candidates,
not several, including Trump's non-racist twin, to vote for, and so you have to deal with truly
awful tradeoffs. Should I assume you are an imperialist because you voted for someone who helped
install a military regime in Honduras??
Would you consider yourself a "social justice warrior"? Your comment certainly reads as if
a "social justice warrior" could have written it.
Are you a Race Card Identyan? The Race Card has been played so often it is wearing out. In
fact, it has worn all the way out for many people. The intended targets of this guilt-inducement
gambit may no longer feel the guilt you seek to induce. And where there is no more guilt, there
will be no more obedience. And where does that leave you?
You sound like a typical Clinton-Brock Democrat. Today's Mainstream Democratic Party would
be a good fit for you. If you aren't already in it, you might consider joining it.
Politics has been fractal for the past 30-35 years. Same old input-output on an ever expanding
iterative footprint. It's old. It's tired. It'd not serving most voters. It's economically hurting
most voters. Bernie and Trump showed promise of breaking the fractal iteration and replacing it
with something new. Maybe better. That's what people voted for, imo.
Oh no no no no.. you do not get away with crap like "shouldn't one ask these
voters why Trump's racist dogwhistle pronouncements and explicitly sexist actions caused
little or no offense to them".
Show me one that said Trump's stuff wasn't offensive. And your phrasing is either
deliberately or just stupidly messed up. "[C]aused little or no offense to them". I'm a white
male, saying bad things about black females will get me near about ready throttle you but it
"caused little or no offense to" me because that would be insanely presumptuous on my
part. I have a heartache about how people are put upon due to race and or sex but that
oppression sure isn't something I can claim as mine.
>ignores the discursive nature of racist attitudes and beliefs and how easily they can
transmute into a self-justifying politics
Do these people have money? No. Do their kids have job prospects? No. I think that is
enough to legitimatize what they are saying, I don't care if their very next breath is "them
n-words get all the stuff". They are far from perfect, but it is just *so* funny how the most,
tell you to your face racist will then say "oh but Jim down at work is OK". They are just
people, plenty of warts. Get off your high horse, bet you have a number of warts of your own.
a similar argument could be made for those who voted democrat ignoring their racist actions
all around the world murdering, dropping bombs, and economically exploiting black and brown people.
This Bernie Bro voted for Trump out of sheer hatred for the "Listen Liberal" crowd of sanctimonious
meritocrats and desire to see their playhouse pulled down. Not real nuanced, but glad I did it.
Odd that you would attack the "Listen Liberal crowd," given that Thomus Frank was mostly critical
of the Democrats. I am not attacking, just want to learn more about your perspective.
I'm just guessing, but I think that casino implosion is referring to his distaste for the people
that Frank discusses in that book, not his distaste for people like Frank.
I don't know who/what casino implosion meant to address herm's comment to, but I will just
guess that by "Listen Liberal" crowd, heeshee meant the crowd about/against/to whom "Listen Liberal"
was written.
Turns out Trump Voters are Human.
Here, looking into the myths behind "Trump voters" might be constructive. The biggest myth is
that they are tust political troles. In the course of deconverting from Catholism to Atheism,
abserveed that many of our political beleifes are formed under the same structures as one's religous
beleifes. Thoughts about the "free market" are heald just as strongly as stronly as devotion to
Jesus.
Even those who deconvert from their religion, often bring their political belifes with them
into the Athiest community. Often without having them challanged.
And this is the point. One deconverts from a religion because it is challanged by science.
But political beleifes are rarly chalanged.
One exception was in 2007, when the economey colapsed. Many peoples convictions in the "free
market" were directly challanged by reality. And on the political stage they saw McCain talking
about freee markets as if nothing had happend. Conservatives were confused and looking for answers.
They thoght Obama had them.
But Obama also dubbled down on the free market narative. This was a huge mistake because part
of that narative is that all Liberals are socialists. And socialism is evil. So yay, Trump is
Obama's legacy.
Trump voters are human. This means they are far smarter than people give them credit, even
without a GED. They vote acording to the information and evidence they hae been presented with.
But we live in a world where that narative has been carfuly mananged and tended too. Democrats,
rather than chalanging that system, felt they could simply build their own and construct their
own naraive. Hence we get "Russia Russia Russia!" And this is not convicing to conservative votes
who already know the one "true" narrative,
I live in Macomb County. My precinct, my neighbors, voted for Trump. They hate NAFTA. They
hate free trade with China. They hate H1B visas. These are people to whom $100,000 plus a year
union factory job was nothing. We all knew people who had them. Those jobs built this county.
Period. So Clinton never stood a chance here.
They were willing to give Trump a chance. And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed
a fast food CEO to head up the labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working
class in America keeps him up at night.
The other option available to us was the fast coffee CEO as Labor Secretary. McJobs were more
or less baked into the Establishment lineup on "both" sides. It's almost as if the real decisions
were made long before the election and concealed from us, and elections are held to manufacture
the image of just consent to the proto-feudal system.
To Teleportnow:
And from this distance, even I could see that nothing, other than PR, was going to be done about
any of them by either R or D candidate. There I go again, flogging the same dead horse.
And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the
labor department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him
up at night.
We're fortunate that Puzder's nomination was withdrawn. It's a pity that the same didn't happen
to Pruitt's nomination (Trump supporters are just as vulnerable to pesticides, lead, mercury,
and other poisons as other people), or Mnuchin's nomination (many Trump supporters have been abused
by corrupt bankers or mortgage processors like Mnuchin and his recently divested OneWest Bank).
You are absolutely correct about Trump's lack of concern for the plight of the American working
class. Not that Obama or Clinton care much about them, either.
Obama's betrayals of his core voters were disguised in the smoke of financial collapse where
systemic effects were years in expressing themselves, brutal though they proved to be. They were
as smooth and subtle as the man who envisioned them.
Trump's betrayals are, like him, blunt, flagrant and outrageous.
That the Democrats have achieved even lower approval ratings(CBS) than the Donald (Gallup)
is the strongest legitimizing force in his thus far execrable presidency.
Unlke Reagan he might actually be a good actor :). Or he can give a speech like he feels working
class pain and hit all the right notes, but policy so far is horrible.
"And what's one of the very first things he did? Appointed a fast food CEO to head up the labor
department. A real indicator that the plight of the working class in America keeps him up at night."
Trump's appointments have been unfortunate, but remember every establishment bigwig had been
lining up to announce she would never serve in this administration, all of them too good and pure
for Trump. So what is he supposed to do if he couldn't even convince a couple of second rate rock
and roll bands to gyrate at his inauguration. Of course he appointed friends and friends-of-friends
and relatives. The establishment brought this on themselves. I couldn't care less as long as he
keeps torpedoing the dearest plans of the slave owners. And by the way the first thing he did
was he castrated TPP and that cannot be said enough times.
In other good news, Today the SIlicon Valley H1B exploiters got raided by ICE and about time.
You know what? Maybe the plight of his base really does keep him up at night
This is part of the collateral damage I knew I was risking when I voted for Trump in order
to make my vote against Clinton as effective as possible. And we have kept Clinton out of the
office for at least this time around.
If/when we are able to crush, smash and destroy the rolling Slow Coup against the 2016 Presidential
Election Outcome by the IC, the Wall Street Elite, and the Mainstream Democratic Party . . . .
then we will be free to try preventing Trump's damage, mitigating the Trump damage already achieved,
and begin growing culture-and-politics-based Economic Combat movements devoted to targeting the
purchasing and consumption choices of a hundred million people against certain Black Hat Industries
which support Trump to advance their own sinister agendas.
We could start doing that now, if we didn't have to spend energy on countering the Remove Trump
conspiracy first.
1. The Dem Party is in a tough position. Where do they go from here?
On the one hand, it'll be tough to wean from the big givers on Wall St and Silicon valley.
Cultivating the small givers and unions will take a lot of time and work.
Also the Dems seem to have little use for Bernie. They seem to wish that he would just go just
go away and leave the Party alone. Bernie, however, could be the Dem's savior.
I don't see the Dem Party choosing a feasible direction. Maybe it will take a few more years
for the Party to sort it out and find a point man.
2. I'm not surprised there is racism, misogyny, and chauvinism among many voters, including
Trumpeters. I suspect that in times of economic "stress" pointing fingers feels natural, even
desirable. Judging from the press, there's a lot of economic "stress" around.
The Bernies could begin by invading and conquering those regional and local Democratic Party
areas which seem least pro-Clinton. Those could be First Landing Beachheads. Once those were secured,
the Berniecrats could work on building strength within them, eliminating every Clintonite " Left-Behind"
type person remaining to try destroying the Berniecrats from within, and then working to break
out of their Secured Beachheads to conquer and decontaminate more Democratic Party territory.
I'm a life-long Democrat and I despise my party. But I'm not stupid. That Trump was a con man
was evident from the beginning but, like most voters, both candidates made me want to vomit. (James
Howard Kunstler called them "human hairballs." )
Unfortunately, all those Trump voters who are worried about jobs, the economy, health care,
etc., will soon discover that Trump doesn't give a fuck about them. He likes their adulation,
since it feeds his ego, but he and every one of his execrable appointments will just make their
lives worse.
Yes, you can't blame people who cast their vote in "hope" of something better.
In the case of Trump, their inevitable disappointment will be that much sadder & acute.
I want to know the extent to which the Faux Noise network is responsible for shaping the views
of Trump voters. It is by far the favored mainstream TV station for news in red-state America.
A steady diet of a certain skewed viewpoint for years upon years has to have a significant effect
on one's thought processes. I can't believe that millions of people spontaneously rose up and
decided to throw off the shackles of business as usual without some major groundwork being done
to get them all riled up. Years of being told that Hillary was corrupt, the devil incarnate etc
etc by right-wing talking heads has to be a factor.
Obama was demonized by Fox News too, yet the reason for the Trump win was that the Trump vote
(in numbers) was essentially the same as the Romney vote, but the Dem vote was down v. 2012, and
that was due to lower turnout, notably of people of color.
Lambert has also repeatedly pointed out that the swing state wins were due to Rust Belt counties
that went for Obama going for Trump. And it has been documented repeatedly that propensity to
vote for Trump correlated strongly with opioid related deaths in the area, regardless of the voter's
income level.
Economic insecurity is the driving factor. The more insecure people become the more tribal
their behavior. People want economic change more than anything else and if they see that the government
is doing something to provide them a better life then other social changes are possible..
A paralyzed Congress is great for the elite as the status quo is beneficial to them as they
have successfully rigged the system. People want to see legislative action.
Ryan stated " "Moving from an opposition party to a governing party comes with some growing
pains," The problem is that Republicans were never an opposition party, they were an obstructionist
party that only knew how to say "NO".
The establishment Democrats are setting themselves up to become the exact same obstructionists..
This will not help them in 2018. Now is the time to try to force votes on measures that are obviously
what the people want.even if they are sure to fail. Let the Republicans stay the obstructionists.
I am a bit disappointed to not see a reference to Jeremy Grantham's quarterly letter at GMO
regarding the narrarives that motivated people to vote for Trump. I have posted about this several
times before. His letter runs on pages 9-15 of this link:
The Road to Trumpsville: The Long, Long Mistreatment of the American Working Class
JG presents a lot of compelling information regarding the decline of labor vs. capital in compensation,
the exploding income of the top 0.1% vs. everyone else, income inequality and the breakdown of
social cohesion – both in words and charts. His Post Script summary is classic in my humble opinion,
especially this line about what the voters across Red state are desperately seeking from Washington:
"Save me, oh leaders, from the rich and powerful!" Personally I would edit that to "the rich
and powerfully corrupt".
Of course there are issues, and of course Hillary was a horrible candidate, but voting for
trump was an insane way to make a point. He will clearly do more to damage the lower and middle
classes than any president in the last 100 years. He will be able to fix NOTHING. More war (jobs?).
More tax breaks for the rich. Less money for anyone without money. A simple tried and true capitalist
asshole approach. He will not survive term 1, and then pence comes in lovely, not.
Please. He stopped Clinton, which at least slowed down TPP and the Russian War. Trump doesn't
even seem interested in killing Social Security. He yanked Ryan's health care "plan"; Hillary
said she was looking forward to working with Ryan. Trump's going to do horrible things, but so
far, his election is far better for American workers than if Clinton had been installed. If nothing
else, it slows down Washington's neoliberal horror show, and the pain of people in the midwest
was at least briefly covered in the corporate press, as opposed to being completely hidden under
Obama, which would have continued under Clinton. Voting for Trump was saner than voting for Clinton.
(I voted for neither. I also live in California.)
The only way we get Pence is if the Democrats and the CIA succeed in their coup. So let's all
try to get them to cut it out.
This post is absolutely correct and important. The financialization of the economy which has
led to inequality, skyrocketing debt, and early death in Mid-America must be addressed. Corporate
Media and the Democrats ignore it and are scapegoating Russia to continue getting their paybacks
from Wall Street. This post highlights the coming tragedy. Clearly Disruptive Capitalism destroys
governments and society. Under stress people revert to their tribal roots. By ignoring the base
causes; war, infinite growth on a finite planet and exploitation by the Elite, the West is being
ripped apart.
It's not just the West. The Global South, largely unseen and unreported on and very much at
the sharp end of extractive neo-colonialism, isn't in great shape either. Voters in Western Europe
express "legitimate concerns" about economic and climate migrants from Africa and the ME, but
often don't stop to think about the dire conditions and political strife that are driving that
migration flow.
Thousands of people are drowning every year in the Mediterranean and that's the visible tip
of the iceberg. It's just unimaginable what's currently happening.
So, Dems ran a terrible status quo candidate that had been a long time target of Faux News
in a "change" election. Most Trump voters in rural Kentucky told me they were voting against H
rather than for T. Oh, and abortion, guns, bathrooms.
Dems have ignored rural communities they didn't already hold for several election cycles. No
prominent national Democratic politician has ventured outside of the cities of Louisville and
Lexington if they visit Kentucky at all. Spend a little time in rural communities and you begin
to see how bleak the picture is for them – I asked everyone I could what they would do if they
were King of Kentucky with an unlimited budget. There were very few soloutions offered.
(IMO Kentucky is Ground Zero. A border state since the Civil War that used to be Democratic
– what better place for Dems to start to rebuild and appeal to Rural America?)
Dems also could have chosen to include and even woo independent voters. Instead, they took
a "who else are you gonna vote for" attitude and pivoted right. Yes, Vice President Sanders would
have been a pita but that would have been a significantly better result.
Still no house cleaning in the Democratic Party, Clintons and Wassermans and Brazilles still
circling. Grrr.
oof, sorry about the wonky link formatting. I tried to use the "link" button in the editor,
and got this weird result. I tried to edit twice, now can't edit.
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is Democracy Corps:
The object after "is" probably isn't suppose to be the polling source. It probably should read
something like
A third - and the most important - concrete material benefit is replace corrupt tax
farming / private medical insurance (with equitable tax based medicare?) Democracy Corps:
So what is going to happen when Trump voters realize at the end of four years that their choice
has not delivered for them? Unfortunately they will not be able to realize that he never intended
to deliver anything for them. However, the same problems or worse will remain. Lets project the
current situation out into the future with the understanding that there is no credible agent or
desire for real meaningful change and improvement from those presently in power. What I see does
not look good, and perhaps I will have the good fortune not to be around to see it.
"... he never lost his aversion for the 'economism' that presumes that matters of public policy, employment, ecology and culture can be interpreted mainly in terms of mathematical abstractions. ..."
"... Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It ..."
"... Tomorrow's World ..."
"... So in an economy like ours, a technological advance that doubles the amount of useful work a person can do in a day becomes a problem rather than a benefit. It tends to put half the workers out of work, turning them into a potential drain on the state. ..."
"... Tomorrow's World ..."
"... Lean Logic ..."
"... Surviving the Future: Culture, Carnival and Capital in the Aftermath of the Market Economy ..."
"... Didn't residents keep on doing whatever they were doing when the Vesuvius erupted ..."
"... As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose, live somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse unfold. ..."
"... News from Nowhere ..."
"... Illegitimi non carborundum ..."
"... During my time as a retail worker it struck me how much of effective customer service was really an unpaid use of our spontaneous urge to give aid to other people, to respond to their needs as human beings. ..."
"... We were often in the position of spiking the SOP of the business to get them what they wanted. It hit me then how much the ostensible money economy is a free rider on the world of our human non-economic lives, or is like free clean water used in an industrial process. ..."
As my friend David
Fleming once wrote, conventional economics 'puts the grim into reality.'
Something of a radical, back in the 1970s Fleming was involved in the early days of what is now
the Green Party of England and Wales. Frustrated by the mainstream's limited engagement with ecological
thinking, he urged his peers to learn the language and concepts of economics in order to confound
the arguments of their opponents.
By the time I met Fleming in 2006, he had practised what he preached and earned himself a PhD
in Economics. But he never lost his aversion for the 'economism' that presumes that matters of
public policy, employment, ecology and culture can be interpreted mainly in terms of mathematical
abstractions.
Worse, he noted that even the word ' economics' has the power to make these life-defining
topics seem impenetrable, none-of-our-business and, of all things, boring . Fleming's work
was all about returning them to their rightful owners-those whose lives are shaped by them, meaning
all of us.
Fleming was a key influence on the birth of the
New Economics Foundation and
Transition
Towns movement , but it was only in the aftermath of his sudden death in 2010 that I discovered
the breadth of the powerfully-different vision of economics that underpinned his life. On his home
computer I discovered a manuscript for the book he had been preparing to publish after thirty years'
work entitled
Lean Logic: A Dictionary for the Future and How to Survive It .
Reminding us that our present growth-based market economy has only been around for a couple of
hundred years (and is already hitting the buffers), Fleming's lifework looks to the great majority
of human history for insight: "We know what we need to do,"
he writes , "We need to build the sequel, to draw on inspiration which has lain dormant, like
the seed beneath the snow."
What he found was that-in the absence of a perpetually-growing economy- community and culture are key. He quotes, for example,
the historian Juliet Schor's view of working life in the Middle Ages:
"The medieval calendar was filled with holidays These were spent both in sober churchgoing
and in feasting, drinking and merrymaking All told, holiday leisure time in medieval England
took up probably about one third of the year. And the English were apparently working harder than
their neighbors. The a ncien régime in France is reported to have guaranteed fifty-two
Sundays, ninety rest days, and thirty-eight holidays. In Spain, travelers noted that holidays
totaled five months per year."
Reading this took me back to a childhood fed by TV programmes like the BBC's Tomorrow's World
, which had informed me that by now robots would be doing all the menial work, leaving humans
free to relax and enjoy an abundance of leisure time. So it came as a shock to realise that the good
folk of the Middle Ages were enjoying far more of it than we are in our technologically-advanced
society. What gives?
Fleming explains
,
"In a competitive market economy a large amount of roughly-equally-shared leisure time – say,
a three-day working week, or less – is hard to sustain, because any individuals who decide to
instead work a full week can produce for a lower price (by working longer hours than the competition
they can produce a greater quantity of goods and services, and thus earn the same wage by selling
each one more cheaply). These more competitive people would then be fully employed, and would
put the more leisurely out of business completely. This is what puts the grim into reality."
So in an economy like ours, a technological advance that doubles the amount of useful work
a person can do in a day becomes a problem rather than a benefit. It tends to put half the workers
out of work, turning them into a potential drain on the state.
Of course, in theory all the workers could just work half-time and still produce all that is needed,
much as Tomorrow's World predicted. But in practice they are often afraid of having their
pay cut, or losing their jobs to a stranger who is willing to work longer hours, so they can't take
the steps needed to solve their collective economic problems and enjoy more leisurely lives. Instead,
people are kept busy partly through what anthropologist David Graeber memorably characterised as
" bullshit jobs ."
How, then, can we feed, house and support ourselves without working as relentlessly as we do today?
Fleming's work explores the answer, making a rigorous case that we need to get beyond mainstream
economists' ideas of minimising 'spare labour' if we are to sustain a post-growth economy. This 'spare
labour' is what most of us would call spare time-a welcome part of a life well lived rather than
a 'problem of unemployment.'
He highlights that the holidays of former times were far from a product of laziness. Rather
they were, in an important sense, what men and women lived for . 'Spare time' spent in feasting,
performing, collaborating and merrymaking together formed the basis of community bonding and membership.
Those shared cultural ties hold people together, even in the absence of economic growth and full-time
employment. When productivity improves,
as one of
his readers put it , "in our system you have a problem, in Fleming's system you have a party."
Under the current economic paradigm, the only way to keep unemployment from rising to the point
where the population can't be supported is through endless economic growth, which thus becomes an
obligation. So we are damned if we grow and damned if we don't, since endless growth will eventually
cross every conceivable biophysical boundary and destroy the planet's ability to support us. That's
why, in practice, we just keep growing and cross our fingers that somehow it will all work out.
As Fleming writes :
"The reduction of a society and culture to dependence on mathematical abstraction has infantilised
a grown-up civilisation and is well on the way to destroying it. Civilisations self-destruct anyway,
but it is reasonable to ask whether they have done so before with such enthusiasm, in obedience
to such an acutely absurd superstition, while claiming with such insistence that they were beyond
being seduced by the irrational promises of religion."
Technological fixes do not help, as we are all discovering to our cost. We are already working
ever harder, and with ever more advanced technologies, yet the hope of a better future dwindles day-by-day.
Take heart though, for when the current paradigm transparently provides nothing but a dead end, we
can be sure that we are on the cusp of a fundamental shift.
Fleming provides a radical but historically-proven alternative: focusing neither on the growth
or de-growth of the market economy, but the huge expansion of the 'informal' or non-monetary economy-the
'core economy' that allows our society to exist, even today. This is the economy of what we love:
of the things we naturally do when not otherwise compelled, of music, play, family, volunteering,
activism, friendship and home.
At present, this core non-monetary economy is much weakened, pushed out and wounded by the invasion
of the market. Fleming's work demonstrates that nurturing it back to health is not just some quaint
and obsolete sharing longing but an absolute practical priority.
The key challenge of today, for Fleming, is to repair the atrophied social structures on which
most human cultures have been built; to rediscover how to rely on each other rather than on money
alone. Then life after the painful yet inevitable end to the growth of the monetary economy will
start to seem feasible again, and our technological progress can bring us the fruits it always promised.
It's increasingly clear that this is the conversation we all need to have, and Fleming's compelling,
grounded vision of a post-growth world is rare in its ability to inspire optimism in the creativity
and intelligence of human beings to nurse our economy, ecology and culture back to health. I am proud
to have played a part in bringing it to the world; in fact, it might just be the best thing I have
done.
The thing of it is, we have had growth except for recessions every 10 years or so. But somewhere
along the line, due to the fact that we can never speak of "DISTRIBUTION" of this growth, we get
the completely artificial idea that the lower income can ONLY be helped by higher growth. Economics
has a nice scam going – only if the rich get much richer can anything be done for the 90%.
And we're told (by the rich) that this is just "natural" – a law of nature .Yeah, back when
the church owned everything the priests told us it was God who wanted it that way. Now the economic
priests tell us its nature that wants it this way
I am increasingly of the view that we conflate two entirely different ideas, or that we don't
emphasize enough that there are two fundamentally different critiques, when we challenge economists'
reliance on "growth." I'm not opposed to the notion of 'steady-state' economics. But it seems
presumptuous TSTL for Americans (famously 5% of the world's population using 25% of the world's
resources), really 'first-world'ers in general, to say, "OK, no more growth and time to stay within
in our limits, and by the way I'm good with what I've got." So I think there is a lot more work
that has to be done to make that concept appropriate in a reality-based sense.
Whereas, even though Marxists have often tended toward productivist notions of economic growth
that share many problematic features of capitalist growth, there is a deconstruction of capitalist,
and neoclassical depictions of, economic growth that is not by definition anti-community or anti-planet.
While the fundamental issues are power and control, they are perhaps most easily understood through
measurement – specifically what capitalists and their economists choose to measure as growth and
what they choose to ignore or take for granted. Why is paying someone else to take care of your
kid considered 'economic activity,' a provider of 'jobs,' a contributor to economic growth, but
raising your own kid is not? Actually, working at McDonald's while you pay someone to raise your
kid counts as two jobs, while raising your own kid counts as no jobs, even though the second is
in virtually all cases a socially superior outcome. (True, someone else might take that job at
McD's, so the net might only be one job. But with less demand for that job, perhaps it would have
to pay more and be a better job.) If you extend this line of thinking through elder care, and
then family- and community-based health care ('health care' in the widest, not specifically industrial
sense of the word), one could imagine substantially more healthy (in the widest sense) families,
communities, and societies with substantially lower carbon footprints than our current predicament.
One question is, if one took current measures of paid 'care work' as a baseline for what counts
as 'work,' and then provided similar levels of compensation to those currently performing similar
unpaid work (and I would advocate for higher pay for carers with a closer social bond to those
they care for, because in knowing the 'patient' better they are more 'skilled'), what implications
would that have for 'the economy' and the society in general?
(Similarly, as many others have noted, we need new economic categories that allow us to identify
negative economic activity (much finance, deforestation, pollution, waste, de-humanization, etc.)
that subtracts from standard measures of well-being rather than being included in them.)
There are many different ways to think about this, not all positive. Commodification vs. de-commodification
is a long-running discussion in Marxist circles, and one could imagine arguments in favor of extending
the latter to many more spheres of society. I think many supporters of BIG are de-commifiers at
heart. Even in our current context, massively improving and extending paid leave is a nod in this
direction. OTOH, one could also easily imagine to make kids the one paying their parents to raise
them, and going even deeper into debt, on the same logic of paying for college – your parents
are working to improve your social capital and earning potential and so you should pay them out
of your future earnings.
Relatedly, I am not opposed to alternative measures of social well-being, such as 'happiness
indexes.' But until we are able to directly challenge capitalist and neoclassical hegemony over
what counts as paid work (i.e. 'useful economic activity') and directly address the economic cost
of social 'bads,' there will be no taking the foot off the accelerator of economic growth, even
as we plunge Thelma-and-Louise-style over the cliff.
And I believe that at least several, if not all, of the "notable signers" listed in my comment
above have actually done some of that challenging of capitalist and neoclassical hegemony for
which you are calling.
I absolutely agree that "there is a lot more work that has to be done to make that [steady
state economy] concept appropriate in a reality-based sense."
I think we can continue with "growth" maybe not indefinitely but certainly for a very long
time to come. Just remove the giant parasitic vampire squid that drains away all of the blood,
8 guys holding 50% of the world's wealth, I mean gimme a break you don't have to be a dreaded
pinko Commie to think that is just hideously wrong. The more we talk about that and the less we
talk about how great it is for us all to cut back and move into Mom's basement the better. It's
US versus THEM and there are very very few of THEM.
Piling on:
All of the artists that I personally know, and I know many, make their living doing something
other than their art. Even the professional musicians get paid playing someone else's music so
they can make their own.
So the thing that gives an artist's life meaning- creating art- and contributes to or even defines
a local or regional culture doesn't count as work, but the day job does. The cost of making the
art not only doesn't count as a job, it counts as a drain of resources in terms of both time and
treasure.
I had never heard of the author or the book, I will definitely be ordering it. It's helpful
to have a reminder now and again, that our society, and whole way of living and being is a historical
aberration and there are many better options.
It also made me smile while reading to think about someone like Krugman reading this book and
twisting themselves into pretzels to dispute it (reality).
I imagine it would be one very complex pretzel but if anything could manage it, it would be
a serious of krugfacts.
: What he found was that-in the absence of a perpetually-growing economy-community and culture
are key.
There is a distinct difference from an ordinary pastoral in 'As You Like It' – the shepherds
do not own their sheep, and specific reference is made to the rural displaced, set to walk and
die on the roads. The policy was simply industrialized post-WWII, with tracts of suburbs in company
towns, separated from the competing allegiances of extended family and culture.
The problem is an old one. The successful solutions are not well publicized. The equivocations
of economicysts are now being revealed, and needs be drawn and quartered for the metastases they
encourage.
Soo.. we're working more now than the middle ages. Great! Good job america!
As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose, live
somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse unfold.
I sure as hell am not grinding my life away in the corporate trenches for ever-diminishing purchasing
power, give me a job at the grocer! What's that they've all been automated? Oh, damnit.
As a dispirited milennial myself, it seems that the best option for me is to cut loose,
live somewhere cheap and warm, enjoy nature and some friendly neighbors and watch this apocalypse
unfold.
Also the case for a reasonably affluent babyboomer
I actually did that. At 55, seven years ago now, I got disgusted and bailed out. I closed my
business (I actually gave it to my last two employees who wanted to keep going), sold my couple
of real estate holding in the city (my house and my business property) and moved out to the sticks
to brood and live cheaply. Turns out the living is cheap but there's been no brooding. Although
I had a ball in business, until the last two years, I've never had this much fun and contentment
with life. I'm a two bit hobby farmer or homesteader, if you will. You say that flippantly, as
I did, but bailing out and disconnecting from a Madison Ave determined lifestyle can actually
be quite rewarding. It's not for everyone but it's been a very fulfilling experience for me. Good
luck.
I had a weird dream about capitalism in reverse. Where we came to understand money as just
another form of energy and distributed it to people regularly so nobody needed to sell their labor
and the economy didn't need to grow to make profits. Instead of selling products/labor, everyone
used their money to make things we need and then paid again to give their product to someone:
"I'll give you the cost of making this naturally cured ham if you will please take it and enjoy
it." And we gave our money back to the environment the same way: here, please take all of our
energy and help to repair yourself. Or, we've spent our energy making these sustainable homes,
and we can offer your family $20K to take one and live in it. Sounds so nutty. I guess it would
still work to form a partnership, pool our money, and build a state of the art drug research lab.
And pay people to use these excellent drugs. Never mind.
William Morris, News from
Nowhere . Pleasant overview, not big on infrastructure, well-handled dream sequence.
To clarify: I approve, but don't expect this book to give assembly instructions.
Thanks for this great post, more like it please! It's no good endlessly criticising the status
quo we all need to spend more time discussing the alternatives and moving ourselves forward.
During my time as a retail worker it struck me how much of effective customer service was
really an unpaid use of our spontaneous urge to give aid to other people, to respond to their
needs as human beings.
We were often in the position of spiking the SOP of the business to get them what they
wanted. It hit me then how much the ostensible money economy is a free rider on the world of our
human non-economic lives, or is like free clean water used in an industrial process.
My co-workers and I sometimes became bitter about the low wages, and stopped paying attention
to people, but we couldn't keep it up for long, because you couldn't feel good for long about
taking it out on innocent people, and eventually even the bitterest co-workers would encounter
someone they just had to respond to as another person. We all figured out, sooner or later, that
the connection was the enduring value in the job.
This book, Lean Logic has twigged to this reality underlying the economy.
Hmmm. Resonates strongly with the bricklaying scene in Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life
of Ivan Denisovitch (about working in a prison camp.) I've got to see tomorrow if the bookstore
can get Lean Logic .
In an Utopian world the hardest least desirable jobs pay the most. CEOs make minimum wage while
the burger flippers being whipped by managers to hurry up are raking it in but do we have enough
unambitious intelligent people to keep the world turning
Socialism will always have to be balanced by the carrot and stick to minimize the mis-allocation
of resources.
Thus we can see reasons behind the high priority capitalistic societies put on individualism,
privatization, the self, the breaking down of "the commons," and fearing other groups, such as
Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims, at one time Catholics too as in the US. The whole mode of social
"we're all in this together" thinking is antithetical to it's reason for being. We need to think
"bigly" with a whole new paradigm (or is it an ancient paradigm) on how we view the world, and
we better do so quickly.
Nick Begich - Wikipedia
Dr. Nick Begich
is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political
activist Pegge Begich. He is well known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice
elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
Begich received Doctor of Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in
health and political science, from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.
Raoulfr des Roches
1
day ago
Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI
and The CIA have both implicated the
Russians in interfering in the American
political process.
Geral Hammonds
1
day ago
Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering,
meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only
the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH
206 guy
1
day ago (edited)
timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a
central intelligence agency just because
they're the central intelligence agency.
Fucking sheep's.
Natalia Jensen
1
day ago
timmy turner Not only are you a
brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're
also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left
libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.
Question:
Today we see a growing split of the world political
elites. There are globalists who express the interests of transnational corporations
and world financial organisations and there is a new political concept, the so-called
populists who express the interests of the people in their countries. A vivid example
is the election of US President Donald Trump, and there are a number of other
political leaders who are seen as fringe politicians in the West, for example Marine
Le Pen. Given this, it is not by chance that Russia is seen as a leader in half of
the world. Is this view justified? Can we talk about a future victory for one of
these ideologies? How would this influence today's world order?
Sergey
Lavrov:
I wouldn't call Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen "fringe politicians"
if only because they absolutely fit into the principles that underlie the functioning
of the American and French states. Marine Le Pen is a European member of parliament
and her party is active in the national parliament. Donald Trump has been elected in
full accordance with the American constitution, with its two-level indirect system of
electing the president. I would not even call them populists. The word "populist" has
a negative connotation. You said interestingly that populists are those who represent
the people. There are nuances in the interpretation of the word "populist." In modern
Russian it tends to be applied to people who go into politics, but do not bear the
responsibility for their words and just seek to lure voters. A populist is someone
who might promise to triple wages while the budget absolutely cannot support it, etc.
So I would rather call them realists or anti-globalists, if you like. Having said
that, anti-globalists are also associated with hooligans who try to disrupt the G20
and G7 summits, and so on. Come to think of it, even now that the new president of
the world's largest power has declared that it is necessary to think not of global
expansion, but of how America lives, the role of globalists will be changing.
American corporations have already demanded a reduction in manufacturing in
developing countries to move it to the US in order to create jobs there. Granted,
this may not be very good news for the consumer because labour is more expensive in
the US, so the prices for goods, cars and so on will increase. But this is the trend.
In general, President Trump's conceptual slogans during his election campaign to the
effect that America should interfere less in the affairs of other countries and
address its own issues send a very serious signal to the globalists themselves.
Again, up until now the US has been perceived as a symbol of globalism and the
expansion of transnational corporations. Those who represent their interests are the
huge team that has taken up arms against President Trump and his administration and
in general against everything he does, and which tries, in any way possible, to throw
a spanner in the works. Something similar things are happening in France where
mountains of compromising materials of ten or fifteen years ago have been unearthed
which invariably are presented through an "anti-Russia prism." It's been a long time
since I've seen such a dirty campaign when at stake are the concepts and ideas of how
to develop the state and their country, and a smear war is being waged. We had this
not so long ago, and I don't see anything good about it.
In parallel the global market and the global trade system are being reappraised
through the actions and statements of the new US administration. As you know, they
have walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership and said they would work through regional and bilateral
agreements. We believe, though, that the World Trade Organisation which it took us
such a long time to join did provide a common umbrella for world trade. Some regional
structures could be built into these universal systems so as not to break the ties
with the non-members of these regional organisations to maintain some common contact
and exchanges through the WTO. That too is now under threat. So, we are in a period
of rethinking our approaches, and I don't think it has everything to do with Trump.
These changes have been brewing; otherwise the American position on so many issues
could not have changed so abruptly. They were long in coming, and the WTO was in a
major crisis when the Western countries categorically refused to listen to the
leading developing countries on a range of issues connected with investment,
financial services, etc.
I wouldn't say that there are globalists and populists. There are simply people
who want to get elected and follow a well-trodden path and preserve the neoliberal
structures that are all over the place in the West, and then there are people who see
the neoliberalism and permissiveness which are part of the neoliberal approach as a
threat to their societies, traditions and cultures. This is accompanied by
philosophical reflections and practical discussions of what to do about the problem
of illegal migrants, their own roots and religions, whether it is politically correct
to remind people that you are an Orthodox or Catholic or whether you should forget
about religion altogether. I have said more than once that the European Union wanted
to adopt a constitution many years ago and was drafting it. The commission was headed
by Giscard d'Estaing and he proposed a very simple sentence about Europe having
Christian roots. He was prevented from doing so on the grounds that it would not be
politically correct and would insult the Muslims. In reality it turns out that if you
are cautious about making your religious roots known you end up not caring about the
religious roots of others and the consequences are not usually good. Therefore, at
the UN and UNESCO, we actively support all the initiatives that are particularly
relevant today: the Dialogue of Civilisations, the Dialogue of Cultures and the
Dialogue of Religions. It is not by chance that they have become topical issues on
the agenda because they reflect the fermentation within societies and the need to
somehow search for a national consensus.
For a country that is on the brink of a gargantuan public bailout of its toxic-loan riddled banking
sector, or failing that, a full-blown financial crisis that could bring down the European financial
system, things are eerily quiet in Italy these days. It's almost as if the more serious the crisis
gets, the less we hear about it - otherwise, investors and voters might get spooked. And elections
are coming up.
But an
article published in the financial section of Italian daily Il Sole lays out just how serious
the situation has become. According to new research by Italian investment bank Mediobanca, 114 of
the close to 500 banks in Italy have "Texas Ratios" of over 100%. The Texas Ratio, or TR, is calculated
by dividing the total value of a bank's non-performing loans by its tangible book value plus reserves
- or as American money manager Steve Eisman put it, "all the bad stuff divided by the money you have
to pay for all the bad stuff."
If the TR is over 100%, the bank doesn't have enough money "pay for all the bad stuff." Hence,
banks tend to fail when the ratio surpasses 100%. In Italy there are 114 of them. Of them, 24 have
ratios of over 200%.
Granted, many of the banks in question are small local or regional savings banks with tens or
hundreds of millions of euros in assets. These are not systemically important institutions and can
be resolved without causing disturbances to the broader system. But the list also includes many of
Italy's biggest banks which certainly are systemically important to Italy, some of which have Texas
Ratios of over 200%. Top of the list, predictably, is Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with €169 billion
in assets and a TR of 269%.
Next up is Veneto Banca, with €33 billion in assets and a TR of 239%. This is the bank that, together
with Banco Popolare di Vicenza (assets: €39 billion, TR: 210%), was supposed to have been saved last
year by an intervention from government-sponsored, privately funded bank bailout fund Atlante, but
which now urgently requires more public funds. Their combined assets place them seventh on the list
of Italy's largest banks.
Some experts, including the U.S. bank hired last year to save MPS, JP Morgan Chase, have
warned that Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca will not be eligible for a bailout since they
are not regarded as systemically important enough. This prompted investors to remove funds from the
banks, further exacerbating their financial woes.
According to sources in Rome, the two banks' failure would send shock waves through the wider
Italian financial industry.
There are other major Italian banks with Texas Ratios well in excess of 100%. They include:
Banco Popolare (the offspring of a merger of Banco Popolare di Verona e Novara and Banca Popolare
Italiana in 2017 and then a subsequent merger with Banca Popolare di Milano on 1 January 2017):
€120 billion in assets; TR: 217%. UBI Banca: €117 billion in assets; TR: 117% Banca Nazionale
del Lavoro: €77 billion in assets; TR: 113% Banco Popolare Dell' Emilia Romagna: €61 billion in
assets; TR: 140% Banca Carige: €30 billion in assets; TR: 165% Unipol Banca: €11 billion in assets;
TR: 380%
In sum, almost all of Italy's largest banking groups, with the exception of Unicredit, Intesa
Sao Paolo and Mediobanca itself, have Texas Ratios well in excess of 100%.
But, as Eisman recently pointed out, the two largest banks, Unicredit and Intesa Sanpaolo, have
TRs of over 90%. As long as the other banks continue to languish in their current zombified state,
they will continue to drag down the two bigger banks. And if either Unicredit or Intesa begin to
wobble, the bets are off.
To stay on the right side of the solvency threshold, Unicredit has already had to raise €13 billion
of new capital this year and last week it
took advantage of the ECB's latest splurge of charitable lending (formally known as TLTRO II)
to borrow €24 billion of free money. But as long as the financial health of the banks all around
it continues to deteriorate, staying upright is going to be a tough order.
This is where things get complicated. In order to qualify for public assistance, banks must be
solvent. Presumably, that would automatically disqualify any bank with a Texas Ratio of over 150%,
which includes MPS, Banco Popolare, Popolare di Vicenza, Veneto Banca, Banca Carige and Unipol Banca.
The bailout must also comply with current EU regulations including the Bank Recovery and Resolution
Directive of Jan 1, 2016, which specifically mandates that before public funds are injected into
a bank, shareholders and creditors must be bailed in for a minimum amount of 8% of total liabilities,
as famously happened in the rescue of Cyprus' banking system in 2013.
The Italian government knows that this approach could end up wiping out retail investors (otherwise
known as voters) who were missold, in many cases fraudulently, subordinated bonds by cash-hungry
banks in the wake of the last crisis, in turn wiping out the government's votes. To avoid such an
outcome, the government has proposed compensating those retail bondholders with public funds, just
as the Spanish government did with the holders of preferente bonds. Which, of course, is
in direct contravention of EU laws.
So far, the European Commission has stayed silent on the issue, presumably in the hope that the
resolution of Italy's financial sector can be held off until at least after the French elections
in late April, if not the German elections in September. Then, if those elections go Brussels' way,
a continent-wide taxpayer funded bailout of banks' NPLs can be unleashed, as already
requested by ECB Vice President Vitor Constancio and European Banking Authority President Andrea
Enria.
With no guarantee that Italy's NPL-infested banks can hold out that long, it's a dangerous waiting-and-hoping
game. In the meantime, shhhhhhhh
I wanna tell you about Texas Ratios and he Big Cheat
It comes out of the Italian swamps
cool and slow without any precision
like a fettuncini marinara recipe that's hard to master
Some call it heavenly in its brilliance
others mean and rueful of the Prussian dream
Don't you love the friends gathered together for this Italian graft
They have schemed up pyramids in honor of their escaping
This is the land where the euro died.
1. What is the overall Texas Ratio for the Italian banking system?
2. What is the mechanism connecting a 'bad' Texas Ratio to failure in this case? Are they funding
long term liabilities with short term borrowing like Lehman and hence are at risk of being locked
out of the market?
3. How interconnected are the Italian banks? Is there potential for a domino effect? What would
be the mechanism, loss of confidence or actual counterparty risk?
All good questions. Come June, one may expect more EU austerity practices in the form of public
bailout, Yes? The "public," the disappeared element of modern western political cultures, is the
"backstop," the final insurer. Neoliberalism plays a strong role in the grossly unfair practice
of public bailouts.
What radar? Italy's last radar stations shut down for lack of money in 2013 and all the operators
who could leave the country left for science jobs in Uganda and Brazil. There is no radar in Italy.
Germany has radar but it only picks up signals from NATO or Brussels. Italy's scientific minds
are busy with financial theory, in New Yawk. I've seen a few of them. Pretty smart dudes! And
women! They like stochastic volatility and Wishart distributions but God Forbid you put them in
front of a radar machine. They wouldn't know a bird from the Luftwaffe (haha sorry that was a
long time ago).
What radar? Radar is so 20th century! Today we have Twitter and Facebook if you wanna stare
at a glass screen and hear beeps. I think there's a Wikipedia page for radar but it's rusting.
They use radar on boats and ships though. Maybe one of Italy's banks will go floating by on the
ocean of liquidity from the ECB. Then it might show up on a radar someplace out near the Azores.
Too bad you'll lose money no matter how you try to trade it. Or at least I would! That's for sure.
a day late and a dollar short here, why do I have all my good ideas on April Fool's day? –
but anyway: Schaeuble's "we are overbanked" is now Schaeuble's Paradox because if they let the
little ones go they will bring down the big ones because everybody and their dog has a stake in
this – much like you explained about China's bubble. So, yes Wolfgang, we are overbanked and no,
Wolfgang, we are not overbanked everything is in perfect balance. And all those euros and dollars
racing around with nowhere to go? – here's a suggestion: pour them as fast as you can back into
the planet. Clean it up. Cool it down.
A couple of reasons come to mind, but I may be too anecdotal:
When I was in Italy three weeks back, some friends of mine (and my friends are all pretty much
red) mentioned that parties on the left had looted Monte dei Paschi di Siena. So the Partito Democratico,
the successor party, is going to end up with a scandal (or with even more scandal).
A second idea crossed my mind: For many years, the Italians were the champion savers of Europe.
(They were nearly as good at savings as the Japanese.) So these banks are filled with Italians'
savings accounts and their retirement nest eggs. Weirdly, the Italian regulators may have some
idea that the Italians and their savings habits can shift the balance. What's more likely, though,
and what's worse is that once these banks start failing in series, you will see Italian families
wiped out financially. The social devastation will bring down the government and may even bring
down most of the political parties. The irony would be that the newer Movimento Cinque Stelle
is less implicated (not that they have a plan either).
Needless to say, raised eyebrows by yours truly given previous material posted here.
Just gave a first listen to it, and nothing he (Padoan) says suggests the dire straits outlined
in the NC post. I'll follow up later, but perhaps a shorter version of his answers to the interviewer
here would have been "Shhhhhhhhh "
Maybe they are expecting a mysterious cash drop like it happened a number of years ago when
two Japanese men were arrested at the Italian-Swiss border at Chiasso with fat briefcases carrying
$134 billion in US bearer bonds. Of course since it was undeclared money the Italian State got
to keep 50%. Now, since the Italian finance minister thinks the banking problems are resolved
I imagine there must be a whole bus of Japanese moneymen on their way to Chiasso
Well isn't that what most Keynesians think? That the fundamentals are relatively sound, the
only problem is a financial crisis caused by asset bubbles? And that if we just increase the deficit
(update the nation's infrastructure), things will be fine?
The reality is that it wasn't just a financial crisis that caused the post 2008 recession.
The real economy is not in good shape, nor has been since the 1970's. The industrialization of
Europe and Japan, followed by China and India, has caused a crisis of overproduction/under-utilization
of capacity that has eaten away profit rates in manufacturing firms around the globe (even with
the abundant supply of labor available from the ease of outsourcing). The only growth we've had
since then has been from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the 80's, the US stock market
in the 90's, US real estate in the 00's, EU bubbles in the 00's, etc.).
Fiscal stimulus can temporarily ease the burden by increasing demand, and monetary stimulus
can temporarily reflate the asset bubbles, but there's no light at the end of the tunnel. (Not
to mention that US federal deficit spending just boosts Chinese manufacturing sector and pollutes
the planet more than anything else.) Earth has a finite amount of space and resources, and the
mathematics of compound interest mean that growth rates will have to be low from here on out (there's
no way the global economy will double by 2060 and then double again by 2100; not even the Chinese
and Indian booms together could get us growing like that, nor do I think Africa alone could, either).
That's something that fixing up a few dilapidated subway stations won't change–eventually, the
gains will slow as we'll run out of infrastructure to repair.
The reality is the urbanization and industrialization are the lifeblood of capitalism, and
without those two processes happening on a major scale, growth is low (just as it was during the
17th century). The only thing that will get us growing again is a major world war that blows up
buildings and infrastructure everywhere, just like World War II did.
The article does not emphasize the factor that should (but surely will not) mitigate
the extent to which the EU requires bail-ins by depositors and retail bondholders: the Italian
banks' problem is non-performing loans substantially attributable to the austerity imposed by
the EU's [non]growth and [non]stability pact. (Of course there's also the factor of bank managers'
favoritism to political allies and back-scratching among the local elites. While that's a key
factor with MPS and some of the four already-partially-rescued smaller regional banks, it's not
the main cause of the Italian banking crisis).
Why should this be significant? Because some Italian political party (5 Stelle? Fratelli d'Italia?
Lega Nord?) may be able to clearly and simply enunciate the case that (1) EU austerity is the
direct result of other nations' (Spain, UK, Germany, US, ) banks' irresponsible speculation in
derivatives and the like but (2) Italian banks did not participate in that speculative orgy; they
were just fulfilling their proper mission of financing local, regional, and national enterprises
and (3) much of the Italian middle class will be ruined by EU-required bail-ins. If the voting
public understands this causal chain, I think Italians' conservative tendency to thus far stick
with the EU and the Euro no matter what might be reversed overnight - and high time, too.
I'm sorry; but for the current problems, the Italians have nobody to blame but themselves.
1/ Their system did not allow them to fix their banks in time. The financial crisis was in 2008.
It's almost TEN years after and they still haven't fixed their non-performing loans. The US did
it quite fast (thanks, Obama) and put in a new bail-in rule. The EU took their time, but eventually
did it and put in the BRRD, too. THe BRRD took years to negotiate and was not immediately implemented
– so Italy could have bailed in its banks in the mean time, too.
They did not.
2/ The bail in would have worked like a charm in a non-fraudulent system. But Italian banks
sold their subordinated bonds – fraudulently – to mom&pop investors, thus making it ill-adapted.
3/ Italian banks did not receive non-performing loans out of nowhere. It is the Italian banks
themselves that gave or bought such non-performing loans.
So they did participate in the orgy, did not clean up afterwards for more than 10 years, fraudulently
tried to cover everything up (because the subordinated bonds that are bail-in able are supposed
to provide more capital to the banks), and are now going to screw the entire European Union because
of this.
They have successfully masked the Banking problems under various CREATIVE accounting with final
paint job of Extend & Pretend' No one challenged and the investors have accepted without any skepticism.
Besides, they believe in the PUT by Draghi!
They've also masked it as I've said before:
They say it's a "populist" (voter) created crisis.
At root, it's yet anothet gift from the financial sector.
Italy as a country, 8th richest in global terms I believe, ain't poor, so somewhere along the
line as ever, both within and without, as elsewhere in the EZ and the rest of the world, some
are making hay out this debt crisis and have an interest in perpetuating it, whilst the blameless
are yet again forced to endure its bitter consequences.
I wonder how Italy would fare if they left the Euro, compared to the problems discussed here
in the case of Greece. Specifically, how easily could Italy be self-sufficient in food at medicines?
I suspect Italy would be in a stronger position to weather any such storm, and they would have
even more tourism Euro revenue in a transition period. (Assuming a messy transition period during
which the conventional payment systems would be in disarray.)
I've seen Yves and NC writers argue a few times that Italy is the euro country best suited
to ditch the euro. I think it'd be France though; their economy has always been more national
and independent than the rest of Europe, which is why in the early years of the crisis, things
weren't nearly as bad there as they were in the PIIGS.
Whichever country decides to do so will end up facing economic ruin as the powers that be will
make sure to punish it as much as possible (just as they'll do to the UK with the trade agreements)
to make an example of it. Currency speculators will destroy the value of the new currency. And
there are all of the crazy logistical and IT challenges that have been well-documented here as
well.
Of course the most interesting scenario, by far, is Germany leaving the euro. But I can't ever
seeing them be the first to do so, as they benefit too much from it.
I think that the EU and Italy will come to some sort of compromise on the bail-in law, or they
will organize some sort of private sector rescue. And if not, I don't think Italians are quite
ready to ditch the euro, even if a lot of folks lose money on the bail-in. Also, Beppe Grillo
is not allowed to run for public office because of that manslaughter charge. We'll see more of
the status quo, at least for a few more years.
" . the more serious the crisis gets, the less we hear about it" Isn't that always the case
with our 'keep it under your hat' media – information is money. For the money reporter its "What
am I bid for an early chance to avoid loss?" For the politician hoping for a trouble-free life
its "Don't excite the natives you know how irritable they can get!"
Don Quijones, Wolf Street and Naked Capitalism have done us all a great favor yet again. The
level of money inflation is accelerating everywhere.
Why are NPLs important in determining the solvency of a bank? Certainly, the bank doesn't have
to pay to keep them on their books. So they are neither an asset or a liability. All that is relevant
are performing loans, i.e. income, to liabilities. Now, it is certainly probable that banks have
taken on liabilities in the expectation that what are now NPLs would be performing. And that is
the core of the problem. But the measurement of the extent of the problem is simply income, future
and current, based on performing assets vs liabilities, future and current.
Is the USA entered a "revolutionary situation" which usually
is referred as "crisis of legitimacy" in English-language
literature.
Looks like it did judging from what MSM write about Trump
and his entourage. And anti-Russian hysteria is a reaction of
this crisis of legitimacy, attempt to suppress it at least
temporary by uniting the nation against the external threat (
and this efforts fall into fertile ground of dreams about
Trump impeachment in democratic circles; Russians of Chinese,
does not matter -- but the orange menace should be
eliminated):
The key question is: Who has the stronger claim to speak
on behalf of the people: the president or the majority that
opposes his policies?" No automatic mechanism exists within
the system to resolve this, and so each side has an incentive
to escalate its claim and attempt to seize more power.
Questions of legitimacy certainly do arise if voters would
rather not have outsourcing and offshoring, cuts in public
spending including healthcare, and cuts in taxes for rich --
but are getting those policies anyway. Global financial
oligarchy still pressure for privatization of utilities,
healthcare, education, you name it, despite crisis of 2008.
In other words, neoliberalism in zombie stage is probably
more dangerous that pre-2008 neoliberalism.
The regulatory race to the bottom (aka deregulation) did
not stopped. Several types of regulation-for example, of
health and safety in the workplace, terms of employment,
product and environmental standards -- have both ideological
and political content.
If voters say: this is not the agenda we elected Trump to
implement, democratic dreams about Trump impeachment might
become more realistic then inflating anti-Russian hysteria
path, the path that the corrupt Democratic Party leadership
selected and finance.
But at the same time Democrats does not really represent
the opposition. They are also corrupt to the core (Schumer,
Raid, Pelosi are nice examples here) and adopted
neoliberalism in essentially the same form as Republicans.
They fully adopted such policies as "moderation" in taxes
(cutting taxes for the rich and making tax scheme more flat))
and "moderation" of public spending, "fiscal responsibility"
and the rest of neoliberal "pro financial oligarchy" program.
People feel disempowered by global neoliberalism. And that
might start to affect the stability of the society soon. In
2015 New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow made this point
recently in a commentary on the relations between minority
communities and our system of justice. He said that we need a
"restoration - or a formation - of faith for all of America's
citizens in the American justice system itself."
"Former CIA deputy director
Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists
that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian
President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and Iranians
in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."
The top CIA official, who twice served as the acting
director of the agency, and worked with Clinton while she
was secretary of state, told PBS host Charlie Rose that
Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by
that he meant killing them.
"I ran the CIA now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton and I
want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in
Syria"
Referring to the US-backed rebels in Syria, Morell said he
wanted Washington to support them in more aggressive
actions, not only against Bashar Assad's government, but
against Iranians and Russians.
Morrell then went on a diatribe about how the US should
"scare" Assad, including going after his national guard
and "bombing his offices in the middle of the night."
After he retired from the CIA in August 2013, Morrell took
a job at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington, DC
consultancy founded by Clinton aides Philippe Reines and
Andrew Shapiro. There he worked with Leon Panetta, another
Clinton aide and his predecessor at the helm of the CIA,
who also spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic
convention in Philadelphia last month.
Last year, Morrell apologized to "every American" and
finally owned up to the "mistakes" made by the CIA in
Iraq, where over 4,000 US soldiers and at least 250,000
Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 US
invasion." - RT News
Employees of the Central
Intelligence Agency find themselves in challenging times.
The agency is dealing with the release by WikiLeaks of
top-secret documents, apparently detailing
highly-classified surveillance methods, and a fraught
relationship with President Trump, who has criticized the
intelligence community ever since he campaigned for
president. CBS News senior security contributor Michael
Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the
state of the agency, and what it means for America's
security.
Get the latest news and best in original reporting from
CBS News delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to newsletters
HERE:
http://cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Get new episodes of shows you love across devices the next
day, stream local news live, and watch full seasons of CBS
fan favorites anytime, anywhere with CBS All Access. Try
it free!
http://bit.ly/1OQA29B
---
Delivered by Charlie Rose, Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King,
"CBS This Morning" offers a thoughtful, substantive and
insightful source of news and information to a daily
audience of 3 million viewers. The Emmy Award-winning
broadcast presents a mix of daily news, coverage of
developing stories of national and global significance,
and interviews with leading figures in politics, business
and entertainment. Check local listings for "CBS This
Morning" broadcast times.
Geral Hammonds
3 weeks ago
Jfk wanted to disband the CIA (Military
industrial complex ) and i guess the CIA didn't
like that very much and let Kennedy know how kuch
they didn't like that in the most violent way
possible, :(. And its really strange that the
democrats are pro deep state, pro war, just
advocates for the CIA But then again anything an
anyone that is anti Trump is goo for them, Since
the guy from the apprentice has completely
devistated them as individuals and as a political
party.
At
2:25
, Hillary supporter Mike Morell even
admits that someone in the Obama CIA leaked
info. Reports are that in December, 2016, a
small group of IT contractors gave the info to
WikiLeaks. Obama has other people do the dirty
work for him.
CIA killed journalist Mike Hastings with remote
crashing his car. CIA has surpassed the authority
of the NSA. CIA has no oversight, not even by
President Trump. They are colluding with media to
destroy Trump's presidency via revealing lies
manufactured to bring criminal charges on him.
CIA is out of control, need the entire senior
officers fired, investigated, charged and
imprisoned or executed for treason & espionage &
Title 8. If CIA does this to a president, they
will do it to Americans who interfere with their
criminal activities world-wide.
another MSM whitewash .... a ex CIA talking head
minimising the illegalities of CIA actions and
promoting a big $$$$ spend on an upgrade of CIA
systems.... no doubt the US zombie public will
swallow it hook line and sinker. There is no
future for the US , it will either cause a WW3
scenario or disintegrate in to an internal civil
conflict....
Mike Morell interview reveal it ia an inside job
and many in the CIA is disillusioned,
demoralized, and become Whistle Blowers! There
have been to many scandals and leaks. The entire
US Intelligence INDUSTRY must be dismantled and
then rebuild. \
It is deeply troubling that
sensitive data that can create huge problems is
released. There is too many with security
clearance to look at the data. Security clearance
should only be given for the data relevant to do
their job. The NSA collects all our data, all the
time, and can query/search the database for
something as simple as a phone number, IP
address, bank account or name.
If the NSA, FBI, or CIA wants email or phone
calls, on Trump or Flynn all they must do is
query their name or phone number or email and
date range. Bingo, they got it! This is going on
24/7. They capture all data flowing through the
major fiber optic lines in the US. Over 5,000
people in the intel community are assigned to do
nothing but mine this data.The NSA, CIA, and FBI
have access to the information realtime, anytime!
All of this is done without a warrant. Hell, who
needs a FISA request? They have everything, and
thousands of intel personnel have access to the
information! You wonder why Jim Comey and others
are freaking out! This is totally illegal. It was
part of an Executive Order issued with the intent
of pursuing drug dealers and know criminals NOT
spying on the American people, but of course they
wouldn't do that, or Would They? Businesses
world-wide has now to spend large sums of money
protecting themselves against CIA criminally
invented malware and viruses. More than 1,5
BILLION phones and computers using Apple or
Android operating system is affected. So far only
1% of Vault 7 released. What if the remaining 99%
contain top-secret information on US neuro
science programs (Mind and Mass Control). No
problem, if this top-secret programs falls into
the hands of Russia or China, since their neuro
science programs is even better, but it would be
a catastrophe if Mr. Kim in North Korea got hold
of it and continued developing it.
The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the
most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine
Trump. But some comments are interesting
Notable quotes:
"... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
"... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
"... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
"... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
"... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
"... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
"... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
"... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin.
But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants,
undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America.
Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed
view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level,
and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly
trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and
then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next
colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no
choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing
facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly
can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has
to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.
Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The
Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me
Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on
Facebook and
Twitter.
Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years
of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey,
a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?
Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that
he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of
course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling.
And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.
The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious
Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently
as is polite. Like real fucking soon.
What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said
there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!
That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other
hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.
Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting
to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies
in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.
Don't
pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on
the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .
Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that
The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but
enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!
Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the
expense of virtually everythingelse so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a
shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.
"... Additionally, the Friday Fox News report cited "a number of sources" with claims that not only were the two White House officials not the sources of the information shared with Nunes, but that Nunes knew of the information in January, and that the agencies where the information came from had blocked Nunes from gaining access to it. Further, the report cited officials within the agencies who said they were frustrated with the spreading of names for political purposes. ..."
After
slamming NBC's coverage
of the "Fake Trump/Russia story",
congratulating
the NYTimes
for "finally getting it" on Obamacare, Trump on Saturday commented on
the previously discussed Fox News story about a "very senior, very well known" U.S.
intelligence official who was allegedly involved in unmasking the names of Trump
associates, and who had reprotedly surveilled Trump before the nomination.
"Wow,
@FoxNews just reporting big news. Source: 'Official behind unmasking is high up. Known
Intel official is responsible. Some unmasked not associated with Russia. Trump team
spied on before he was nominated. If this is true, does not get much bigger. Would be
sad for U.S.," he added.
Wow,
@FoxNews
just
reporting big news. Source: "Official behind unmasking is high up. Known Intel
official is responsible. Some unmasked....
As
discussed Friday night
, A Fox News source (unnamed, because these days that's all
there is, just ask the NYT and Wapo) said that the U.S. official behind the systematic
unmasking of Trump associates and private individuals was "very well known, very high
up, very senior in the intelligence world" and was doing so for political, not nationa
security reasons, intent on "hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team." In other
words, another intel agency war between the old, pro-Hillary Clinton, guard and the new
administration.
Additionally, the Friday Fox News report cited "a number of sources" with claims that
not only were the two White House officials not the sources of the information shared
with Nunes, but that Nunes knew of the information in January, and that the agencies
where the information came from had blocked Nunes from gaining access to it. Further,
the report cited officials within the agencies who said they were frustrated with the
spreading of names for political purposes.
"Our sources, who have direct knowledge of what took place, were upset because those
two individuals, they say, had nothing to do with the outing of this information," Fox
reported.
"We've learned that the surveillance that led to the unmasking of what started way
before President Trump was even the GOP nominee," Fox News reported Adam Housley said.
"The person who did the unmasking, I'm told, is very well known, very high up, very
senior in the intelligence world and is not in the FBI."
"This led to other surveillance which led to multiple names being unmasked. Again
these are private citizens in the United States," said Housley. "
This had
nothing to do with Russia, I'm told, or foreign intelligence of any kind."
"Fox also learned that an individual with direct knowledge that after Nunes had been
approached by his source, the agencies basically would not allow him in at all," said
Housley.
Understandably, the Fox News report has gotten zero media attention on any other news
outlet.
Intel Official Behind "Unmasking" Of Trump Associates Is "Very Senior, Very
Well Known"
Day after day, various media outlets, well really mostly the NYT and WaPo, have
delivered Trump-administration-incriminating, Russia-link-related tape bombs sourced via
leaks (in the hope of keeping the narrative alive and "resisting."). It now turns out,
according to FXN report
, that the US official who "unmasked" the names of multiple
private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone "
very well known,
very high up, very senior in the intelligence world."
As Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley report
, intelligence and House sources with
direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names (yes, yet another "unnamed
source") said that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, now knows who is
responsible - and that person is not in the FBI (i.e. it is not James Comey)
Housley said
his sources were motivated to come forward by a New York Times
report yesterday which reportedly outed two people who helped Nunes access
information during a meeting in the Old Executive Office Building.
However, Housley's sources claim the two people who helped Nunes "navigate" to the
information were not his sources. In fact,
Nunes had been aware of the information
since January (long before Trump's 'wiretap' tweet) but had been unable to view the
documents themselves because of "stonewalling" by the agencies in question.
Our sources: This surveillance that led to the unmasking of
private names of American citizens started before Trump was the GOP nominee.
For a private citizen to be "unmasked," or named, in an intelligence report is
extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to
be named to explain the context of the report.
"The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of
private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have
nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia's interference in
the U.S. election,"
a congressional source close to the
investigation told Fox News
.
The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what
improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They've been
emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official
Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on
Trump team contacts with Russia.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and
other reports raise "serious" concerns about whether there was an "organized and
widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive
intelligence information for political purposes."
"Dr. Farkas' admissions alone are devastating," he said.
The Trump folks,
if they found out how we knew what we knew
about
the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that
they would try to compromise
those sources and methods
, meaning we would not longer have access to that
intelligence.
Furthermore, Farkas effectively corroborated a
New
York Times article
from early March which cited "Former American officials"
as their anonymous source regarding efforts to leak this surveillance on the Trump
team to Democrats across Washington DC.
* * *
In addition, citizens affiliated with Trump's team who were unmasked were not
associated with any intelligence about Russia or other foreign intelligence, sources
confirmed. The initial unmasking led to other surveillance, which led to other private
citizens being wrongly unmasked, sources said.
"
Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes ...
specifically of Trump transition team members ... is highly suspect and questionable
,"
according to an intelligence source. "Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies
who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was
elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by
one."
* * *
So if the source isn't Comey, has anyone seen Jim Clapper recently? The answer should
emerge soon, meanwhile the ridiculous game with very high stakes of spy vs spy, or in
this case source vs source, continues.
So sorry. Journalism is shit. Very tired of 'source' stories. Cannot trust
any of this crap. Breathless reporters --"We've been talking to sources...."
BFD. Give me a fucking break. Fox tries a little bit of the time, but Fox is
no better than NBC or CNN. Journalists today have no courage. They write
these stories for each other, not for me and you.
There are no journalists; they are simply pritning whatever they are given
by the "sources". They show no curiosity, no suspicion, too credulous to be
a journalist and these are really end times for the MSM.
You are correct. They have been exterminated
... along with the need for truth in media. Since 9-11, all over the
world there has been a concerted and determined effort to target and
remove all those who would stay true to the principles of that craft.
And, to in their place, raise up a raft of imitators who style themselves
reporters, but need have no accountability, nor take the trouble to ever
leave their computer screens to go and "follow" a story.
But what most folks don't see is that this faux-journalism is a direct
consequence of the so-called 'new media' - packaged as "alternative
media" in order to
seem
a challenge and
opposition to special interest groups controlling all communication
channels - but actually just more special interests with even less
accountability!
"There is no longer a stage, not even the minimal illusion that
makes events capable of adopting the force of reality-no more stage
either of mental or political solidarity
:
Only the medium can
make an event - whatever the contents, whether they are conformist or
subversive.
AND -
There are no more media in the literal sense
of the word - that is, of a mediating power between one reality and
another, between one state of the real and another."
The role of medias, in other words, has switched from 'mediating'
between real events and the reader... to medicating the reader with
concocted storylines custom made to appeal to the pre-existing
information preferences of same.
Even more ominously, with the arrival of the TRUMP TWITTER medium, we
reach the full blossoming of the point predicted last year - when a
government staged a coup against itself, using the tools of social media
to coverup their ruse!
https://storify.com/SuaveBel/requiem-for-the-media
"The State has subsumed the role and space of "the media" in
organizing and communicating with "the people." It has re-defined the
terms "democracy" and "participation" on it's own terms, and in
picking up the social media tools which had formerly belonged to "the
people" as a network of communicants, relegated "the media" to the
role of gelded hierophant!"
All of which has been blandly accepted and passed over by a
web-entranced audience which has given over critical thinking skills to a
cabal of 'communications experts' determined to put the lie to that old
adage - 'you can't fool all of the people, all of the time!'
They got that fucker now, whom ever it was. I hope we can finally see some of
the other media pick up on this blockbuster story, probably not though, they
are completely out of their minds with irrationality.
I'd like to see Clapper
get 10 years in buttfuck prison where leroy and shantis practice using their
10" BBCs to make him watertight. Whom ever did this is a complete piece of shit
just like most of the other libtards that don't give a shit about the rule of
law or basic fairness.
Either way, the cat's out of the bag and CNN, et al, won't be able to ignore
this much longer. This story, unlike the Russian fairy tale, actually has some
proof and they will get to the bottom of this crime.
I wish (and hope) you're right. But remember, the intelligence community is
best at misdirection, obfuscation, deceit, and manipulation. If there was
ever a group that could successfully distract or 'arrange' an alternate
truth, it's them.
Isn't Obama pretty much immune from any prosecution? Sure, his reputation
or "legacy" can be tainted (meaning more people will realize what an
a$$clown and criminal he was), but you can't do anything to him, can you?
We have seen no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion and we all know the same
people leaking and smearing Trump aren't waiting for some special moment to
release it....it never works that way and he would not have been allowed by NSA
or CIA to take power if they had it...
Nunes and Schiff have seen info that
was compartmentalized to executive branch obviously, which is all branches
appointed by president CIA,NSA,Defense(Farkas),State(Hillary) etc etc
This has been a set up by Trump from beginning. Flynn knew all his calls
were being recorded and he was fired after eaks to the NYT and WAPO. He
questioned why the info on ISIS he was writing up as head of Defense
Intelligence Agency was being down played and ignored by the half breed...Flynn
will blow the doors off this entire thing...Look up his career...He is a top
level intelligence operative with an ax to grind..He is not some flunky and he
has many sources all throughout the intelligence branches...Nicely played
President Trump...Job is much easier dealing with simpletons
It is definitely someone from the executive branch and that includes CIA
head..The SCIF they are going to is in the old executive office building and
only deals with executive..... state,defense,CIA,NSA etc etc
If I understand correctly, the intel official behind the unmasking of
folks affiliated with Trump campaign, which was taking place dating back
to last summer, is a separate issue from who sheperded Nunes into the
SCIF on the WH grounds (so that he could see docs he had been stonewalled
from seeing), reported to be Ezra Cohen-Watnick of the NSC.
The faction which killed JFK and MLK to send us as papal catspaw to Vietnam
after the president ordered us out with 120 dead; and to restart the Vatican
banker/FedScam he had ended, went on to do 9/11 and is terminally threatened by
God-fearing Americans.
May God bless our president and may Satan's ruling
false-elite pedo homo Fifth Column Beast of (((Gog))) and Babylon on Our Holy
Land be soon cast down, praise God.
Folls forget Trump already ran a sting on his Intel briefing during transistion.
When he was briefed on piss dossier and told no one on his staff, then it was
leaked to press immediately afterwards..President Trump is using tactics folks
like General Flynn perfected in 33 years in the intelligence service.
Funny
shit this letter by Clapper..Trump has been playing these folks BIGLY
"... From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius. ..."
"... Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. ..."
"... The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one. ..."
"... On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it? ..."
"... This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin." ..."
"... Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in. ..."
"... While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it. ..."
"... With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all. ..."
Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman
Adam Schiff have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. They
should think twice. The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.
The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak . On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius
reported that "according to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
several times on Dec. 29."
From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama
official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius.
Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. But it
was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA
surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White
House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the
lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.
The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and,
at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.
On Dec. 29, Obama
announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the
White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia
connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.
A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. On Dec. 30, the Washington Post
reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department.
After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek
to crash the system, or just to probe it?
This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election.
The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that
the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin."
The national media mimicked the Post's reporting. But there was a problem: the
hack
never happened . It was a false alarm - triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama's hype.
On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI
published
a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. "At every level this report
is a failure,"
said
cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. "It didn't do what it set out to do, and it didn't provide useful data. They're handing
out bad information."
Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained.
The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong
to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator
dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered
on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.
While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele
dossier, which
claimed
that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research
paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had
circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable,
however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.
With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government
leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing
it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.
By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. Ignatius
used the leak to
deepen speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: "What did Flynn say (to Kislyak)," Ignatius asked, "and did it undercut
the U.S. sanctions?" The mere fact that Flynn's conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. If he was innocent,
why was the government monitoring him?
It should not have been. He had the right to talk to in private - even to a Russian ambassador. Regardless of what one thinks
about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security
state and our domestic politics. The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. At stake is a core principle of our democracy:
that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.
"... We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. ..."
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511
January 11, 2017
DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump
This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing
last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are
extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.
We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members
of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence
Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information
in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure
that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.
President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured
him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd see others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better and I never could figure out how they managed. ..."
"... What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels (drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage economic activity, aim for more and better jobs. ..."
"... The government has announced plans for Britain to issue a £200m Islamic bond in a bid to attract new money to London. The bond will be aimed at institutions, but there are Islamic finance products available to regular savers, investors and homebuyers. Here us a guide to how sharia-compliant funds and mortgages work. ..."
"... Why aren't regular accounts sharia-compliant? Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself has no intrinsic value; it is simply a medium of exchange. Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed to benefit from lending money or receiving money from someone. This means that earning interest (riba) is not allowed – whether you are an individual or a bank. To comply with these rules, interest is not paid on Islamic savings or current accounts, or charged on Islamic mortgages. How do sharia-complaint banking products work? There are several ways that banks can structure accounts so that they are sharia-compliant. Ijara works as a leasing arrangement: the bank buys something for a customer and then leases it back to them. Different forms of leasing are permissible, including those where part of the instalment payment goes toward the final purchase. This might be used to help you buy a car or other item, or to help a business buy equipment. Murabaha works by the bank supplying goods for resale to the customer at a price that includes a margin above the costs, and allows them to repay in installments. This might be used to provide a mortgage on a property. The property is registered to the buyer from the start. Musharaka is a joint venture in which the customer and bank contribute funding to an investment or purchase and agree to share the returns (as well as the risks) in proportions agreed in advance. Wakala is an agreement that the bank will work as the individual's agent. If a saver enters into this type of agreement, the bank can use their cash to invest in sharia-compliant trading activities to generate a target profit for them. How do the banks make money? Banks can profit [nothing like the "profit" that western banks and banksters extract and extort, of course, but a decent living] from the buying and selling of approved goods and services. The principal means of Islamic finance are based on trading, and it is essential that risk be involved in any trading activity, so banks and financial institutions will trade in sharia-compliant investments with the money deposited by customers, sharing the risks and the profits between them. Islamic banks are structured so that they retain a clearly differentiated status between shareholders' capital and clients' deposits in order to make sure profits are shared correctly. Although they cannot charge interest, the banks can profit from helping customers to purchase a property using a ijara or murabaha scheme. With an ijara scheme the bank makes money by charging the customer rent; with a murabaha scheme, a price is agreed at the outset which is more than the market value. This profit is deemed to be a reward for the risk that is assumed by the bank. ..."
"... There are firm laws governing the types of businesses with which the banks can trade. There should be absolutely no investment in unsuitable businesses, including those involved with armaments, pork, tobacco, drugs, alcohol or pornography. ..."
We are witnessing the demise of the world's
two largest economic power blocks, the US and EU. Given deteriorating economic
conditions on both sides of the Atlantic, which have been playing out for many
years but were so far largely kept hidden from view by unprecedented issuance
of debt, the demise should come as no surprise.
The debt levels are not just unprecedented, they would until recently have
been unimaginable. When the conditions for today's debt orgasm were first
created in the second half of the 20th century, people had yet to wrap their
minds around the opportunities and possibilities that were coming on offer.
Once they did, they ran with it like so many lemmings.
The reason why economies are now faltering invites an interesting
discussion. Energy availability certainly plays a role, or rather the energy
cost of energy, but we might want to reserve a relatively larger role for the
idea, and the subsequent practice, of trying to run entire societies on debt
(instead of labor and resources).
It almost looks as if the cost of energy, or of anything at all really,
doesn't play a role anymore, if and when you can borrow basically any sum of
money at ultra low rates. Sometimes you wonder why people didn't think of that
before; how rich could former generations have been, or at least felt?
The reason why is that there was no need for it; things were already getting
better all the time, albeit for a briefer period of time than most assume, and
there was less 'want'. Not that people wouldn't have wanted as much as we do
today, they just didn't know yet what it was they should want. The things to
want were as unimaginable as the debt that could have bought them.
It's when things ceased getting better that ideas started being floated to
create the illusion that they still were, and until recently very few people
were not fooled by this. While this will seem incredible in hindsight, it still
is not that hard to explain. Because when things happen over a period of
decades, step by step, you walk headfirst into the boiling frog analogy: slowly
but surely.
At first, women needed to start working to pay the bills, health care and
education costs started rising, taxes began to rise. But everyone was too busy
enjoying the nice slowly warming water to notice. A shiny car -or two, three-,
a home in the burbs with a white picket fence, the American -and German and
British etc.- Dream seemed to continue.
Nobody bothered to think about the price to pay, because it was far enough
away: the frog could pay in installments. In the beginning only for housing,
later also for cars, credit card debt and then just about anything.
Nobody bothered to look at external costs either. Damage to one's own living
environment through a huge increase in the number of roads and cars and the
demise of town- and city cores, of mom and pop stores, of forest land and
meadows, basically anything green, it was all perceived as inevitable and
somehow 'natural' (yes, that is ironic).
Damage to the world beyond one's own town, for instance through the
exploitation of domestic natural resources and the wars fought abroad for
access to other nations' resources, only a very precious few ever cared to
ponder these things, certainly after the Vietnam war was no longer broadcast
and government control of -or cooperation with- the media grew exponentially.
Looking at today's world in a sufficiently superficial fashion -the way most
people look at it-, one might be forgiven for thinking that debt, made cheap
enough, tapers over all other factors, economic and otherwise, including
thermodynamics and physics in general. Except it doesn't, it only looks that
way, and for a limited time at that. In the end, thermodynamics always beats
'financial innovation'. In the end, thermodynamics sets the limits, even those
of economics.
That leads us into another discussion. If not for the constraints, whether
they emanate from energy and/or finance, would growth have been able to
continue at prior levels? Both the energy and the finance/political camps
mostly seem to think so.
The energy crowd -peak oilers- appear to assume that if energy would have
been more readily available, economic growth could have continued pretty much
unabated. Or they at least seem to assume that it's the limits of energy that
are responsible for the limits to economic growth.
The finance crowd mostly seems to think that if we would have followed
different economic models, growth would have been for the taking. They tend to
blame the Fed, or politics, loose regulation, the banking system.
Are either of them right? If they are, that would mean growth can continue
de facto indefinitely if only we were smart enough to either make the right
economic and political decisions, or to find or invent new sources of energy.
But what kind of growth do both 'fields' envision? Growth to what end, and
growth into what? 4 years ago, I wrote
What Do We Want To Grow Into?
I have still never seen anyone else ask that
question, before or since, let alone answer it.
We want growth by default, we want growth for growth's sake, without caring
much where it will lead us. Maybe we think unconsciously that as long as we can
secure growth, we can figure out what to do with it later.
But it doesn't work that way: growth changes the entire playing field on a
constant basis, and we can't keep up with the changes it brings, we're always
behind because we don't care to answer that question: what do we want to grow
into. Growth leads us, we don't lead it. Next question then: if growth stops,
what will lead us?
Because we don't know where we want growth to lead us, we can't define it.
The growth we chase is therefore per definition blind. Which of necessity means
that growth is about quantity, not quality. And that in turn means that the
-presupposed- link between growth and progress falls apart: we can't know if
-the next batch of- growth will make us better off, or make our lives easier,
more fulfilling. It could do the exact opposite.
And that's not the only consequence of our blind growth chase. We have
become so obsessed with growth that we have turned to creative accounting, in
myriad ways, to produce the illusion of growth where there is none. We have
trained ourselves and each other to such an extent to desire growth that we're
all, individually and collectively, scared to death of the moment when there
might not be any. Blind fear brought on by a blind desire.
As we've also seen, we've been plunging ourselves into ever higher debt
levels to create the illusion of growth. Now, money (debt) is created not by
governments, as many people still think, but by -private- banks. Banks
therefore need people to borrow. What people borrow most money for is housing.
When they sign up for a mortgage, the bank creates a large amount of money out
of nothing.
So if the bank gets itself into trouble, for instance because they lose
money speculating, or because people can't pay their mortgages anymore that
they never could afford in the first place, the only way out for that bank,
other than bailouts, is to sign more people up for mortgages -or car loans-,
preferably bigger ones all the time.
What we have invented to keep big banks afloat for a while longer is ultra
low interest rates, NIRP, ZIRP etc. They create the illusion of not only
growth, but also of wealth. They make people think a home they couldn't have
dreamt of buying not long ago now fits in their 'budget'. That is how we get
them to sign up for ever bigger mortgages. And those in turn keep our banks
from falling over.
Record low interest rates have become the only way that private banks can
create new money, and stay alive (because at higher rates hardly anybody can
afford a mortgage). It's of course not just the banks that are kept alive, it's
the entire economy. Without the ZIRP rates, the mortgages they lure people
into, and the housing bubbles this creates, the amount of money circulating in
our economies would shrink so much and so fast the whole shebang would fall to
bits.
That's right: the survival of our economies today depends one on one on the
existence of housing bubbles. No bubble means no money creation means no
functioning economy.
What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels
(drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage
economic activity, aim for more and better jobs. But we're doing the exact
opposite: austerity measures are geared towards lowering public debt, while
they cut the consumer spending power that makes up 60-70% of our economies.
Meanwhile, housing bubbles raise private debt through the -grossly overpriced-
roof.
This is today's general economic dynamic. It's exclusively controlled by the
price of debt. However, as low interest rates make the price of debt look very
low, the real price (there always is one, it's just like thermodynamics) is
paid beyond interest rates, beyond the financial markets even, it's paid on
Main Street, in the real economy. Where the quality of jobs, if not the
quantity, has fallen dramatically, and people can only survive by descending
ever deeper into ever more debt.
Do we need growth? Is that even a question we can answer if we don't know
what we would need or use it for? Is there perhaps a point, both from an energy
and from a financial point of view, where growth simply levels off no matter
what we do, in the same way that our physical bodies stop growing at 6 feet or
so? And that after that the demand for economic growth must necessarily lead to
The Only Thing That Grows Is Debt
?
It's perhaps ironic that the US doesn't appear to be either first or most at
risk this time around. There are plenty other housing markets today with what
at least look to be much bigger bubbles, from London to China and from Sydney
to Stockholm.
Auckland's bubble
already looks to be popping. The potential consequences
of such -inevitable- developments are difficult to overestimate. Because, as I
said, the various banking systems and indeed entire economies depend on these
bubbles.
The aftermath will be chaotic and it's little use to try and predict it too
finely, but it'll be 'interesting' to see what happens to the banks in all
these countries where bubbles have been engineered, once prices start dropping.
It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles. It's also
not healthy to depend on private banks for the creation of a society's money.
It's unhealthy, unnecessary and unethical. We're about to see why.
This is one of the most succinct analyses of what we are doing and what we
are in for. It answers my question about why each new subdivision where I live
has bigger and bigger houses built on it. I think it is preposterous that a
family of two or maybe four roams around in a three-story house with three
bathrooms and four bedrooms in a highly priced home.
Growth is really destruction when you think about it: destruction of the
trees cut down to build homes; destruction of the earth beneath the house that
can no longer grow crops; destruction of bird's nests (by the thousands) when
the trees are cut down; destruction of the water polluted by runoff;
destruction and erosion from other plant removal, etc. And my example is just
the building of one house–multiply that by many hundreds of thousands and the
destruction becomes world wide. This is mind-boggling!
New builds keep on getting bigger here too it gives people the idea that
resources and energy are plentiful. Many don't seem to realize that this
growth is based on short-termism and externalities.
It's ironic that houses are getting ever bigger when environmental and
infrastructural problems are ballooning.
On a similar vein, a heavily wooded lot near my home was clearcut about a
year ago and an office building was constructed. It sits vacant to this day.
I have no idea what the speculative motivation for constructing the building
was, but the entire character of the area was irrevocably changed for the
worst. Where once a beautiful natural environment soothed the soul and
offered habitat for numerous creatures, an unsightly building now stands-
unused. Concrete, asphalt, and minimal landscaping. It is really a hole in
the world. An unused hole.
The building is currently maintained though unoccupied, no doubt the
investors still hoping to unload the property. With a downturn in the
economy, the building is headed for abandonment. The only bright spot is
that the forest will eventually reclaim the land- in only a few hundred
years.
Top article! Banks rent-seeking like there's no tomorrow have ensured for
many borrowers there will be no tomorrow. But the banks will be OK: they'll be
bailed out for their excesses. As Michael Hudson says, the FIRE sector
(finance, insurance and real estate) is running rampant at enormous cost to the
real economy.
Extending this line of thought, the article (and your link) makes it very
clear why economic growth, especially growth with no goal is unsustainable
and damaging.
The same is true for population. Overpopulation leads to increased
exploitation, increased ecological destruction, a decreasing standard of
living and increased suffering for billions.
Population growth for the sake of growth leads to the same unmanageable
and unjust state of affairs that we see in unsustainable economic growth.
Overpopulation is also a driver for that economic instability as
resources and energy to keep that keep real-econ growth going become thinner
and thinner and more capital is funneled into speculative bubbles, less real
resource dependent.
Population growth can either be managed, stabilized and slowly reduced,
just as unfocused and exploitative economic growth should be, or we have 2
other choices.
The entire world population lives at the same standard in terms of energy
and caloric intake as rural Nigeria or we continue to blow a giant
population bubble that
will
pop with truly disastrous effects that
we may never come back from.
Indeed a great post. The focus on thermodynamics is why.
When we look at biological systems, "growth" is balanced by
"consumption"; or more technically, photosynthesis is balanced by
respiration. Hence even though the biosphere is very active, it consumes as
much as it creates, so it is in steady state. So the grass grows every year,
then is eaten every year, and life goes on at a placid rate. Can humans
learn to live like this?
This society encourages the opposite behavior – accumulate, accumulate,
accumulate. One small house? Get a bigger house. Get a vacation home. Get
two vacation homes. Put two cars and a truck in each home. Buy a boat and an
airplane. Put expensive electronics in every home. Buy food imported from
all over the world. Fly all over the world for expensive vacations. That's
the dream. Of course everyone can't live like this so there has to be a
large servant class to take care of the elite class. But they are encouraged
to consume as much as possible, too. One house, maybe, but lots of
electronics. Garages stuffed with exercise machines and stuff they bought on
sale but never use. Closests full of clothes they never wear, huge racks of
shoes. And huge credit bills to pay for all the stuff. Let alone all the
addictive substances to blow money on, from alcohol to opiates to tobacco,
more money down the rat hole.
I don't get it. I'd rather have a tiny cottage on a huge lot with a
garden and a hedgerow than a huge house covering the whole lot. I could grow
a lot of my own food, I'd have space outside, I'd never buy any processed
food, I'd rarely eat out, I could invest in solar panels and cut down on
energy use and be perfectly happy. And if everyone did this, they'd call it
an economic recession because nobody would be buying all the cheap plastic
crap imported from China.
What kind of screwed-up system have we invented? A system that
deliberately produces greed, envy, anxiety, depression, misery, so go buy
more useless shit to make yourself feel better, that's the essence of this
society. It's everywhere, you can't get away from it – everyday interactions
with people consumed by this mentality, it's like living with a pack of
crazed idiot monkeys high on consumerism. Alienation is a sign of sanity.
There is no reason to believe that thermodynamics applies to anything
but thermodynamics. Why not apply the "law of gravity" to economics?
It's just another attempt to apply "science" or sciency sounding words
and "laws" to stuff that science has never been able to model, let alone
predict in any reliable way. Which, seems very un-sciency.
Economics is an ecological system by extension. Living organisms
(us) are using energy resources from the environment (our food is oil)
to generate a "civilizational free energy" that allows us to do things
and increase our population.
This is exactly the kind of system that is bound by laws of
thermodynamics (maximum efficiency, inevitable loss, etc).
We create mighty illusions that humans are somehow divorced from
the laws of physics. We print trillions and call ourselves rich.
Self deception only lasts for so long. People will realize that the
perpetual motion machine they have been sold (the economic model of
eternal growth as the basis for our entire civilization) only in a
time of it's-to-late-now-mega-crisis.
My parents were both classical musicians. I am so lucky! In our home
there was never money for the latest gizmo, but always enough to pay for
piano lessons. My mother cut everybody's hair, but opened bank accounts
in my sister's and my names when we were born - our "college accounts."
We had very nice home-cooked meals, but never ate out. I remain
profoundly grateful to my parents for the example they gave us: that
neither money nor material goods could constitute a worthy aim in life.
Debt and printing has permitted us to keep on getting the resources and
energy to keep the game going.
Over the last 5 decades, the number of people enjoying developed world
creature comforts has gone from maybe 500 million to maybe 2 billion. But those
not enjoying this have gone from 3 billion to 5 billion.
There is a limit to this materialism and this fact has been creeping up on
us in developed countries. Most think it's only the 1% not sharing when instead
we are probably facing a global redistribution of resources. IMO, most in
developed countries are confusing past wealth and future wealth infra and a
structure of society that needs mega energy and resources might just be wealth
destroying.
Ten years ago I wondered how people could afford the big homes, cars and all
of the consumer products they were buying. 45 years ago I bought a home. I
thought I got a deal at 7 3/4% interest. At that time a car loan was a good
deal at 10% or less. Knowing this I wondered how people could be buying so much
stuff when real wages were not any better than when I joined the work force in
1963. Then it hit me like a brick thrown into my face. It was because of so
called cheap money. This leads people to borrow more than they really should
because as long as they could make the payment everything would be fine. That
is as long as they don't experience a crises like becoming unemployed , their
job disappearing ,or having to take a job at a lower wage. Also they may become
sick or disabled and not able to work. Neoliberal economics created the false
economy. Then came the great recession that is still effecting the majority of
the population. It happened gradually so most people dind't see it coming. Not
mentioned that I believe is important is the creation of the student debt
bubble. These college graduates, who were prime candidates to buy homes and
consumer goods, found out they had no extra money after they paid their student
debt. In fact many were forced to live with their parents. This removed an
entire generation from the housing market and excess consumption. Until we have
a drastic overhaul of how the economy functions things will only get worse for
the majority of people. A major crises is in the making when present day
working people reach retirement age. Since the vast majority of them lack
enough resources they will retire in poverty or be forced to work until the
die. The future looks very grim for the majority of todays working population.
The old could always just file bankruptcy, and zero out all that
unplayable student-loan and consumer-credit and mortgage debt oh wait, I
forget a fresh star is only for corporate persons
Or we olds could do what heedless youngs and the neolibs advise: Just
Die!
There was a TV commercial several years ago with a crisply dressed,
smiling man mowing the immaculate lawn of his McMansion, with a new SUV in
the driveway, seemingly living the American Dream.
The narration asked 'How do they do it?' with the answer being 'They're
up to their eyeballs in debt'. As someone brought up to be extremely debt
averse, that commercial really hit home.
I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd see
others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better and I
never could figure out how they managed. Fast forward several years and my
wife is out for a 'ladies night' with 3-4 other moms who all have larger
homes, more cars, and go on more expensive vacations than we do. They
started talking about pooling some money to start an investment club. As
they got to talking about their financial situations, ALL of them except us
had declared bankruptcy in recent years to get out from under their debt
burdens.
This seems to be the dirty little secret of life in the US – if you're
not in the 1%, the only way to 'keep up with the Joneses' is to take on
unsustainable debt.
What does "living much better" actually mean, I wonder?
Rich folks apparently display very pointedly a flaw in human wiring:
an infinite capacity to absorb self-pleasing "getting and spending."
Hardly a new observation, cf. Wordsworth, 1888:
http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww317.html
"We" have no idea of "enough," not a clue about eating to a reasonably
hunger and stopping with the satisfaction of a reasonable thirst. And of
course zero agreement on what is "reasonable:" how dare "we" deny the
agile and corrupt, or the desperate and oppressed, their shot at yuuuuge
consumption and destruction?
I'm not likely to live to see it, but it sure seems like there's a big
die-off coming - and once again, the Few who promote and profit from it,
who serve up the cultural corpse that "we" have been trained to recognize
as "good," with a heaping helping of Bernays sauce ™
So some of ":us" recognize the problem. Next question is, what is ?(or
is there) a solution?
That wasn't the best choice of words on my part – living more
expensively would have been better.
But you're right and it does get to the heart of the problem – how
much is enough? Running an economy based on financialization is not
going to end well.
And about the die-off, it's already here. It just hasn't affected
humans yet so we pretend not to notice. Everything will be OK though –
until suddenly it isn't.
Thank You for the Wordsworth! This one is often running in my mind:
The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The 'rich folks' I know are remarkable for their lack of spending.
It's not that they make more money than others, though some do. It's
that they consume less and invest their savings. Nobody wants to hear
that.
'The Millionaire Next Door' was a popular book with an unpopular
message: as far as becoming wealthy goes, playing defense is more
important than playing offense. A frugal wife is very helpful.
Planning is important. Some of the millionaires in the book never
earned more than $75,000 a year.
Nobody wants to hear those messages of self sacrifice. Too bad.
They work.
A more equitable society isn't just a Lefty's wet dream or a
thinly veiled disguise for the politics of envy.
Constantly striving to aspire to it, which can only be achieved
by 'good' government incidentally rather than relying on the
largely pointless symbolic acts of often well meaning individuals,
actually makes sound economic sense as well as social.
I've always believed that the sole justification for current
warped status quo, for those who make their money largely in their
sleep, is that maybe they like to see themselves as closet
environmentalists, albeit self-serving eco-warriors, whose very
actions effectively amount to the suppression of consumption
through controlled impoverishment by debt.
I believe we should all be more frugal when it comes to goods
and services that are resource and energy intensive.
However, those millionaires next door getting rich on 70k
incomes needed the market returns to get them their million or 2.
So their wealth depended on the masses' overconsumption.
Yes indeed, I agree, and the power that accruing wealth
allows them to exercise ever more control of course. The
environmental 'upside' is clearly an unintended, if arguably
positive, consequence.
Thanks to the close to tested to destruction debt based money
system the 'masses' are merely one component of demand. Their
sheer numbers ensure a ready supply of consumers, thus rendering
them expendable to those best placed to exploit them.
They are sustained increasingly at subsistence levels
because, as you rightly say, they are vital to sustaining the
wealth advantage of those who need them, but in their eyes, to
coin a phrase, 'there's one born every minute.'
Moneta: I certainly agree that the Millonaire Next Door who
got their on $70K or less probably needed the stock market to
get there. However, I think the more typical MND got there by
being thrifty while building a business, often a not very sexy
business having to do with some obscure service that one would
never think of when describing a millionaire.
We all need each other in some way. What many of the utopians
writing on this page miss–I don't consider you among them, I
might add–is how many services and goods would stop being
produced, and how many jobs would disappear, if income and
property were suddenly taxed at the levels they prefer.
I tried to make do with what my paycheck would allow and yet I'd
see others who I knew made about the same salary as me living much better
and I never could figure out how they managed.
Sounds like you still have dry powder! I think you should put on your
Altruism Hat and start buying down your neighbors debts!
Maybe park your beater on the driveway so there room to fix their fking
jetskiis in your garage while you store them??
Housing is really raging again. Who thought it was possible to have a second
bubble in a decade? We're looking at a 6% rise in the last six months around
here!
We've got a huge cohort hitting retirement years. According to the
pension structure that was determined decades ago, this retirement needs to
be financed with either markets and/or real estate.
Since something like 75% of our leaders are part of that cohort which
needs high valuations, can we expect anything different?
Huh? Not sure how you got to " exploit the planet" from my
comment, but it mostly seems that when using the word "capital",
the distinction between the nominal and the real always seems
blurred, whether willingly or unwittingly.
Interesting that you would use a phrase like " taking from the
workers' pay" and use the word "retirees" as opposed to retired
workers, while never considering a LVT and a TFRT taxes have never
been voluntary, and tax-cuts ARE debt write-downs, implying that an
ISSUER of a currency CAN write-down a USERS "private" debt much
more readily than a USER-as-creditor will
Let's say the retiree needs to buy groceries and then you tax
the land value of the rich retiree to pay for the poor retiree's
grocery bill the rich retiree is still not working. It's the
worker who still gets to produce the food and the retiree who
gets to eat it. Great the worker gets to work for the benefit
of others.
At the end of the day, the real world trumps the money world.
It's the workers who produce the goods and services no matter
how many dollars you print. So if you print and tax in a way
where the workers stop working or become less productive, you
are in trouble.
It's like the Spaniards thinking that coming back with
shiploads of gold from the new world will make them rich
while their economy has not changed. Just huge inflation or
loss of purchasing power.
Just as a reminder, the constraints on a USER of a
currency are not the same constraints on an ISSUER and in
this context, taxes do NOT fund spending. However taxes
can AND do modify behavior.
>" Great the worker gets to work for the benefit of
others."
This is a wedge and phatic half-statement "we" "all
work for the benefit of others", so why shouldn't "we"
also benefit from the work of others via a living wage? In
the context of social security, why should age,
disability, sickness, unemployment etc. translate into a
death sentence?
In the context of inequality, a TFRT (Too F*cking Rich
Tax) would not be needed to "fund" anything but could
mitigate the effects of the contempt that the "haves" have
with the "have-nots".
I think that plenty of that boomer cohort, those
that haven't saved enough for their retirements, would
be happy to have and willing to work at living wage
jobs and forgo retirement.
That
problem, lack of living wage jobs,
cuts across age demographics.
I guess if you believe the economy is a perpetual
motion machine and that all we need is redistribution,
your argument makes sense.
But what I see is a planet with physical limits and
those retiring in the developed world clinging to a high
energy/resource way of life.
IMO, the vast majority of those about to retire have
already consumed more than their fair share of the world's
resources and want the young's help to keep it going in
retirement.
I believe our humanity requires us to help the elderly
but the question for me is how do we distributes those
joules? Everyone focuses on dollars when the treasure is
the joules
My house has appreciated 23.5% in price since I bought it three years
ago. I was talking with my neighbors about this just last week. We are
concerned because what appears to be happening in our sub is that houses are
being bought by investment companies and then being put up for rent (there
are real estate agents knocking on doors weekly in my sub asking to list our
houses). When someone in our area puts up a house for sale, it is rarely on
the market for more than a couple of weeks. What scares us even more is that
these investment companies are renting them out for extremely low prices –
far lower than what someone would pay for a mortgage, even with a 20% +
down. It just doesn't make sense
Out here where I live, homes have appreciated in value ~20% per year
for many years now.
I'm in the process of house hunting now in an area south of Seattle.
Crappy starter track homes with zero character or view run for $450-500k,
and the national home builders are throwing these places up as fast as
they can. There are vast subdivisions of these places under construction
now, and many of the empty lots already have "sold" signs out front.
Better construction that looks like it will still be in good shape in
10-15 years will run in the $650-700k range, minimum.
Also, when I drive around and see the people buying these places are
they do not strike me as the kinds of people who can afford a
half-million dollar starter home – beater pickups parked in the
driveways, obese people smoking cigarettes on the porches, etc. They've
got to be just on the edge of what they can afford. I predict eventually
this is going to end very badly
The monetary system depends on it; the monetary system requires growth to
pay off the interest.
The banks create money through loans but they only create the principal and
not the money to pay the interest. There is never enough money in existence to
pay off all the debt plus all the interest.
Government issued money that is not based on debt can be used in a static
system, but people who propose this tend to get assassinated, e.g. Lincoln and
Kennedy.
Why did debt explode?
Debt = money
When the world came off the gold standard in 1971, there were no hard
anchors on the monetary system and debt and money creation were now unlimited.
One nation couldn't go crazy on its own as their currency would depreciate
against everyone elses, the West when crazy together.
Housing booms create lots of money from new debt, which feeds back into the
economy and gives rise to a more general boom throughout the economy.
House prices peak and the capital gain possibilities disappear, the
speculators run and the housing boom turns to bust, usually caused by rising
interest rates.
The repayments start to overtake the new debt and now the opposite effect
takes hold, the money supply contracts into debt deflation, money is sucked out
of the general economy and a very dangerous doom loop can easily form.
What is the problem with the explosion of debt?
It is all money borrowed from an impoverished future.
Hardly any of the lending has been productive lending into business and
industry that generates the money to pay off the debt.
It has nearly all been lending intro financial speculation of all kinds,
including housing.
Why are Western economies stagnating?
All the wealth has concentrated at the top subduing demand.
We used neoclassical economics in the 1920s and maintained consumption with
debt and allowed debt fuelled speculation in the US stock market. The stock
market crashed and the debt deflation of the 1930s Great Depression followed.
The impoverished future, set up by the preceding debt binge.
Keynes realized redistribution was needed to make capitalism sustainable,
progressive taxation funding subsidized housing, education and services.
Income was just as important as profit, income looked after the demand side
and profit the supply side.
We went back to neoclassical economics to find it still has all the old
problems.
What we humans perceive as wealth is not wealth in Mother Nature's eyes.
Rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée. It's a transformation of matter pure and
simple.
This means that most of the wealth we create depreciates and needs to be
maintained or replaced for wealth to keep its value over the long term. So
most of it is a reflection of past wealth not future wealth.
Over the last 5 decades, our profitability and productivity has depended
on exploiting the investments we made in the decades before. Many of those
assets are reaching their end of life and will need to be replaced.
However our system is mainly set up for growth and exploitation of
existing assets/minimal maintenance not for replacing assets.
And the US with the reserve currency has forced everyone to play the same
game.
I don't see how we can avoid a shock when all at the same time, we all
start rebuilding the assets reaching their end of life
We have probably gone back to raw capitalism at the worse possible
time, some of those resource limits are already over the horizon and
coming towards us.
The neo-liberal, new world order is disintegrating and it has left
many problems behind to keep our minds off what should be the most
pressing issues.
The main pre-occupation of our elites is getting one over on everyone
else, not a good place to be.
When they start squabbling among themselves, this is when wars start,
and with the existing order falling apart there is going to be some
squabbling, they hate to lose anything.
Not exactly. The problem is you are officially bankrupt when no one will
lend you the money to pay off the compounding interest. The secret is to
perpetually roll over the principal. This can go on a surprisingly long time
– which explains why we have boiling frog syndrome.
That happens to be almost were we are. Now economists like to believe if
you are a government, you can eternally run a 3% deficit. But the math still
says someday the interest payment will balloon beyond this. Another popular
fix is "inflate the debt away". But this means you need to be able to borrow
forever at interest rates below the general inflation level. Some countries
have been borrowing at negative interest rates very recently, but that is an
anomaly in the history of the world.
None of these things work for consumer borrowers, so they are the weak
point, and need
real
income growth to get ahead of the
game.
The only thing that fixes this scenario is real growth. So we got our
self addicted to growth, at both personal and state and federal guv level,
and withdrawal may be fatal. Generally, corporate and bank leverage is also
too high to withstand any shocks to the economy.
South America being a good example, they kept rolling over the debt
until it eventually got out of control.
The neo-liberal ideology assumes the trading world will naturally come
to a stable equilibrium and the mainstream complain about Trump's
protectionism.
Like you say you can't run a deficit forever and the fault lines in
the global economy are just widening not converging.
The Greek's liked German products until they reached max. debt and
collapsed.
Debt based consumption is only ever a short term solution, it maxes.
out.
Several million words ago, commenter Guy Fawkes Lives wrote a
comment about how those relatively few people who "own" their
houses and yards after finishing paying off the mortgage may, in
some cases, be able to force the "proof" of ownership down out of
the digital Cloud ( MERS) and back to analog Earth ( a legally
unassailable Deed or whatever that thing is called) in a County
Courthouse Registry of Deeds.
But that was several million words ago. Who has the time to go
back and find it now?
If it is actually realistically possible for some house-and-yard
owners to really do this the way I think I remember Guy Fawkes
Lives writing about it in a comment, it would be nice if someone
could re-write about it in a way totally understandable to the
intelligent layman. If it were written well enough to be a Post,
perhaps our Blogmasters might even decide to hoist it up out of
Comments and make it a Post of its Own.
Perhaps it could even be the first Post to begin a new category
which could be called Airgapping. As in persons or even communities
airgapping themselves against one or another part of the Greater
System.
This is not "setting an assignment". This is "voicing a wishful
dream." Perhaps if enough "Airgapping" posts showed up over time,
from devoted Commenters doing their best to write Postworthy
comments, the accumulating buildup of "Airgap" -categorizable posts
might grow big enough to earn itself an Airgap category just as so
many Permaculture Posts were posted that it was decided that they
had earned the right to the category-title Permaculture.
The banks are doing a nice dance called the "Deed of
Satisfaction." That way, they get to robosign that you're done
paying them. But wait-- don't they still retain the promissory
note? Why arent you getting that back when you finish paying?
Because the thieves continue to rehypothecate it into eternity.
Ask for the promissory note back. It will be a battle you lose.
I won't ever be playing this debt game again. No loans. No
taxes. Nothing to fuel their fake economy. I'm done. It's all a
big circle jerk.
"Jubilee" means "party", I think, so that's not a very
descriptive plan in my mind. I think about what it may mean in
terms of specific actions, then decide I don't wanna think about it
anymore. Depending on scope, it can lead to international wars,
civil wars, assassin wars, or collapse of all our institutions that
make things sorta an intelligent civilization instead of having 7
billion lone wolves roaming the planet and surviving however they
can manage.
But without making too big a deal of things, they really blew it
when they decided to go with what we hear described as "Socialism
for the Rich and capitalism for the poor". That's just a nice way
of saying the government aligned the legal system and other
government powers with banks, capitalism, and the rich to protect
their paper wealth and become an all powerful predator class
aligned against, say, the 90%.
Allowing the bankruptcy system to function as it should –
eliminating bad debt and making holders of bad debt take losses,
would have purged the worst cases in the system. If additional
safety net programs are required, or maybe you find out you have a
surplus of empty houses, then devise equitable solutions once you
understand what's needed.
Then some obviously grossly unfair things like student loans at
8% during 10 years of a ZIRP economy – restructure these w/ new
terms, or if that's not legally possible, re-fi at what mortgages
go for – 3.5%. That would cut payments nearly in half.
Then the Fed goes and blows the next bubble economy by blowing
assets bubbles in order to fix up everyone's net worth. Except,
IIRC, the 3% own 90% of the assets. So home prices never stay
affordable relative to incomes, and we are back to the game of
taking out home equity loans to finance your cost of living.
So that's as much thought as I care to give it, then I get tired
and give up.
Jubilee in the biblical sense only means a reversion of
contracts to null and void, money and asset evaluations had
nothing to do with it because they had no stock exchanges, nor
the effects such concentration of trading creates.
BTW the Fed does not blow bubbles, that distinction is the
result of industry leverage applied to the political system, by
all and sundry, too include the decades of funding wonky
economics to facilitate some quasi religious ideological agenda.
disheveled . how many years have you been reading this blog –
?????
As long as it's been around, and yes, the Fed does indeed
blow bubbles.
I've been reading financial news, working in biz,
investing, and watching the Fed since the 70s, and a few NC
bloggers and commenters don't have a monopoly on the Truth in
these areas. Often, very much not.
Fiddling around with IR does not have distributional
vectors, nor does the Fed dictate what ADI's do.
Industries and their lobbyists [see Hudson] have a much
more distributional effect on asset prices [see Gates
frictionless capitalism and the Dot.com bubble].
disheveled . Wall St. is the distribution mechanism
imo
See "Search for yield" when the Fed floods the
system with liquidity and drives the Fed Funds Rate to
zero. Then also claims they are not a "regulator" in
the financial system.
"Not exactly. The problem is you are officially bankrupt when no one
will lend you the money to pay off the compounding interest. The secret
is to perpetually roll over the principal. "
Or (instead of denying a new loan):
The new and higher interest rate to lend you money to roll over your
debt is beyond your ability to pay.
What is this "The Economy" that has been foisted on us? We treat it as this
nebulous, yet fearsome god that must be appeased. Was there an Economy before
'71? 1933? 1913? What is a "functioning economy"?
To re-purpose Arthur Silbers' "The Tale That Might Be Told"
(powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/02/tale-that-might-be-told.html): What
would happen to ordinary folk if we began to avoid the multi-nationals as best
we could and increased our cash spending on Main St? Would we still be at the
mercy of The Economy? How long? Is there a tipping point? How do we get the
word out?
How do we demand local, public banking? Not to mention local public
health-care and indigent relief, retirement security, and better funded local
education.
Please do. All of you, please do what the human tells you to do. The rest
of us, who know what happens to prices when the demand curve sinks, promise
to cooperate. At first. We promise not to go shopping! Not, at least, until
your virtuous self-denial has had its predictable effect on the prices at
the Big Box stores, as manifested during this year's inventory clearance
sale.
If just enough grouploads of people do this in a purposeful way, they
might build little Lifeboat Fortresses of Conviviality Economics. Here is a
groupload of people doing and researching some of that in their own little
area of expertise.
Your suggestion is just as good a theory as anyone else's. Actions based
upon it would be Theory-Action. If enough people joined together to do this
in the same time and place to be called a Group, then you would have a
Theory Action Group . . . a TAG, if you will.
Someone else who has spent years working out a Theory-Action theory of
this approach is named Catherine Austin Fitts. It has been years since I
thought about Catherine Austin Fitts. She calls her concept "Solari". Some
of it that I read begins to feel ever so slightly cultish, and she keeps
referrencing God over and over. But could the concepts be cooled off to a
less-than-cultish temperature? Could it be merely secular and not
God-invoking? I don't know. Perhaps it is worth study.
https://solari.com/blog/
And there is Richard Heinberg with his Power Down, and there is the
Transition Town movement, and other such groups.
Terrific post- you've articulated the current scenario as I see it quite
well. I've been saying this verbally for about five years, that the global
dominance of capitalism depends upon constant expansion, which we cannot
continue with the parameters we have established. I've been deriding capitalism
since the mid nineties for the inherent exploitation on which it depends. So
you're not alone in this view, you've simply taken the lead in writing it all
out.
"Growth to what end, and growth into what? 4 years ago, I wrote What Do We
Want To Grow Into? I have still never seen anyone else ask that question,
before or since, let alone answer it."
I'm comfortable with less, a lot less, and a much more ethically based,
spiritual existence. My community, as in the people who share and live my
values who I commune with, has shrunk commensurate with my ambitions. My
relationships feel more genuine, though, and my quality of life and
mental/emotional/spiritual well being has improved considerably.
Thank you for offering solutions. I fear the likelihood of our collective
ability to restructure our economies around production is slim, at best. We'd
have to get the banksters to release their strangle hold on the rest of us, and
we'd have to get all the bubble participants to wake up and completely re
arrange their lives incorporating sustainable models. Convert all those trophy
homes into cooperative living arrangements, reduce our environmental footprint
to a limited amount per person, etc. It's such a radically different model than
what we have here in the US, I'm tempted to look for it elsewhere and emigrate.
As if that were an easy option.
"It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles."
–Great line. Sadly, a great line and image for us to savor as we collectively
implode.
"And that's not the only consequence of our blind growth chase. We have
become so obsessed with growth that we have turned to creative accounting, in
myriad ways, to produce the illusion of growth where there is none. We have
trained ourselves and each other to such an extent to desire growth that we're
all, individually and collectively, scared to death of the moment when there
might not be any. Blind fear brought on by a blind desire."
Wasn't that the story of Enron? Does everyone think it will be "different
this time", for them?
Indeed.
And as for housing, do people really think the issue about public records of
deeds and all the disasters of robo signing were resolved after 08?
It must be nice living in American Dream sugar plum fairy optimism alt
reality.
Not sure I understand the implications of your "solution", a debt jubilee.
Whose debt, specifically, will be relieved? Owners of debt on multimillion
dollar properties and Range Rovers or students?
What we should do in the short term is lower private debt levels
(drastically, jubilee style), and temporarily raise public debt to encourage
economic activity, aim for more and better jobs.
The developed world wants a debt jubilee so it can keep on consuming at
the expense of the 5 billion in the developing world . "but it's no fair, we
were promised the American dream!"
The funny thing about debt is that if Goldman Sachs loses a trillion
dollars, the government lickety split creates a trillion dollars at 0 interest
for them (and to add insult to injury, the government pays interest to the
banks for holding money that the government just loaned to the banks for free )
If millions of homeowners lose a trillion dollars, they are tossed into the
streets .Paying your debts is important when your poor, but not at all when
your rich
And inflation as a cure???? Inflation in health care, inflation in
education, inflation in housing ..yet no inflation in wages.
And the worst thing is that the CARNAGE is not spoken of, lest the fact that
the system works for the few and against the many becomes apparent.
If one knows one is going to be unfairly driven out of one's home with
nothing to show for it, might there be slow motion ways to sabotage the
property so that no-one else can reap any underserved-by-definition gains
from it?
Filling the toilet, bathtub, furnace, water heater and all lines and
pipes with cement? Opening small strategically placed holes in the roof so
that water can seep in slowly and slo-mo destructively? removing electrical
socket plates and hiding small pieces of ultra-stenchy-when-rotted food in
the revealed spaces and then carefully replacing the socket plates? Etc.
etc. etc.?
Yeah! Almost seems like 180 million aren't doin' anything except
borrowing boatloads of money and blowing it on German cars, overpriced
houses, and Chinese stuff.
Weird. hahaha. Pass the bong, please. Just picked up an ounce of pot for
$300. For only $200, went to an ophthalmologist who told me I'm going blind
and wrote me a 'script. Feel like I beat the system! At least until the OZ
is gone and gotta get another. haha.
Actually I made that up. I'm not an idiot. craazyman wouldn't even do
that. He goes for sensible shoes, red wine and xanex.
Kurt Saxon the survivalist author once wrote an article about how to
grow your own marijuana cheaply in money and electricity. I haven't been
able to re-find it anywhere.
It most basically involved getting one of those U-Haul type
long-distance-moving garment boxes.
Paint the inside totally white with flat white latex paint. Hang a
fluorescent bulb shop-light from the hanger bar with long small link
hardware chains. Adjust the free-hanging chain length so that the lights
are about 6 inches above the growing plants. As the plants grow taller,
adjust the chains so as to keep the lights always 6 inches above the
growing plants. That's your grow chamber.
And tell nobody. The way he put it was . . . " tell nobody. Don't tell
your future ex-boyfriend. Don't tell your future ex-wife. Tell NOOOOO –
body."
Bravo and amen! Ever since I discovered the true nature of our money supply
twenty some years ago in my college-aged youth the realization has plagued me
and alienated me from the rest of our consumption based, debt crazed,
materialistic society. Just thinking of thirty year mortgage on a unbelievably
inflated house just so I can make some idiot, drop-out house flipper a
multimillionaire, and prop up the lavish lifestyles and elaborate schemes of
Wall Street bankers is enough to make me want to wretch because I know bank
money (Federal Reserve Notes) is fake, but the debt and obligation involved
with taking a mortgage for hundreds of thousands of dollars, for me as a peon,
is extremely real. It's wonderful that places like Naked Capitalism exist, as I
remember a time when Monetary reform and even the mere talk of the workings of
our monetary system was the domain of gold bugs, right-wing, tin foil hatters
and musty old alternative press bookstores. It's amazing though, even post MMT,
post derivative meltdown 2008 financial crisis, post Naked Capitalism/left/wing
financial blogs, 99% of the populace still thinks you're a tin foil hat fool if
you tell them money is created out of thin air when they take a loan from a
bank. The eye-roll and the accompanying condescending response is guaranteed to
increase proportionally with education and income level. The most vitriolic
reactions almost always come from finance guys, but maybe one out of twenty
already know the truth, enlighten you with some interesting insider tidbit and
admit they just want to loot a little more for themselves and then they will
retire to a nice comfortable and simple life far away from the casino.
"Grow into what?" A fantastic question that every elected official and
government economist should be forced to answer for the public record. The next
question every citizen/consumer should ask before their next purchase is does
this new "x" really make me happy and do I need it? Can I be simpler? What are
the impacts of me enjoying this new consumer thing and who really pays the
costs associated with creation, transportation and eventual discarding of this
thing? Is there a better way or a way for me to go without this? Simple
questions that could go a long way towards solving our problems.
The problem is using GDP as a goal. As the old maxim says "What gets
measured gets done". If the goal is stupid the result will be as well.
Consider a simple service economy where everyone is a hair cutter. In order
to get growth you have to cut hair more often. You may start with everyone
getting a hair cut every 2 months, but if you want a growth in GDP you need to
gradually increase the frequency of hair cuts (otherwise you have no growth).
Soon you have everyone getting hair cuts every day. So you have gotten growth,
but where is the "wealth". It only comes from whether or not you see a daily
hair cut as some kind of gain. It definitely is not permanent!
Our current economy is similar especially as we move to a more and more
service based economy. Most new jobs are in restaurants and bars (almost now
equal to manufacturing jobs in total) and old aged homes. Basically looking
after people. This by its nature limits the kind and amount of growth you can
get under the current goals (GDP). I mean once you get to where somebody cooks
your three meals a day how much more upside is there.
The solution is obvious, but hard to get to. A different metric, that is
quality based. Change the goal and behaviour will follow. The problem finding
a goal that is acceptable and that will not happen until we have a crisis.
We haven't had real economic growth since the 1970's. Once the
reconstruction of Europe and Japan in the postwar era finished, the global
manufacturing sector became stymied in a crisis of
overproduction/under-utilization of capacity that only continuously worsens as
profit rates continue their decline. The only growth the first world countries
have had since then has been from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the
80's, US stock market in the 90's, US real estate in the 00's, euro bubbles in
the 00's).
Capitalism cannot provide 3% growth rates ad infinitum. There is a finite
amount of space and resources, and because of the math behind compound
interest, to grow at 3% per year the economy would need to double by 2060 and
double again by 2100 (with the pace only increasing). What drives economic
growth is industrialization and urbanization, and after those processes are
finished, only asset bubbles or external demand can do the trick (this is the
same reason that growth rates during the 17th century were anemic).
These are structural problems that remodeling a few old train stations will
not solve. The Keynesian solution may temporarily boost demand in the short
term, but eventually you run out of infrastructure to repair. (And in the US
nowadays, more than anything else, fiscal stimulus simply subsidize Chinese
manufacturing and pollute the planet). The best case scenario is that we'll be
stuck with low growth indefinitely–unless a war destroys most of civilization
and we get to rebuild again.
This article misses the root of the problems we face. Economic growth does
not require environmental destruction, or increases of private debt. If you
check Michael Hudson's article published earlier this week at NC, you will have
much better understanding of how the economy works:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/michael-hudson-democracy-collaborative.html
The author addresses the symptoms, not the disease.
Growth is demanded by capitalism, which is the root of the problem. Who will
invest capital unless there is a reasonable expectation for a return on the
investment – i.e. growth of capital? Macro-scale capitalism requires
macro-scale growth in the national and/or global real economy. The fake
financial economy, which is just rentier extraction for the leisure class, is
merely an accelerant to inequality that capitalism creates. Macro-scale real
growth requires more physical resources – more people, more energy, more
materials, more land – so population growth and expanding resource exploitation
are necessary requirements for capitalism to flourish. Capitalism was never
going to last. The energy resources were banked over millions of years, but are
being used up in mere hundreds of years – therefore not sustainable.
Overpopulation is causing wars and migrations – we are running out of land to
support an expanding population – therefore not sustainable. CO2 levels in the
ocean are killing off ecosystems, and CO2 in the air is changing the climate –
a finale to the man-made 6th extinction.
Since growth is not sustainable, capitalism is not sustainable. As Naomi
Klein clearly outlined in "This Changes Everything" – capitalism is the root
cause of all the coming crises – economic, climate, migrations, and war. Time
to create a sustainable economic system – and it can't be capitalism.
Fortunately there are an infinite set of choices. Economies are merely sets of
rules governing how goods and wealth are distributed, and how exchanges of
goods are made. How do we fix the economy? Easy – change the rules so they
penalize unsustainable exploitation and so they are not designed to just
benefit the 1% (no more trickle-down economics). How do we solve the debt
crisis? Easy – we forgive the debt – after all it is just money owed to
ourselves. "the debts that can't be repaid won't be repaid. And all you have
to work at is how you're not going to repay them." (Steve Keen partly
paraphrasing Michael Hudson). How do we solve overpopulation? Easy – education
and birth control, create a global economy where the next generation does not
require population growth to survive. How do we solve wars and migrations? Easy
– stop manufacturing the crises through corporate resource exploitation and
theft, and stop funding the military-industrial complex. How do we solve the
climate crisis? Easy – heavily tax fossil fuels and fund clean energy (solar
and wind) – it will cost no more than the bank bailout.
How do we do all this politically? Hard – very hard – because we have a 1%
that is more interested in protecting their unearned wealth, protecting their
profit margins, then in saving the human race from catastrophe. We won't be
able to convince them to change their ways – they believe they are "doing God's
work" (Blankfein) – their indoctrination is too complete. "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it." (Upton Sinclair) That 1% is the most ruthless 1% of the
population – they would kill billions of us to protect their wealth – and they
are currently killing millions. They use that wealth to manipulate us and to
control the political system by buying the politicians. They rely on "the
pounding twin impulses that drive modern America: burning hatred of all losers
and the poor, and breathless, abject worship of the rich, even the talentless
and undeserving rich." (Taibbi) They use a "complex system of public-private
bureaucracies that constitutes our modern politics a giant, brainless machine
for creating social inequity. It mechanically, automatically keeps the poor
poor, devours money from the middle class, and sends it upward. And because
it's fueled by the irrepressibly rising vapor of our darkest hidden values, it
attacks people without money, particularly nonwhite people, with a weirdly
venomous kind of hatred, treating them like they're already guilty of
something, which of course they are – namely, being that which we're all afraid
of becoming." (Matt Taibbi)
So what do we do? We look to the past for what worked – movements and unions
addressed slavery, suffrage, inequality, child labor, jim crow – they created
the progressive long-lasting changes in our social structures. We abandon what
doesn't work – the delegating of the struggle to NGOs and advocates who ask for
our donations and merely call on small groups of us to mobilize and shout on a
warm sunny afternoon. We look at those groups that have the power elite
concerned – BLM, DAPL, Occupy, Whistleblowers, minimum wage movement – and
consider what they could become if only they had the rest of us onboard. We
educate ourselves and each other – and we inoculate ourselves against
manipulation by understanding how propaganda and manipulation works. (study
Bernays, watch "The Brainwashing of my Dad") We do deep organizing into
networks of support groups (Jane McAlevey – "No Shortcuts") and form a
movement. We abandon the major political parties and create new ones (the first
thing to do is re-register to a 3rd party, preferably the Greens, then take
over the party and make it your own. The major parties are too entrenched with
corporate money for this inside strategy to work). And we grab the reins of
power from the 1% – which will likely cost many lives because the 1% are
ruthless – but as with most bullies, they will eventually back down – but our
window of opportunity is short.
Or we do nothing and let the crises continue until the collapse. Do we allow
billions of people to suffer and die in the crises because we were too lazy to
get off our butts? Was Cornel West correct when he said: "The oppressive effect
of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb
to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and
be distracted with stimulating amusements. They have given up any real hope of
shaping the collective destiny of the nation. Sour cynicism, political apathy,
and cultural escapism become the pervasive options." Will we allow the insanity
that Arundhati Roy describes to continue: "While one arm is busy selling off
the nation's assets in chunks, the other, to divert attention, is arranging a
baying, howling, deranged chorus of cultural nationalism. The inexorable
ruthlessness of one process feeds directly into the insanity of the other."
Will we be like the Jews and Armenians and wait too long – "And when they came
for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." (Martin Niemoller) Or like
Chris Hedges, do we believe that some things are worth fighting for: "I do not
fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists."
"Growth is demanded by capitalism, which is the root of the problem. "
Actually, this is another half truth created by the neolib folks back in
the 60s-70s era.
Taking the case of publically held corporations whose common stock traded
on Wall Street, we used to have two basic types of companies to buy stock
in. One was the "growth company" and the other was one which paid out most
free cash flow in the form of regular dividends. Electric utilities and
telecom stocks were examples of this type, some are still around today, but
they are known as being "slow growth". The investor expectation is the stock
price will only grow fast enough to keep up with inflation.
Any kind of company could adopt the high dividend approach to provide a
return to investors. But for many reasons, like growth stock actually
costing companies nothing, and tax deferment by not taking dividends and
getting long term capital gains instead being preferred by most investors,
most companies decided to aspire to being growth(stock) companies.
Where the problem came in was some companies, mostly in emerging growth
fields, really could mange 15% growth or more, investors came to expect
growth like that from most of the market. Then Wall Street figured out if
they could load up upper management with lots of company stock or stock
options, this would "align management's interests with the shareholders". Oh
man, did that work. Good biz sense was no longer an impediment to looting
the company anyway they could think of as long as they could justify it as
short term benefit to the shareholders.
So we got massive mergers, leveraged buyouts financed by junk bonds,
disappearing pension plans, off shoring, mega sizing of factories – they
ship to the whole world now – my bet is eventually from Bangladesh, H1-Bs
and green cards, outsourcing and related consolidation there, and a bunch of
stuff I'm probably forgetting. Oh yeah, a "Cloud" and accounting firms in
India. And here we are.
Apparently craazyboy fails to understand the difference between a
rentier economy (or feudal system) and capitalism. Such rentier drains on
the economy are exactly what the capitalists were trying to end when they
attacked the feudal system several centuries ago. A rentier economy is
not capitalism – just pure wealth extraction – a parasitical relationship
as Michael Hudson so eloquently describes in "Killing the Host." And it
appears that the capitalists, now that they own practically everything,
want to bring back good old fashioned feudalism using financialization to
place us all in their debt - accelerating the process by using their
purchased politicians to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
When capitalism fails and the key goal is protecting the unearned wealth
of the 1%, I guess feudalism is their next best choice. Perhaps
Blankfein's message of "doing God's work" will morph into "Wall Street
was ordained by God" to own everything. That way the 1% can justify
charging us rents for everything - even the soon-to-be privatized water
we drink – the same reason the Nobles and Kings used to justify the theft
from the peasants.
It's not that the 'rentier economy' is inefficient or that
investors are addicted to high returns (although both are true).
The problem is the rate of profit in manufacturing (the lifeblood
of a modern economy) has been in steady decline since the 1970s
because of the crisis of overproduction/under-utilization of
capacity that resulted from the rise of European and Japanese
competition.
Yes, space and resources on a planet are finite, but more
importantly, at 3% growth the global economy would have to double
by 2060 and then double again by the end of the century (and that
pace will only increase ad infinitum). I'm sorry but there's just
no way that that's going to happen. What drives robust economic
growth in a capitalist economy is industrialization and
urbanization (this is why growth rates were anemic in the 17th
century), and once those processes have been completed, growth can
only come from external demand, "urban renewal," or asset bubbles.
This has been the case for the developed world since the 70's, and
why our future, at best, is looking like post-1990 Japan.
Unless a big war blows the heck out of everything and we get to
rebuild, just like we did in the post-WWII era. But if not,
remodeling a few old train stations won't get us out of this
crisis, as eventually you run out of infrastructure to repair.
It's more like why would the developed world get to write off
its debt so as to get a clean slate so it can keep on buying
resources to replace its infra when many parts of the world
still have not gotten its own share?
Many here seem to think that the only problem we face is
redistribution not realizing that a fair redistribution on a
global basis would mean a drastic drop in their material lives.
Completely. And of course the dynamics of the global
economy benefit the first world countries at the expense of
the third world countries. And even Keynesian stimulus is
unjust: it subsidizes the wealthy economies in ways that
poorer countries cannot enjoy (if they did the same, they'd
face a public debt/currency crisis). Although I guess
nowadays in the US, Keynesian economics means subsidizing
Chinese manufacturing firms–at the expense of US workers and
the environment.
Everyone talks about how we want a more equitable
distribution of wealth: tax the rich to provide social
programs for the poor, use government spending to create more
middle class jobs, etc. But if we actually wanted to
redistribute wealth, it'd mean all of us would have to see a
huge drop in the standard of living in order to help the poor
in other countries live a little more like we do.
Of course all of this is ecologically unsustainable. A
capitalist economy (and especially Keynesian economics) is
entirely dependent upon consumption ad infinitum, and that is
impossible for our planet. We have a finite amount of space
and resources, and our ecological footprint is far greater
than what the earth can produce.
If you define "standard of living" by the current
capitalist metric, then yes, all our "living" standards
will go down. We will all have less disposable stuff for
our individual consumption.
But what if you imagined society based on the
satisfaction of human needs instead of infinite wants-
which is the pathology of the extreamely rich and is
needed to maintain the current system.
Society has lost the larger motivating vision. The
elite offer a paltry vision that is unsatisfactory to the
human soul.
Thinking about sustaining life, instead of exploiting
it, offers new avenues for action. It makes life worth
living.
The only way to keep the economy going (reasonable
growth rates and reasonable unemployment rates) is
through consumption ad infinitum. This is not
ecologically, economically, or socially sustainable. We
need to transition to an economy that only serves human
(and the planet's) needs rather than the need to create
"wealth" (assets in the hands of a feel capitalists)
until the end of time.
Of course the only way this will happen is if the
people seize the means of production and we move away
from the capitalist system. Not exactly something the
Keynesians are suggesting (they think that government
spending ad infinitum can solve these problems).
The true problem is changing our thinking from a "growth"
economy to a steady state economy. The need is for building a
sustainable, self reinforcing system that takes inspiration from
life cycles based on nature. Nothing grows forever. An optimal
size is reached and then the organism dies of old age, returning
all the material elements of itself back into the environment
from which it arose, enabling the process to begin again.
The failed understanding and appreciation of humans place in
the world, in the order of life, will be our undoing as a
species. We have a choice to be stewards of this world, or to be
exploiters, parasites. The reigning ideology is that humans are
separate from the natural world. We are natures master. Our
rational minds have given us a glimpse into a great potential
for molding the natural world to our will. To have influence
over our collective futures. The current reigning ideology is
one of dominance not of unity.
The notion of rebuilding society from the ashes of war and
conflict, brought about by competition is the root cause of our
failure. War and planned obsolescence is the longterm failure of
capitalism. The proof of this statement is evident from the slow
destruction of the natural environment upon which all life
depends. The environment cannot regenerate fast enough to keep
up with the greed and avarice of those in power. The few
parasites have convinced the many that there is no other way of
life. It truly is a death spiral, masked by hubris and
shortsightedness. The fate of humanity is in the balance. Will
it take mass die offs to drive this point home? Can any other
explanation for the degradation visible all around hold sway? If
that outcome is welcomed by the power elite, how can they hold
legitimacy in the aftermath?. In the end, In evolutionary terms,
humans are a blip in the chain of life. This works against
positive change. It seems catastrophe is the only motivator on
both individual and societal scales- along with positive action
being reabsorbed into the competitive, scarcity driven,
individualistic, narrow view vision.
Shortsightedness and willful blindness is the problem. Larger
questions of why are we here- and what is our purpose in life
need to be redirected. Hedonistic leadership, brought about by
the short term success of capitalism as an organizing structure,
will one way or another come to an end. People don't choose a
life of slavery. They are driven to it.
A word about "Sharia Banking and Finance Law:" James
McFadden asks "Who will invest capital unless there is a
reasonable expectation for a return on the investment – i.e.
growth of capital?" "Sharia banking" and "Sharia investment"
get shoved in with head-chopping and ethnic cleansing, likely
by the "capitalist" PR folks who want to drown the humane
elements and wisdom of Muslim economic -relation models in a
bathtub of rotting Bernays sauce. But it seems to me that
there's wisdom in Islamic finance and banking that ought to
inform any efforts to displace the cancers that are riding us
westerners.
Note that I make no claim to deep understanding of either
the western mess or Islamic banking and finance. The surface
contrasts, though, are absolutely striking, to my
understanding.
The government has announced plans for Britain to
issue a £200m Islamic bond in a bid to attract new money to
London. The bond will be aimed at institutions, but there are
Islamic finance products available to regular savers,
investors and homebuyers. Here us a guide to how
sharia-compliant funds and mortgages work.
Why aren't regular accounts sharia-compliant?
Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself
has no intrinsic value; it is simply a medium of exchange.
Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same
denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by
exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed
to benefit from lending money or receiving money from
someone.
This means that earning interest (riba) is not allowed –
whether you are an individual or a bank. To comply with these
rules, interest is not paid on Islamic savings or current
accounts, or charged on Islamic mortgages.
How do sharia-complaint banking products work?
There are several ways that banks can structure accounts
so that they are sharia-compliant.
Ijara works as a leasing arrangement: the bank buys
something for a customer and then leases it back to them.
Different forms of leasing are permissible, including those
where part of the instalment payment goes toward the final
purchase. This might be used to help you buy a car or other
item, or to help a business buy equipment.
Murabaha works by the bank supplying goods for resale to
the customer at a price that includes a margin above the
costs, and allows them to repay in installments. This might
be used to provide a mortgage on a property. The property is
registered to the buyer from the start.
Musharaka is a joint venture in which the customer and
bank contribute funding to an investment or purchase and
agree to share the returns (as well as the risks) in
proportions agreed in advance.
Wakala is an agreement that the bank will work as the
individual's agent. If a saver enters into this type of
agreement, the bank can use their cash to invest in
sharia-compliant trading activities to generate a target
profit for them.
How do the banks make money?
Banks can profit [nothing like the "profit" that western
banks and banksters extract and extort, of course, but a
decent living] from the buying and selling of approved goods
and services. The principal means of Islamic finance are
based on trading, and it is essential that risk be involved
in any trading activity, so banks and financial institutions
will trade in sharia-compliant investments with the money
deposited by customers, sharing the risks and the profits
between them.
Islamic banks are structured so that they retain a clearly
differentiated status between shareholders' capital and
clients' deposits in order to make sure profits are shared
correctly.
Although they cannot charge interest, the banks can profit
from helping customers to purchase a property using a ijara
or murabaha scheme. With an ijara scheme the bank makes money
by charging the customer rent; with a murabaha scheme, a
price is agreed at the outset which is more than the market
value. This profit is deemed to be a reward for the risk that
is assumed by the bank.
There are firm laws governing the types of businesses
with which the banks can trade. There should be absolutely no
investment in unsuitable businesses, including those involved
with armaments, pork, tobacco, drugs, alcohol or pornography.
So what is a "reasonable return on investment?" That would
justify a prudent, grasping capitalist to put some of that
money stuff into?
Here's a a more scholarly link that will lead into the
lots of scholarly articles that frame what, for a western
bankster, "capitalist," re-election specialist, or corruption
generator, would be complete anathema:
http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx
And yes, there's lots of cheating amongst the Sharia
financial it's (often fomented by western "banks" and QGOs
(:quasi-government organizations, like World Bank and IMF and
such) who have found how much pleasure and power can be
scammed, with no apparent consequences to themselves, for
lying with the enemy.
It seems clear to me that the flood of "anti-Sharianism"
all about the west has a whole lot to do with the long-game
need to be sure ideas of such equityable and just and
distributionalist and true-risk-based finance and banking
don't gain a toe hold. Although interestingly enough, quite a
few US banks now offer some forms of sharia accounts to help
their growth profiles
http://www.kslaw.com/Library/publication/6-09%20New%20Horizon%20Shayesteh.pdf
Looks to me like Sharia means banks charge commissions
and fees rather than interest. I don't see where the big
magic is. It's the magnitude of money that the bank gets
that matters. Like if they are ripping off the economy. Or
another way to look at it is if the financial sector
consumes too large a percentage of GDP. Tho that seems an
incomplete measure after you have a GFC and kill the world
economy.
Altho one thing is if banks can only make money on the
front end of a transaction rather than a small steady
income like interest or rent from lending, then econ and
industry political pressure would be to increase
transactions in the economy – for example, banks would
embrace supporting real estate flipping rather than refuse
to participate. This is how pursuit of industry profit
growth gets conflated to transaction growth then to GDP
growth. Kinda what is metastasizing the cancer.
Like I said, I do not pretend to understand western
or Islamic banking, either theory or practice, well
enough to do an Ilargi or Hudson-level exegesis. Yes,
fees after a fashion, but what I read is that the
banker has to take on a lot more risk in every
transaction. And that prohibition on money for
armaments, pornography (broadly defined, no doubt, like
"not wearing a hijab" and such), pork, alcohol, tobacco
and illicit drugs, that kind of resonates. Also all
those derivatives and re-insurance scams, And maybe
stock buybacks? Those purists would take away all the
fun, right?
No doubt there are endless, slippery workarounds,
supported by fatwahs and encyclicals from the many
ayatollahs and mullahs who parse the entrails, that's
our nature of course. And also, of course, the "ethics"
and practice in western banking might make me or you,
if we can participate in the grift and casino, richer
in money and pleasure-bits. Who will be the first
acknowledged TRILLIONAIRE, I wonder" But isn't there
some silly sense that maybe that way lies the
precipice?
Of course, living in our "advanced" and
"sophisticated" part of the world, a few of us can hope
for those 10-baggers, and maybe be smart or lucky
enough to buy the next original issue Microsoft or
Apple or Berkshire Hathaway, or do a Bezos or
something. And then diddle ourselves silly in pursuit
of pleasures always just over the horizon, until death
finally overtakes us (with nice nurses and doctors to
clean our poop and pee, and wipe our drooling chins,)
so we "go with dignity and comfort" to where we are
beyond retribution or restitution. Yah, "Apres nous le
deluge," so foch all you inept mopes!
I think both of us are oversimplifying and not fully
understanding (and what's that bit about a man not
understanding if his payday depends on it?) the tenets
of Islamic banking, finance and economics, as it comes
from the doctrinal source (tho possibly, in this most
corrupt and increasingly devastated world,full of
rotten, selfish humans, not how it gets applied and
perverted).
Seems to me it is hardly as simple to get around
moral hazard under what I perceive as the Islamic
fundamentals, as it is in our own charming system
It's pretty clear that if "good ethics" ruled
biz, the world would be more ethical. But in the
mean time we search around for a mechanical
mechanism that keeps everyone honest – but we always
fail to find it.
The problem is that people are addicted to economic
growth. The whole system is. If we get 1% growth, everyone
complains (while it's only the poor that really have right
to). The only way we're going to this "steady-state economy"
is if people get so dissatisfied with capitalism that they
rebel and somehow manage to beat the right (backed by the
military).
Good post, mate. Yet, I think the majority feel that protests are a waste
of time.
They see what happened to occupy and DAPL – the return of the Pinkerton
boys.
I don't think the big change (where the govt acts in the working person's
interest) can be achieved politically. The only way that money is coming
back, for all those commons to be returned, is to use force. It's he only
language the rich understand.
The only part of this essay I have a problem with is the recommendation to
lower private debt by "Jubilee style" if necessary. Isn't this what bankruptcy
is in effect, a jubilee style lowering of debt. I do not think people learn
anything from these "gifts". I was in favor of helping the economy after the
debacle of 2008, because I did not think an actual depression served any
purpose, but now I question if anyone learned a damn thing from all the
"quantitative easing"? I am afraid that people have to have their noses rubbed
in it to really learn a lesson from their own stupidity.
Ah, the Calvinist comes out -- Rub people's noses in it (naughty dog!)
Incidentally, "people" got damn little benefit from QE - nor were they
intended to.
A debt jubilee is only moral in secondary sense: it's technical – a reset to
remove financial blockages (unpayable debt)
Debt inflation has led to asset inflation way beyond the fundamentals, the
income needed to service the debt. Look at student debt. It should not exist in
the first place if a society says we value a highly educated workforce and we
will pay for it. All those note holders of your debt own assets which are
inflated (regardless of what they paid for it). And in a debt jubilee, they
should lose their investment as you don't have the income to service it a live
a good life.
A jubilee would write down or off your debt and every other natural person's
debt, AND, the asset prices return to normal levels.
It's a reset, a realisation, by society, that everyone has borrowed too much
Property has been the go to economic and political 'strategy' for
self-serving financiers and venal, expedient, resolutely unimaginative, lazy
careerist politicians the world over. Unfortunately they just can't get enough
of it, and it's not difficult to see why.
A safe and secure home satisfies one of our most primal needs. In pretty
much any society people don't just WANT a roof over their heads, they actually
NEED one. As luck would have it (for some) property is also one of, if not the
greatest and most effective means of debt/money creation, and has consequently
come to be seen as the preminent measure and store of wealth.
I would also argue that in some countries, particularly the UK, the supply
of property is deliberately suppressed in the face of ever greater demand in
order to stoke price inflation, hence facilitating the greater debt creation
that in turn feeds into the money supply and helps to promote the illusion,
albeit ephemeral, of growing prosperity.
For the politicians and money men it's the low maintenance golden goose that
just keeps on laying, and when it eventually stops, which it always does of
course, and these economic miracle workers are revealed for the snake oil
salesmen they are, most of them have long since donned their golden parachutes,
grabbed their ill-gotten gains and bailed out.
*On a positive note, and lest we forget, somewhere at the bottom of this
teetering Ponzi economic tower that debt built, there still is a genuine
economic foundation underpinning it all, and hopefully there's still time to
save what's left of it from these voracious, sociopathic debtmongers hellbent
on mortgaging the future to infinity and beyond.
'It's not a healthy thing for an economy to depend on blowing bubbles. It's
also not healthy to depend on private banks for the creation of a society's
money. It's unhealthy, unnecessary and unethical.
We had the HOUSING bubble already in 2007-2008 followed by the burst. Now
the bubble is back to the previous level! Who needs MONEY when one can have
debt to infinity?
"... From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius. ..."
"... Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. ..."
"... The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one. ..."
"... On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it? ..."
"... This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin." ..."
"... Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in. ..."
"... While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it. ..."
"... With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all. ..."
Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman
Adam Schiff have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. They
should think twice. The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.
The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak . On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius
reported that "according to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
several times on Dec. 29."
From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama
official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius.
Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. But it
was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA
surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White
House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the
lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.
The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and,
at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.
On Dec. 29, Obama
announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the
White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia
connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.
A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. On Dec. 30, the Washington Post
reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department.
After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek
to crash the system, or just to probe it?
This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election.
The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that
the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin."
The national media mimicked the Post's reporting. But there was a problem: the
hack
never happened . It was a false alarm - triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama's hype.
On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI
published
a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. "At every level this report
is a failure,"
said
cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. "It didn't do what it set out to do, and it didn't provide useful data. They're handing
out bad information."
Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained.
The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong
to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator
dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered
on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.
While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele
dossier, which
claimed
that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research
paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had
circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable,
however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.
With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government
leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing
it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.
By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. Ignatius
used the leak to
deepen speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: "What did Flynn say (to Kislyak)," Ignatius asked, "and did it undercut
the U.S. sanctions?" The mere fact that Flynn's conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. If he was innocent,
why was the government monitoring him?
It should not have been. He had the right to talk to in private - even to a Russian ambassador. Regardless of what one thinks
about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security
state and our domestic politics. The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. At stake is a core principle of our democracy:
that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.
Dr.
Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to
it's history and it's progress post communism.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach
millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
http://www.infowars.com/show
"... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
"... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
"... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
"... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
"... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at
bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street
leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach ("
Don't
Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own
") then you know something is seriously out of
whack.
Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ...
I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's
been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)
It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from
folks who should be wiser.
The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services,
including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging
perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
A distrust in institutions and the news media.
The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost
personal social-media branding.
Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information
bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or
should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named
Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other
qualifications.)
It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed"
Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.
When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial
things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.
If you want to see how the DNC reacted
to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom
Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London
School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is
when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.
The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying
helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already
won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you
on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks
who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the
present and being surprised when the end comes.
lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the
world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming
someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of
the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US
democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any
heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
"Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin
ploys ..."
_____________________________
Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that
it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".
That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state
mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on
insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and
overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated
"fifth column" sympathizers and
de facto
operatives to nefariously influence
Western public opinion, etc.
But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also
sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral
process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high
dudgeon and self-righteousness.
How
dare
some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy
represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely,
any
radical criticism of these
governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can
only
be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate
faith and trust in their political leadership!
Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cœur, stripped of its
high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us
look bad
!" It is to laugh!
This phenomenon induced a feeling of déjà vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel.
Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging
social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political
leaders' feet of clay.
Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers
like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller
for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic
institutions".
It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft"
authoritarian-submissive doctrine.
The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to
maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at
their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some
insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous"
campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:
"Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive
actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties
with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in
this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"
"Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward
an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security
[Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General
Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our
Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to
international information security have been adopted unanimously.
"Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report
that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly
expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific
cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is
beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.
"I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of
all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit
themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So,
alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the
SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also
distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects
of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that
it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the
elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose
penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see
how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style
of James Bond will respond to this.
"There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet
governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet
and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A
very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding
free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the
internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this
context, serious debate lies ahead.
"We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce
some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect
any results yet."
There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further,
although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War,
Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition
for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question
regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:
"It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU
countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily
written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral
processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot
even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as
Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact.
We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with
German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister
Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a
frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they
show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be
artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting
media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide
facts."
Anyone here read the
"Russian Democracy Act 2002"
enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America?
Section 2, Finding and Purposes:
(3A)
Since 1992, United States Government democratic
reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including
training, and small grants have provided access to and training
in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian
citizens to the United States, and
have led to the establishment
of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
, thousands
of independent local media outlets, despite governmental
opposition, and numerous political parties
.
(Unquote)
More than 65.000 NG0s
established in Russia by the US-Government from
1999-2002? What a crazy number!
And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In
the tens of thousands the figure must be.
But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not
only US)?
Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.
Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant.
Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real
war.
NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite
people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28,
2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000
troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of
war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving
out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and
to maintain diplomatic ties.
The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They
were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of
Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!
The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises
from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition
cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear
exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not
democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.
Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking
the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as
seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or
international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces
locally.
Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western
democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled
by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of
the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an
act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian
information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid
war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of
hybrid war.
The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of
Salon
is
totally delusional!
Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues
to be waged today...
Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle
were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's
invasion...
Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's
attacks for him...
Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of
Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and
betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans
against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake
news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more
suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's
goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the
outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago
and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings
inside the White House...
That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential
appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and
concentrating on the fight against Russia.
Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can
work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran
and North Korea in their sights.
If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take
the blame for US boots in bodybags.
The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US
control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced
it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of
Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before
attacking Iran.
A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and
remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their
plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?
That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to
rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far
from the only victim of such.
Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two
years ago
At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising
for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of
Syria.
Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your
face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.
Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been
much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the
Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S.
connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the
cabal.
For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more
funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to
strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds
me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans
called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure
they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this
"ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough
I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of
triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will
unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and
details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's
"dream sequence"
It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard
dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but
won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.
Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin
Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I
fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on
her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been
in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or
editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh --
Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom:
WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017)
.
TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.
DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our
homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"
whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them
on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and
into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.
confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?
at this late stage in the 'game'?
there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and
demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian
hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!
what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there
are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of
us!
replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among
ourselves.
it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.
no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum,
initiative.
* we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our
paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.
I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their
every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a
continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.
What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America
while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its
sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?
You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating
this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a
snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is
unfolding as I was convinced it would.
One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all
governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national
corporations ????
It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called
Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in
December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such
interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.
Trump hate
is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to
think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that
returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right.
I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party,
a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.
They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now
and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil
salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently
does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump
and
the DNC crowd.
I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes
regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman
Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.
Anyone
who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and
still
thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American
imperialism is a fool or an idiot.
It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.
1) Trump is
NOT a proponent of
Assad must go!
.
Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want
total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the
Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.
2) Trump is anti-TPP.
This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off
destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies"
prefer.
3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former
Presidents, etc.
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a
nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry
Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way,
the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire
to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly
short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding
Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive
example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and
separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself
and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist
domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet
purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.
Excerpt from
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions
during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff,
Moscow, March 23, 2017
Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for
the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really
blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every
criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't
everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at
respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?
Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof;
it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington,
specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.
...
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37
Trump's inaugural Drain The
Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily
sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about
his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long
before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a
confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to
keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty,
dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be
unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our
lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt
both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict
now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We
face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose,
and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and
transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward
steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation,
on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.
Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on
peace in the world
, he only threatened
the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the
democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with
the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From
wiki:
He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian
oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]
Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued
words.
Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that
concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in
Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media
will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for
example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me,
this could be very interesting information.
h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23,
2017
Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)
Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a
stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump
as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the
theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who
pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)
Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we
think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is
Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?
Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:
Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself
asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know?
What evidence? What message?
The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high
road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly
consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings
along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons
harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you
believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.
Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to
send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and
identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any
politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by
Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be
impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as
well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to
make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.
karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being
educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end:
What will
Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision?
Now I know this has outraged
many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign
Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face
I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the
table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.
The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest
destiny, exceptional people ect.
In looking up the various missiles systems and
aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian
defence systems.
US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue
until it is destroyed
Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of
speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected
because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness.
Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America,
over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."
Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.
A BIG clue as to what
motivates them.
Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all
rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good
side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.
So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in
solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left
aisle will surely represent as well.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39
I won't go as far as disagreeing
with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so
relentlessly anti-Trump.
Logically that means a few things.
1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.
If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was
no other choice -
it was Clinton or Trump
. No one else was going to win that
election, saying
"I don't like either"
isn't an answer and is a failure to
acknowledge reality.
2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is
so awful he must be replaced asap).
Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would
prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is
your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader?
Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that
you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE -
someone else!
Nope. Forget it.
At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me
- you prefer Pence then?
If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need
someone else
I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you -
What are YOU going to do
about it?
Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else
installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not
worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.
It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to
Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to
interrupt you.
Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48
It's interesting isn't it.
Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.
But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their
complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is
exactly what they want!
- The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get
the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.
Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when
they were in a huff.
Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.
You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better
to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut
and be thought a fool than open it up and...**
Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?
Address Julian's
questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
A) Clinton
B) Trump
C) Pence
Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally
destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate
mutual assured destruction.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29,
2017 3:14:57 AM | 61
D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It
lacks a basis in reality.
There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.
My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless
shit like Trump!
And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's
(admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.
Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over
Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch
of the imagination.
But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the
egotistical narcissist?
Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I
could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.
For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my
initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible
on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand
(like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.
Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your
credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.
Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63
I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a
realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at
the moment in
reality
.
Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good
commentary. Irritatingly so.
Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven
correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from
Trump must admit you're disappointed.
So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it
would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump
out of office.)
>> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike
Pence.
You're not using logic. You're mocking it.
I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of
"logic" that I would prefer Pence's?
That argument is embarrassing.
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a
veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".
But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything
(other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I
read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except
for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would
justify this antagonism, Peter AU.
In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday
April 2, 2017.
Pro-Assange
Lenin Moreno
Anti-Assange
Guillermo Lasso
Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.
Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the
EU).
The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as
bad as each other.
The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.
The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the
Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much
as Le Pen.
Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to
all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.
If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas
supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.
At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance
after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will
be completed by then.
That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.
The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?
Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last
decade for another 2 years.
Dumbass, come up with an alternative
narrative.
JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are
dreamtime stuff.
What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".
Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps
not in the intention of the originator.
1.
the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central
committee
,
2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally
elected either on the ballot by primary voters or
by the state Democratic Party
committee
,
3.
a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity
, and
4. a variety of
representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies
.
1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by
their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial
complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the
people in general ...
don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands
... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by
interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.
@43
probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing
'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez,
g-o-i ...'
Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along
nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are
arguing.
Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump
has to go.
the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.
the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd
and his henchmen do.
So they can whinge about what ever they want to.
secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about
war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US
and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US
unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can
you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they
'don't pay his bill for Nato"?
thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as
any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he
is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will
be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)
fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in
the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of
'influence' people get to have in their countries.
fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and
children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.
and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was
Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.
as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and
frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.
Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN
Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and
integrity.
Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down
each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state
department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean
what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed
and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.
From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep
appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very
much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under
the weight of repeatedly failing realities.
...the difference between a politician and a statesman.
aaaa 13
"It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the
GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and
banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth)
And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony
obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up
for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.
The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people
whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and
the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He
wanted to win and that was all that counted.
Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said
repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him.
Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters
investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million
into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any
investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.
Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in
practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long
before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In
2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the
Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian
investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They
didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either.
The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this
particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the
question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent
investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't,
and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.
Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh
hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian
Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this
climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or
at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where,
when --variety)
@2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many
of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not
offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran
committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the
caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't
have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a
convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected
Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.
The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed
demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors.
This is how the US does it.
US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato
will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?
/~~~~~~~~~~
Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After
Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...
The ACLU itself has received
massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from
Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that
Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and
millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits
against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation
drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by
buying district attorneys in races across the country.
\~~~~~~~~~~
On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People
Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take
the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the
streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch
the livestream together. Please join us!
Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on
March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend
events near you.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against
Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if
they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better?
Consider:
Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the
use of military force in Iraq.
Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.
In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the
Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday
scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a
remotely rational explanation for the known universe."
"[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier
Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out
of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.
I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson.
Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.
Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post
just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just
had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?
@70
Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't
include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just
don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much
attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I
comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I
posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet
with your approval.
Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,
1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump
team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.
2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for
anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.
3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state
try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment
4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that
seeks to rule the world
5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.
If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros.
Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.
1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME
2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is
currently taking place
3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on
them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans
for making America great
4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal
with which they are being rounded up
5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their
safety net is being dismantled
Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well
suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?
Ad hom straight off?
Choices...action...habit...character.
>> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make:
choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist
policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options
not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.
>> What we see is the real world.
Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
>> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
>> A) Clinton
>> B) Trump
>> C) Pence
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited
construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices
are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.
By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't
ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw
inferences about you personally.
There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their
willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview
published today, 3/29, in
National Interest Magazine
: "We said what we did, that
we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the
American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting
leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting
one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the
Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal."
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445
It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore
box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the
cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...
C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire
government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no
'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make
Clinton an option for Circe?
IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be
piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined,
as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the
right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.
"b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but
Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya
know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great
again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and
ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.
Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I
don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a
fucking liar and an über-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon.
Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell
ya...heheheheh)
I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence,
McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the
wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration
impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there
is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.
The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber
did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular
coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.
In 2008, the whole world was convulsed by a financial crisis, leading
to mass unemployment in the United States and Europe. The initial
response was fairly similar in both places, featuring immense public
bailouts of ailing banks. But after that, there was a sharp
divergence: America generally tried large fiscal and monetary
stimulus, while Europe did the opposite with spending cuts and tax
increases - that is, austerity - and tight money.
Though the U.S.
stimulus was inadequate, the worst was avoided, and economic
conditions improved slowly, surpassing its
pre-crisis GDP
by 2011. In Europe - and especially within the eurozone, where the
common currency became a
gold standard-esque
economic straitjacket - the result was
disaster. So much austerity was forced on debtor nations that they
fell into full-blown depression. Greece's economy is
worse than that of America in the 1930s
- and the eurozone as a
whole only matched its pre-crisis GDP in
April of last year
.
Mass unemployment is electoral poison, and about every party that
happened to be holding power during the worst of it - generally either
center-right (Fianna Fáil in Ireland, People of Freedom in Italy) or
center-left (the Socialist Party in France, the Democrats in America)
- suffered serious setbacks in subsequent elections. Radical parties
on both the left and right gained as establishment parties were badly
discredited. New fascist parties (Golden Dawn in Greece) sprung to
prominence, and older fascist-lite ones (National Front in France)
gained strength.
But Beauchamp barely even references this history, restricting his
argument almost entirely to welfare policy. He assembles reasonably
convincing evidence and expert testimony to the effect that welfare
states increase racist resentment in both the United States and
Europe. But he does not mention mass unemployment, austerity, or the
eurozone. These are yawning absences in an article purporting to deal
with the social effects of economic policy.
Welfare is one chapter of leftist economic policy, but the first
and most important one is full employment.
That
is the major
route by which leftist economic policy can deflate right-wing
nativism. Center-left parties often claim to support full employment,
but they have manifestly failed to do so over the last eight years,
and
arguably long before that
. (President Obama was
plumping for austerity
in February of 2010, with
unemployment at
9.8 percent
.) Fascists organize best in the chaos and misery of
depression, as people lose faith in traditional solutions and root
around for scapegoats. Is it really a coincidence that the Nazi
electoral high tide
came at a time of
nearly 30 percent
unemployment?
Now, politics is a chaotic process. It takes a lot of ideological
spadework to convince people that austerity is the problem, and a lot
of time and effort to build a political coalition dedicated to an
anti-austerity platform. And sometimes it doesn't work well, as
Beauchamp's detailed discussion of the U.K. Labour Party's
difficulties since losing the elections of 2015 (on a pro-austerity
platform, mind you). But
savage infighting
within the party is likely just as much to blame
for Labour's collapse as leader Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing views.
Sometimes political coalitions fracture over personality and internal
struggles for dominance.
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel,
Wall Street Journal ]. Why Nunes left
his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information
about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished"
intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the
relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained
was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2")
they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump
official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
Mr. Schiff's howls about Mr. Nunes's methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well.
It would be interesting to know if this was still going on. And from the other side of the aisle:
Readers, those of you who can endure tweet storms and clicked through, what do you think of these three?
"The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant
of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [
NBC ].
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [
Raw Story ]. You knew this was coming, right? The story is just as sloppy and misleading as the headline. For example: "Over
time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname 'Bernie Bros.'" Note lack of agency in "became known"; #BernieBro
was in fact propagated by Clinton supporters. And then there's this: "'Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge
within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group," said [Retired Gen. Keith Alexander - former director
of the National Security Agency]. "And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.'" Where to begin? Can Alexander really
mean that Sanders and Clinton supporters wouldn't be in conflict if it weren't for the evil Russkis? Or Republicans and Democrats?
I hope when Alexander analyzes Lower Slobovia he does a better job.
"... Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous. ..."
"... And the trust in the honor and integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an objective press. ..."
"... I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens. And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping. ..."
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal]. Why Nunes
left his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that
documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of,
Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since
they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see.
Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove
of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump
officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to
Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for
instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear
which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a
Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these
documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
=============================================================
Other than right wing sites, this is the first instance of the argument I have
seen of the repubs that has been put forward coherently and the issue stated
cogently. That does not mean its true, but at least it is put forward.
I was watching CNN last night and the blonde commentator woman (Kirsten ???)
put forward the proposition that the intelligence agencies "collecting"
information on Trump associates does not mean Trump associates were surveilled
– now this was in the context that the discussion was about the fact that Trump
individuals were supposedly illegally "unmasked" by the intelligence agencies
because the information was ..collected because they were under surveillance.
Parsing "collection: vs "surveilling" was disingenuous beyond reality. One can
put forward the idea that Trump personnel had conversations because of
"incidental collection" or that Trump personnel are lawbreakers or treasonous
as a reason for the surveillance (if surveillance happened – it seems obvious
that it did happen) and the surveillance was legitimate.
Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to
continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not
surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous.
Again, I just see purposeful obtuseness. And the trust in the honor and
integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when
there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an
objective press.
I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence
peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama
administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from
classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence
gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the
common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking
from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire
to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens.
And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping.
"... "The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day." ..."
"... TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments. ..."
"... The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had "misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information." ..."
The White House on Friday revived President Trump's unproven wiretapping allegations against the Obama administration, insisting
that there is new evidence that it conducted "politically motivated" surveillance of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign.
Senior government officials, including James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, and lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly and
forcefully rejected the president's claim, saying they have seen no evidence of direct surveillance. A spokesman for former President
Barack Obama has denied that Mr. Obama ever ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump or his associates.
But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, asserted to reporters during his daily news briefing that members of Mr. Obama's
administration had done "very, very bad things," just as Mr. Trump
alleged without proof on March 4 when
he posted messages on Twitter accusing Mr. Obama of
"wire tapping" his phones at Trump Tower.
"The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that
continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day."
... ... ...
Mr. Spicer's remarks on Friday seemed designed to give new life to the allegations against Mr. Obama after weeks of trying to
focus attention on the damage that Mr. Spicer said had been caused by leaks from the investigations into Russia's involvement in
the 2016 presidential campaign.
TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had
disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show
that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments.
In fact, the reports do not back up the allegations that Mr. Trump or any officials in his campaign were ever under surveillance.
In the March 2 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Ms. Farkas said she had expressed concern to her former colleagues about
the need to secure intelligence related to the Russian hacking of the American election.
Ms. Farkas was commenting on a New York Times article a day earlier that documented how in the days before Mr. Trump's inauguration,
Obama administration officials had sought to ensure the preservation of those documents in order to leave a clear trail for government
investigators after Mr. Trump took office.
In a statement she gave to the American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ms. Farkas said the furor over her remarks was
"a wild misinterpretation of comments I made on the air in March." She added, "I was out of government, I didn't have any classified
information, or any knowledge of 'tapping' or leaking or the N.Y.T. article before it came out." White House officials also confronted
on Friday the disclosure that Mr. Flynn, who resigned in February over his contacts with Russian officials, has offered to testify
before the two congressional committees investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia about those contacts in exchange for immunity
from prosecution.
Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning that he agreed with Mr. Flynn's proposal.
"Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic
proportion!" Mr. Trump wrote.
The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information
unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had
"misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information."
"... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
"... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
"... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
"... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
"... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
"... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
"... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
"... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
"... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
"... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
"... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
"... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.'
Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits
of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism
that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman
or Adam Smith.
It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their
capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors
and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.
Paul Mathisis a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia
1 day ago
Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!
Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because
there are many moving parts that all affect each other.
Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more
complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work
out either.
So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and
time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic"
plan. One month ago:
"We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something
special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN
Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find
this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government
and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency
bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade
deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing
here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm
China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period
of time than anywhere ever.
It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with
an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase
wages so strongly for so long.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding
Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.
He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover
to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly
and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.
Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that
people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.
Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what
DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming
the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits
- which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract
holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.
Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.
And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the
stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising
the debt ceiling.
Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White
House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:
" This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen,
a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or
wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "
Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable
to bald-faced kleptocracy.
In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for
granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting
manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the
suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're
losing the Rust Belt states?
Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from
deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the
election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of
first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending
report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015.
While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative
since the start of the 2017. See chart:
Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are
generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer
confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will
most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises.
Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth.
Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus
looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress.
Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true
considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.
Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline
in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case,
measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from
leaving. More important is the exchange rate.
The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the
Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had
to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the
necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to
park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign
production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.
But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that
did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers,
once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers
of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient
at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.
Ron Cohenis a trusted commenter Waltham, MA
20 hours ago
Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state
of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural
resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.
For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers
in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362
.
All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a
coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.
Bernie Sanders Has A Plan To Win Back Trump Voters, The Huffington Post, March 9, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/zy2nzxh
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor, Eduardo Porter, March
7, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ho5zkha
Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.
Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know
is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.
Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul
Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism.
The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the
economy.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds
demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase
the inequality between supply and demand?
We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will
disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless
hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important
in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland
it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's
hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.
The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we
have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.
A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working
conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider,
but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field
for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.?
It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should
be trying to figure it out.
skeptonomistis a trusted commenter Tennessee
1 day ago
lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that
the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously
bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially
wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than
the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent
a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has
clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would
not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.
Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims
about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at
policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do
they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and
their own failed theories and assumptions?
Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most
that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells,
electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we
are.
Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate
to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.
Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation,
flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity
production is in the past.
"But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."
Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious
example
"China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."
reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000,
mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that
is made in another country"
Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory
in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the
United Automobile Workers union"
But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to
import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under
the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"
If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer,
thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US
workers, you must be a macro economist.
Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).
Final Note
Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check
Ron,
Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and
governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate,
the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.
If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the
confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not
existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.
On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though
it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.
The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by
coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.
The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and
Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done
in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.
The government is also investing in a Chinese variant
of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running
inside the country.
"... Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous. ..."
"... And the trust in the honor and integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an objective press. ..."
"... I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens. And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping. ..."
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal]. Why Nunes
left his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that
documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of,
Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since
they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see.
Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove
of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump
officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to
Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for
instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear
which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a
Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these
documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
=============================================================
Other than right wing sites, this is the first instance of the argument I have
seen of the repubs that has been put forward coherently and the issue stated
cogently. That does not mean its true, but at least it is put forward.
I was watching CNN last night and the blonde commentator woman (Kirsten ???)
put forward the proposition that the intelligence agencies "collecting"
information on Trump associates does not mean Trump associates were surveilled
– now this was in the context that the discussion was about the fact that Trump
individuals were supposedly illegally "unmasked" by the intelligence agencies
because the information was ..collected because they were under surveillance.
Parsing "collection: vs "surveilling" was disingenuous beyond reality. One can
put forward the idea that Trump personnel had conversations because of
"incidental collection" or that Trump personnel are lawbreakers or treasonous
as a reason for the surveillance (if surveillance happened – it seems obvious
that it did happen) and the surveillance was legitimate.
Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to
continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not
surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous.
Again, I just see purposeful obtuseness. And the trust in the honor and
integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when
there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an
objective press.
I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence
peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama
administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from
classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence
gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the
common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking
from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire
to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens.
And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping.
"... "The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day." ..."
"... TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments. ..."
"... The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had "misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information." ..."
The White House on Friday revived President Trump's unproven wiretapping allegations against the Obama administration, insisting
that there is new evidence that it conducted "politically motivated" surveillance of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign.
Senior government officials, including James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, and lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly and
forcefully rejected the president's claim, saying they have seen no evidence of direct surveillance. A spokesman for former President
Barack Obama has denied that Mr. Obama ever ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump or his associates.
But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, asserted to reporters during his daily news briefing that members of Mr. Obama's
administration had done "very, very bad things," just as Mr. Trump
alleged without proof on March 4 when
he posted messages on Twitter accusing Mr. Obama of
"wire tapping" his phones at Trump Tower.
"The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that
continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day."
... ... ...
Mr. Spicer's remarks on Friday seemed designed to give new life to the allegations against Mr. Obama after weeks of trying to
focus attention on the damage that Mr. Spicer said had been caused by leaks from the investigations into Russia's involvement in
the 2016 presidential campaign.
TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had
disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show
that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments.
In fact, the reports do not back up the allegations that Mr. Trump or any officials in his campaign were ever under surveillance.
In the March 2 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Ms. Farkas said she had expressed concern to her former colleagues about
the need to secure intelligence related to the Russian hacking of the American election.
Ms. Farkas was commenting on a New York Times article a day earlier that documented how in the days before Mr. Trump's inauguration,
Obama administration officials had sought to ensure the preservation of those documents in order to leave a clear trail for government
investigators after Mr. Trump took office.
In a statement she gave to the American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ms. Farkas said the furor over her remarks was
"a wild misinterpretation of comments I made on the air in March." She added, "I was out of government, I didn't have any classified
information, or any knowledge of 'tapping' or leaking or the N.Y.T. article before it came out." White House officials also confronted
on Friday the disclosure that Mr. Flynn, who resigned in February over his contacts with Russian officials, has offered to testify
before the two congressional committees investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia about those contacts in exchange for immunity
from prosecution.
Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning that he agreed with Mr. Flynn's proposal.
"Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic
proportion!" Mr. Trump wrote.
The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information
unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had
"misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information."
"... "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC]. ..."
"The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in
exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC].
So what's the over/under on this?
My speculation is Flynn doesn't have anything to say about Trump. He just
doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head. But if he's got
nothing to contribute, that means Flynn is more valuable to anti-Trump forces
if he doesn't open his mouth – gotta keep the other narratives going.
"... The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything resembling true economic democracy ..."
Thank you, thank you, Lambert, for that excellent Matt Stoller piece ( https://thebaffler.com/salvos/hamilton-hustle-stoller
). At the risk of repeating what others I hope have already read, this stood out for me:
As economist Simon Johnson pointed out in a 2009 essay in The Atlantic titled "The
Quiet Coup," what the bailouts truly represented was the seizure of political power by a small
group of American financiers. Just as in the founding era, we saw a massive foreclosure crisis
and the evisceration of the main source of middle class wealth. A bailout, similar to one that
created the national debt, ensured that wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a small
group. The Citizens United decision and the ever-increasing importance of money in
politics have strong parallels to the property disenfranchisement along class lines that occurred
in the post-Revolutionary period. Just as turnout fell to record lows in much of the country
in 2014, turnout collapsed after the rebellions were put down. And in another parallel, Occupy
Wall Street protesters camped out across the country were evicted by armed guards-a martial
response coordinated by banks, the federal government, and many Democratic mayors.
The Obama era looks like an echo of the Federalist power grabs of the 1780's and 1790's
both in its enrichment and glorification of financial elites and its open disdain for anything
resembling true economic democracy "
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation
campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].
Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to
divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected
and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if
she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and lots of other places.
I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar.
Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several
cocktails.
Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the
institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have
zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and
the sooner the party goes extinct the better.
So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin
agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian
connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin
even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all
the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than
ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.
I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser
evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State
Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its
environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was
also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the
camel's back
I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie
Bros to beriberi
White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs
later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in
american election
but from archangel where about 100 years ago the
only americans ever shot by russians died about 20
there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed
over two years from actual combat correctly
America and russia must always be kept
apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish
Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with
one third its population
Are there and have there been conflicts between the
2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at
the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and
occupied china for a few decades but yes major
countries and with russia spanning three
continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are
part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian
interests to not involve most northern hemisphere
economies
Just as communism and marxism is not some
communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism
If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of
power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big
parades & 365247 as talking head would not be
necessary
If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were
"powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill
"dissidents"
actually i am worried about this. if they can
persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of
associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can
escalate in various directions from a foundational
"russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from
any further effectiveness. the younger generation may
not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is
still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a
war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where
TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it
was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we
are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and
mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left,
with consequences we are still suffering. the more
followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and
frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely
begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only
the beginning of what they will try in their effort to
erase it if they see it escalating.
Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about
is just being worried about "this" so specifically
the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get
what they want. It will take more than Sanders to
stop them, and they will crush quite a few people
along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's
the only resistance then they will certainly crush
his movement and will get their war on.
We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and
in every direction.
agreed. i am specifically worried about the
russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the
rest that you refer to) because i don't see it
being taken seriously now at its inception. i
think it's important to call attention at the
first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which
often evokes from people, initially, laughter and
disbelief.
I was thinking along the lines of an internet
deluge of messages which convey something along
the lines of , " Do you actually think you have
dumbed us down to the point where we would
actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just
gauging how much worse you have to make common
core education and lead levels to get us there?"
Not catchy but something to that effect.
I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece
last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the
majority of commenters have for people who supported
Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information
is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are
poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.
Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about
Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as
fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006
doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New
York where she wound up facing a candidate too
extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points.
Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled
as a consistent drag on down ticket races.
The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was
absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue
states. We are the United states." He was dopey
then. This is largely the result of emotional
investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are
lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't
on TV all the time. They remind me very much of
Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and
stage mom's in general.
*this* - realize the Republican Party, hard
to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are
literally no more to the right of these people
than Sanders is to the left.
So it's not unhinged to treat him just as
badly.
They are OK with US tax levels because they
are comfortably well off, and being more urban
they can see the infrastructure and understand
that it has to be paid for. They are OK with
Obamacare because they aren't subject to it
and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars
because other people fight them. And so on.
I have said before that the millions upon
millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a
social problem going forward. They may well become a
menace.
Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming
armed and trained militias to be able to protect
themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite
mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents'
in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw
Story]. You knew this was coming, right?
Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I
suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a
Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I
naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her
immoral family foundation activities, her secret and
lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote
for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for
people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and
reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for
environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events
associated with her private email server. I guess I now
better now. (sarc)
That's no excuse. One must strive to not have
overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us
when we were most needed and in our failings we failed
America. /sarc
Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four
years as SoS would give us no idea how she might
govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe
she was going to do no better than give us more of the
same
And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!)
turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a
BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.
Every time she does her leather lesbian routine,
I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to
come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive
thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing
(in reality - in her mind, I think she still
believes she's going to be President).
And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce
in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying
to pick by doing this.
Venezuela Supreme Court Seizes Power from Legislature"
"President Nicolás Maduro further consolidated his one-man
rule over Venezuela on Thursday as the loyalist Supreme Court
effectively dissolved the legislature, seizing power to write
laws itself, The New York Times reported. According to the
high court's ruling, lawmakers were "in a situation of
contempt" in opposition to the leftist ruling party, and that
the justices would need to take over in order to "ensure that
parliamentary powers were exercised directly by this Chamber,
or by the body that the Chamber chooses." According to the
Times, one opposition legislator declared that the court
"kidnapped the Constitution, they have kidnapped our rights,
they have kidnapped our liberty." Another lamented: "It's
demonstrating before the world the authoritarianism here. The
people chose us through a popular vote."
Indeed for Mr. McCain the
belief that Russia
must be destroyed has been elevated to the status of a self evident and received truth.
Origins of the 'Dodgy Dossier'
It was McCain who passed
the "dodgy dossier" on Trump to the FBI, after receiving it from former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood. Contained
within the dossier is information purporting to reveal how Trump has been compromised by Russian intelligence over various sexual
encounters with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. Compounding the scandal, adding to the lurid nature of it, are reports of
the existence of a second Russian dossier on the President-elect.
The dossier's originator has been revealed as former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who now runs a private
intelligence company and has, according to reports, gone into hiding in the UK, supposedly fearing assassination by Russian agents.
The fact that Mr. Steele hasn't set foot in Russia for a number of years and reportedly, on behalf of Trump's enemies within
the Republican Party establishment, paid for the information contained in the 35-page dossier, recently released with the caveat
that its contents cannot be verified, should have been more than enough to have it instantly dismissed as, well, fake news?
In an
article that appeared on the UK's Independent newspaper website - titled "The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds
me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction" - Patrick Cockburn writes, "I read the text
of the dossier on
Donald Trump's alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief." Later in the same
article he observes, "In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious
document."
More significant than the fact this dossier was not immediately dismissed is the timing of its emergence and subsequent publication
by the US news site, BuzzFeed. It comes on the very cusp of President-elect Donald Trump's official inauguration as the 45
th President of the United States on January 20th, and the very point at which his cabinet appointees were being grilled
over their views of Russia, the threat Russia allegedly poses to the US and the West, during their official Senate confirmation
hearings.
Political Coup Underway Against Trump
By now most people are aware, or at least should be, of Washington's long and ignoble history when it comes to fomenting, planning,
supporting, and funding political and military coups around the world - in Central and Latin America, the Middle East, Africa,
and elsewhere the CIA and other US agencies have brought down countless leaders and governments that have refused to toe the line
when it comes to serving US interests.
In unprecedented fashion, what we have in this instance are those same deep state actors, working in conjunction with the US
liberal establishment, currently engaged in a coup designed to destroy the Trump presidency - if not before it begins then certainly
soon after, with the prospect of impeachment proceedings against him already being
mooted in Washington circles.
During his recent press
conference , Trump felt minded to declaim against Washington's bloated intelligence community, accusing it of releasing the
dossier to the media, an allegation US intelligence chiefs have denied. The result is an unprecedented open war between the country's
next president and his soon-to-be intelligence services that has pitched the country into a political crisis that grows deeper
by the day.
The Power of the Military Industrial Complex
On the question of why the US deep state and Washington's liberal establishment is so intent on maintaining Russia in the role
of deadly enemy, the answer is very simple - money.
Huge and powerful economic and ideological interests are tied up in the new Сold War of the past few years.
We're talking the country's previously mentioned gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets, continuing US support and financing
of NATO, along with reason for the continued existence and funding of the vast network of political think tanks in Washington
and throughout the West, all of which are committed to sustaining a status quo of US hegemony and unipolarity.
Russia's emergence as a strategic counterweight to the West in recent years has and continues to challenge this hitherto uncontested
hegemony, providing lucrative opportunities for organizations, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in the resulting
new Cold War. For those of a skeptical persuasion in this regard, I refer you to the chilling warning issued by former US President
Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to leaving office in 1960 to make way for his replacement, John F. Kennedy.
In his televised farewell address
to the American people in 1961, Eisenhower said, "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast
proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually
spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."
He continued:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources
and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
Finally, Eisenhower warned the American people how, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist."
Though neoconservatives may no longer be in the driving seat in Washington, neoconservative ideas undoubtedly are. And prime
among them is the idea that not only must Russia be destroyed but also anyone who would dare stand in the way of this narrative,
up to and including President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position
of Sputnik.
"... Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees would kill for centralized too. ..."
"... Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?) all the lobbyists were union. ..."
"... The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy. ..."
"... They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs. ..."
STARTS OUT A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT THEN GOES PRECISELY WHERE THE AUTHOR WANTS US TO GO I THINK
Re: Keynes' flaws - Stumbling and Mumbling
[cut-and-paste]
Neither rust-belt Americans nor Chicago gang-bangers are interested in up-to-date kitchens or
two vans in the driveway. Both are most especially not interested in $10 an hour jobs.
Both would be very, very especially interested in $20 an hour jobs.
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting
been a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room -- or the missing T-Rex.
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years -- and half the per capita income ago -- the fed
min wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% -- while
the top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it -- how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony -- overlap like min wage laws -- especially since on crim penalties the fed has left
nothing to overlap since 1935
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup -- or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
Collective bargaining would ameliorate much competition for jobs from immigrants because labor's
price would be set by how much the consumer can be squeezed before (s)he goes somewhere else --
not by how little the most desperate worker will hire on for. Your kid will be grabbed before
somebody still mastering English.
Centralized bargaining (sector wide labor agreements) practiced by the Teamster's National
Master Freight Agreement -- also by French Canada, continental Europe and I think Argentina and
Indonesia -- blocks the Walmart-killing-supermarket-contracts race to the bottom. Airline employees
would kill for centralized too.
Republicans would have no place to hide -- rehabs US labor market -- all (truly) free market.
Truly populist up politics in the long run reduce financialization, for-profit scams, phara
gouging, etc. etc., etc. Dean of Washington press corps said when he came to Washington (1950s?)
all the lobbyists were union.
PS. After I explained the American spinning wheels labor market to my late brother John (we
were not even talking about race), he came back with: "Martin Luther King got his people on the
up escalator just in time for it to start going down for everybody."
I agree. All of the center-left are like Keynes in a bad way. Chris Dillow nails it.
The center-left are technocrats and don't really believe in unions or economic democracy.
They're all about the meritocracy and so instead of arguing for workers to get organized
and political and instead of arguing for a hot economy so labor markets are tight, they scold
workers for not "skilling up" and acquiring the skills business want for their jobs.
They enjoy scolding the backward rural and dying manufacturing towns where the large employers
have closed.
The technocrats are running the economy the best they can, it's up to the workers to educate
themselves so they can be "competitive" on international markets.
Meanwhile for the past 40 years the technocrats have been doing a poor job.
(or maybe a good job from their sponsors' perspective as Chris Dillow points out.)
DeLong is right about mainstream economics. SWL is wrong. "Mainstream" economics is complicit
as the technocrats are complicit.
Perhaps even DeLong is too much like Keynes and too much the "neoliberal" technocrat to understand
why businessmen keep voting Republican even though the economy does better on Democrats.
"... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
"... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
"... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
"... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
"... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
"... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
"... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
"... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
"... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught
by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at
the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night
called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence
Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch
hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."
"Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia,
Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia
story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.
Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian
speech....
Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican
chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without
sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds
one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether
the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.
Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United
States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.
The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines
the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.
This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC
and oversight committee who can be trusted?
As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is
very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!
I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.
CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.
Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying
their best to emulate them.
I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary
and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...
I am worried.
Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for
it.
This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have
been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on
the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.
Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?
Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.
Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set
up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.
Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking
into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now
I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.
The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up.
Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of
control.
But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.
"... Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%. ..."
"... That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!" ..."
"... Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables. ..."
"... Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and c–founder of Bank Whistleblowers
United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The New York Times' editorial board published an
editorial on March 12, 2017, praising Preet Bharara as the "Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain
a Swamp." I agree with the title. At all times when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York (which includes Wall Street) Bharara knew how to drain the swamp. Further, he had the
authority, the jurisdiction, the resources, and the testimony from whistleblowers like Richard Bowen
(a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU)) to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bowen personally
contacted Bharara beginning in 2005.
You were quoted in The Nation magazine as saying that if a whistleblower comes forward
with evidence of wrongdoing, then you would be the first to prosecute [elite bankers].
I am writing this email to inform you that there is a body of evidence concerning wrongdoing,
which the Department of Justice has refused to act on in order to determine whether criminal charges
should be pursued.
Bowen explained that he was a whistleblower about Citigroup's senior managers and that he was
(again) coming forward to aid Bharara to prosecute. Bowen tried repeatedly to interest Bharara in
draining the Citigroup swamp. Bharara refused to respond to Bowen's blowing of the whistle on the
massive frauds led by Citigroup's senior officers.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp and was positioned to do so because he had federal
prosecutorial jurisdiction over Wall Street crimes. Whistleblowers like Bowen, who lacked any meaningful
power, sacrificed their careers and repeatedly demonstrated courage to ensure that Bharara would
have the testimony and documents essential to prosecute successfully some of Wall Street's most elite
felons. Bharara never mustered the courage to prosecute those elites. Indeed, Bharara never mustered
the courtesy to respond to Bowen's offers to aid his office.
The editorial lauds Bharara for his actions against public corruption in New York.
New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him
for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.
We are all for rooting out public corruption. The editorial ignores three key facts. First, New
York politics are less corrupt than many other states, but Wall Street's leaders created the "swampiest"
region in American business. Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany,
so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. Second, Wall
Street CEOs created, and infest, the swampiest of regions over which Bharara had jurisdiction. They
led the epidemics of "control fraud" that hyper-inflated the housing bubble, drove the financial
crisis, and caused the Great Recession. Third, Bharara did not prosecute any of them even when whistleblowers
brought him the cases on platinum platters. Indeed, Bharara did not prosecute even low-level bank
officers who were minor leaders in implementing those fraud epidemics.
I will summarize briefly Bowen's story as it intersects Bharara. Bowen held a senior position
with Citigroup supervising a staff of several hundred professionals that conducted risk assessments
on roughly $100 billion in annual mortgage purchases – a majority of which Citigroup resold to Fannie
and Freddie or mortgage securitizers. Citigroup was exposed to enormous losses on these mortgages
because the sellers had strong incentives to provide false "reps and warranties" to Citigroup and
sell them fraudulently originated loans that were particularly likely to default and suffer larger
losses upon default. Citigroup could only sell these fraudulently originated mortgages to others
through making essentially the same fraudulent reps and warranties that it received from the original
sellers. Bowen's staff found originally that 60% of the loans it was buying had false reps and warranties.
He warned his superiors about the problem, but they responded by weakening Citigroup's already inadequate
underwriting by buying pervasively fraudulent "liar's" loans. Bowen put Citigroup's senior management,
including Robert Rubin, on written notice of the growing crisis and called for immediate intervention
to stem the crisis. Citigroup's senior management responded by removing Bowen's staff and responsibilities.
The incidence of fraud grew to 80 percent.
Bowen was blowing the whistle internally at Citigroup and acting exactly as he was supposed to
do – as Citigroup articulated what an officer should do in such circumstances. He was not looking
for money or a lawsuit. He was the opposite of a disgruntled employee. He had never gone public.
Citigroup's top leaders forced Bowen out – for doing exactly the right think according to Citigroup's
own policies. Bowen did eventually blow the whistle to the public about the Citigroup's top leadership
and the banks hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of mortgages through false reps and warranties.
Those sales, because of the losses they caused to Fannie and Freddie, were substantial contributors
to Fannie and Freddie's failures and the public bailout of both firms. Bowen met with the SEC staff
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in several districts to provide them with the critical facts
and documents. Bowen also testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which
made multiple criminal referrals against Citigroup, including a referral based on Bowen's testimony.
Bowen was the perfect witness for a criminal prosecution of Citigroup's senior managers and for an
SEC enforcement action against Citigroup for securities fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in Denver, the Eastern District of New York (where Loretta Lynch
was then the U.S. Attorney), and Bharara's office told Bowen that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
had never sent the criminal referrals that FCIC made about Citigroup to them. Bowen met with the
AUSAs to assist them in what he had expected to be a series of prosecutions in 2016. Phil Angelides,
FCIC's Chairman, made public in 2016 the fact that the FCIC had made a criminal referral about Citigroup
based on Bowen's testimony before the inquiry. Bowen was by 2016 one of the best-known and most respected
whistleblowers in America. FCIC's chair found his testimony about Citigroup's leaders highly credible,
leading him to make the criminal referral, but DOJ's leadership not only refused to prosecute, but
also buried the criminal referrals to discourage any U.S. Attorney from prosecuting Citigroup's fraudulent
leaders.
AUSA Jonathon Schmidt (San Francisco) called Bowen on July 10, 2010. Bowen gave him everything.
Schmidt was excited and said that they were going to pursue the claims that Bowen had laid out, particularly
Citigroup's fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen challenged Schmidt, telling him that I believed
that once he talked to DC DOJ that Bowen would never hear from him again. Schmidt promised he would
be back to Bowen within a week. Bowen never heard from him again.
Alayne Fleischmann, also one of the most famous whistleblowers to emerge from the crisis, provided
vital information and documents to DOJ prosecutors about frauds led by JPMorgan's senior managers.
Fleischmann continued to seek to aid a DOJ prosecution after the Attorney General transferred responsibility
for the case to Bharara's office. No prosecution has occurred.
Bharara is like every other federal prosecutor and the SEC's top leaders. Bowen met with the SEC
staff and five Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in four different districts (including Bharara's)
to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Each failed to prosecute the elite Wall Street
officials who drove the three epidemics of fraud that drove the financial crisis. What is different
is that because his office had jurisdiction over the elite frauds and the staff to conduct sophisticated
investigations and prosecutions he could have drained the Wall Street swamp. Bharara simply had to
take advantage of the courage and competence of whistleblowers like Bowen and Fleischman who brought
him cases against the top managers of two of the world's largest banks on a platinum platter. Bharara
also could have taken advantage of the expertise and experience of regulators and prosecutors who
worked together to produce over 1,000 felony convictions in "major" cases against financial executives
and their co-conspirators in the savings and loan debacle. Bharara (and Lynch and their counterparts)
failed to take either approach.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so.
Sorry to say it but the situation as it stands now makes mob actions against the financial
elites a rational choice.
I know that such ideas are an essential part of the Libertarian Dream State, but, what else is
left to do then either submit or fight?
As is the case in our politics now, reform is no longer an option.
Of course the NYT defines the liberal version of draining the swamp. Government actors are
already considered bad eggs. But the upper echelons of elite Wall St firms sit on the boards of
America's cultural and educational institutions and are culturally liberal, so whatever they may
have done was done with no ill intent nor malice. Black exposes this as completely bogus in a
short editorial but the leading pundits will be pounding on Russia, Hillbillies, and Russia some
more.
Dang, NC needs those up arrows so I could show my approval. The philanthropy fig-leaf of America's
elite hides a plentitude of warts. Too many people are duped by these 'pillars of community.'
Prof. Black loses some credibility when he writes,
First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states
Evidence? Links to studies? Anything?
Given the national trends of the last few decades (many of them originating from Wall Street
or Wall Street-owned politicians in D.C.), the NYS economy would have been fighting some very
strong headwinds in any case. But the cesspool in Albany helped convince a lot of businesses and
individuals to make their futures elsewhere.
Parents in NYS know that their children's adult lives will (if they're lucky) be spent somewhere
else.
Yes, Preen is a fraud, but Albany was and remains a very corrupt place and the state suffers
because of it.
Recall Bill Black's work during the S & L crisis across the country. I'm one who was involved
with the economic class of Americans who were likely to have their savings in CDs in the fraudulent
institutions in the swamp that Black was instrumental in draining. And, pertinent to this piece
about Citi, I recently met a group of former Citi mid-level execs who were laid off during the
mortgage mess: they rec'd golden parachutes, stock options, and never had to work again.
I couldn't paste the link successfully but this is from the Center for Public Integrity: New
York GRADE:D-(61)RANK:31ST
So 19 states are worse than New York. More than a few in other words, and only 3 states scored
higher than a D+. At any rate, the swamp in Albany was not under Bhahara's jurisdiction anyway,
as Black points out.
I have great respect for the work that Prof. Black did in the past and the work he continues
to do.
But public corruption can be incredibly damaging to government functions
in the short and medium run, and corrosive to trust in government in the long run.
To suggest that NYS doesn't have a serious problem is not helpful.
I would much rather have the USA for SDNY devoting limited resources to going after that,
even if it might be publicity-seeking bigfooting of the USA in Albany,
rather than crusading against insider trading.
Even though I agree that Bharara, Breuer and Holder (and the czar they all worked for)
were a disaster for the rule of law in this country.
Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest
part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction.
Bill Black has all the credibility he needs. This is a classic propaganda technique to focus
on unimportant minor points to impeach an otherwise very import essay. People here know better
than to listen to that.
The Obama Administration prevented any investigations, let alone prosecutions, of Wall Street
and large scale mortgage fraud. Obama's 50 State Solution was sold as consolidation of multiple
state efforts, which were making good progress, into a single, streamlined and comprehensive federal
effort that would take the burden off the states. It was a lie.
Preet Bharara was fired by Trump and has gotten a lot of sympathetic press over his firing.
And he has certainly done many good things. But when it came to the biggest financial crimes in
the history of the world he followed his orders, failed to do his job, and kept his mouth shut
as the criminals reaped hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of American families suffered.
And he is still keeping his mouth shut. But other than that .
+1,000,000! Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%.
That smirky dubya-esque smile on his
face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all.
"Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!"
There's not one politician who doesn't deserve pitchforks and lamposts. Tar and feather these
folk!
Good essay by a man I highly respect, but I, too, noted long ago that New York State politics
are real down and dirty. It's the home of Wall Street, so how could it be otherwise?
It is all theater. We read Wikileaks exposures. There are crimes or at least valid reasons
for investigations.
We get teasers that investigations will happen.
They never do.
The political and corporate leadership class is immune from prosecution except for passing fine
monies back and forth.
These people are completely corrupt and have greatly participated in corrupting our society and
its cultures.
I have always found the Richard Bowen story particularly fascinating and infuriating. His memo
to Rob Rubin is unbelievable. Frontline also did a piece on the failure to prosecute the banks.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission took testimony from Bowen but then locked it up under
seal for five years. Do we have any rational explanation for this other than that the system is
that corrupt. I am a cynic but this still shocks me to the point where I can't fathom that it
is really this bad.
"Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so."
If my memory serves me, perhaps, like Neil Barofsky (SIGTARP), he had lunch with Larry Summers
where it was explained to him that if he wanted to have a $$$career after leaving government it
would be wise to let things slide ( i.e. see Lanny Breuer).
Bahara did what he was told by Obama. That's the end of it.
Anyone who wants to deify Obama – and I know far too many people who do – are completely ignoring
Obama's and Bahara's criminal neglect to hold the banks and Wall St truly accountable.
Recall Jamie "Presidential Cufflinks" Dimon basically thumbing his snooty nose at the hoi poloi.
What? Me, worry? Sucks to be you, great to be me.
These crooks will never do a perp walk, and Bahara made sure that they didn't. All the whining
about Bahara being "fired" by Trump is ignoring these inconvenient truths.
I'm no Obama apologist, but if Bahara indited someone on Wall Street just how was Obama going
to explain firing him? If either had an ounce of integrity the right people would be in jail.
Some manufactured scandal or leak regarding improper or compromising behaviour, well before
the ball trully got rolling on prosecuting our criminal elite forcing Obama to step in and either
move him down, sideways or outright let go to ensure the integrity of the office.
Citigroup (previously Citibank, etc) has always been corrupt. They were caught money laundering
for drug cartels in the 1980s and terrorism back in the 1990s and should have been shut down forever
both times. They weren't.
The only conclusion I can come to is that Citigroup is a heavily exposed to CIA activity. It
sounds like a loony conspiracy theory until you look at the history of Riggs Bank, BCCI, etc and
realize that historically its in the realm of possibility. So yes, its entirely possible.
It doesn't sound at all loony to me, sd. I think the current mess goes all the way back to
the 50s. In defiance of financial prudence, in 1954, the rich guys went to DC, like some super
mercenary army (pun intended) and threw what was called "The Bankruptcy Ball" which everyone who
was anyone attended, all decked out in tuxedos and gowns. Catherine Graham's autobiography. And
I think it marks a point in time when our government became blood brothers with the banks. A relationship
that saw us through the Cold War – which had already bankrupted us – and the Vietnam War which
was an awful and senseless debacle; and on through till the USSR finally said "enough" – at which
point our government and the banks were one. One big mess. We should have had the integrity at
that point, 1990, to fix things. But we couldn't because our capitalist economy, upon which most
of the world had become addicted, would have failed without the crazy growth that the banksters
provided so, god. Talk about a mess. But that's just my opinion.
Ah, yes, the ol' "Bank of Crooks and Criminals, Intl." I remember them and good old Clark Clifford.
Boy, that guy died just in time, huh? Good times! / sarc
Well said, Professor Black. The Southern District of New York was the biggest crime scene in
the U.S. during Bharara's tenure as United States Attorney, and he was the man in charge of the
Holder doctrine, printing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for the donor class. Of course, Bharara
is ambitious enough not to take a multi-million dollar desk at Covington like Holder and Breuer
did. Bad optics. He's going to academia, as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School
of Law. How noble!
NOT. Naked Capitalism readers recognize NYU as what Pam Martens called "a tyrannical slush
fund for privileged interests" where Obot Flexian grifters roost in luxury:
Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's
senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party.
Picking off egregious individuals like Madoff, who can be described as "bad apples" while ignoring
systemic fraud is the playbook.
"The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated
by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity-a hundred
other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive
a movement to stop." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
"Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives. The real service to the state is to detect it in
embryo." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
I read Isaac Asimov's renowned award winning science fiction trilogy four decades ago as a teenager.
I read them because I liked science fiction novels, not because I was trying to understand the correlation
to the fall of the Roman Empire. The books that came to be called the
Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written
as novels; they're the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950. He wrote
these stories during the final stages of our last
Fourth Turning Crisis and the beginning stages of the next High. This was the same time frame
in which Tolkien wrote the
Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Orwell wrote
1984 . This was not a coincidence.
The tone of foreboding, danger, dread, and impending doom, along with unending warfare, propels
all of these novels because they were all written during the bloodiest and most perilous portion
of the last
Fourth Turning . As the linear thinking establishment continues to be blindsided by the continued
deterioration of the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in the world, we have entered
the most treacherous phase of our present
Fourth Turning .
That ominous mood engulfing the world is not a new dynamic, but a cyclical event arriving every
80 or so years. Eight decades ago the world was on the verge of a world war which would kill 65 million
people. Eight decades prior to 1937 the country was on the verge of a Civil War which would kill
almost 5% of the male population. Eight decades prior to 1857 the American Revolution had just begun
and would last six more bloody years. None of this is a coincidence. The generational configuration
repeats itself every eighty years, driving the mood change which leads to revolutionary change and
the destruction of the existing social order.
Isaac Asimov certainly didn't foresee his Foundation stories representing the decline of an American
Empire that didn't yet exist. The work that inspired Asimov was Edward Gibbon's multi-volume series,
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , published between 1776 and 1789. Gibbon saw Rome's
fall not as a consequence of specific, dramatic events, but as the result of the gradual decline
of civic virtue, monetary debasement and rise of Christianity, which made the Romans less vested
in worldly affairs.
Gibbon's tome reflects the same generational theory espoused by Strauss and Howe in The
Fourth Turning . Gibbon's conclusion was human nature never changes, and mankind's penchant for
division, amplified by environmental and cultural differences, is what governs the cyclical nature
of history. Gibbon constructs a narrative spanning centuries as events unfold and emperors' successes
and failures occur within the context of a relentless decline of empire. The specific events and
behaviors of individual emperors were inconsequential within the larger framework and pattern of
historical decline. History plods relentlessly onward, driven by the law of large numbers.
Asimov described his inspiration for the novels:
"I wanted to consider essentially the science of psychohistory, something I made up myself. It
was, in a sense, the struggle between free will and determinism. On the other hand, I wanted to do
a story on the analogy of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but on the much larger scale
of the galaxy. To do that, I took over the aura of the Roman Empire and wrote it very large. The
social system, then, is very much like the Roman imperial system, but that was just my skeleton.
It seemed to me that if we did have a galactic empire, there would be so many human beings-quintillions
of them-that perhaps you might be able to predict very accurately how societies would behave, even
though you couldn't predict how individuals composing those societies would behave. So, against the
background of the Roman Empire written large, I invented the science of psychohistory. Throughout
the entire trilogy, then, there are the opposing forces of individual desire and that dead hand of
social inevitability."
Is History Pre-Determined?
"Don't you see? It's Galaxy-wide. It's a worship of the past. It's a deterioration – a stagnation!"
–
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
"It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly." –
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
The Foundation trilogy opens on Trantor, the capital of the 12,000-year-old Galactic Empire. Though
the empire appears stable and powerful, it is slowly decaying in ways that parallel the decline of
the Western Roman Empire. Hari Seldon, a mathematician and psychologist, has developed psychohistory,
a new field of science that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing
for the prediction of future events.
Psychohistory is a blend of crowd psychology and high-level math. An able psychohistorian can
predict the long-term aggregate behavior of billions of people many years in the future. However,
it only works with large groups. Psychohistory is almost useless for predicting the behavior of an
individual. Also, it's no good if the group being analyzed is aware it's being analyzed - because
if it's aware, the group changes its behavior.
Using psychohistory, Seldon has discovered the declining nature of the Empire, angering the aristocratic
rulers of the Empire. The rulers consider Seldon's views and statements treasonous, and he is arrested.
Seldon is tried by the state and defends his beliefs, explaining his theory the Empire will collapse
in 300 years and enter a 30,000-year dark age.
He informs the rulers an alternative to this future is attainable, and explains to them generating
an anthology of all human knowledge, the Encyclopedia Galactica, would not avert the inevitable fall
of the Empire but would reduce the Dark Age to "only" 1,000 years.
The fearful state apparatchiks offer him exile to a remote world, Terminus, with other academic
intellectuals who could help him create the Encyclopedia. He accepts their offer, and sets in motion
his plan to set up two Foundations, one at either end of the galaxy, to preserve the accumulated
knowledge of humanity and thereby shorten the Dark Age, once the Empire collapses. Seldon created
the Foundation, knowing it would eventually be seen as a threat to rulers of the Empire, provoking
an eventual attack. That is why he created a Second Foundation, unknown to the ruling class.
Asimov's psychohistory concept, based on the predictability of human actions in large numbers,
has similarities to Strauss & Howe's generational theory. His theory didn't pretend to predict the
actions of individuals, but formulated definite laws developed by mathematical analysis to predict
the mass action of human groups. His novel explores the centuries old debate of whether human history
proceeds in a predictable fashion, with individuals incapable of changing its course, or whether
individuals can alter its progression.
The cyclical nature of history, driven by generational cohorts numbering tens of millions, has
been documented over centuries by Strauss & Howe in their 1997 opus The
Fourth Turning . Human beings in large numbers react in a herd-like predictable manner. I know
that is disappointing to all the linear thinking individualists who erroneously believe one person
can change the world and course of history.
The cyclical crisis's that occur every eighty years matches up with how every Foundation story
centers on what is called a Seldon crisis, the conjunction of seemingly insoluble external and internal
difficulties. The crises were all predicted by Seldon, who appears near the end of each story as
a hologram to confirm the Foundation has traversed the latest one correctly.
The "Seldon Crises" take on two forms. Either events unfold in such a way there is only one clear
path to take, or the forces of history conspire to determine the outcome. But, the common feature
is free will doesn't matter. The heroes and adversaries believe their choices will make a difference
when, in fact, the future is already written. This is a controversial viewpoint which angers many
people because they feel it robs them of their individuality.
Most people don't want to be lumped together in an amalgamation of other humans because they believe
admitting so would strip them of their sense of free will. Their delicate sensibilities are bruised
by the unequivocal fact their individual actions are virtually meaningless to the direction of history.
But, the madness of crowds can dramatically impact antiquity.
"In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and
their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do.
We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit;
that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first." –
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Many people argue the dynamic advancements in technology and science have changed the world in
such a way to alter human nature in a positive way, thereby resulting in humans acting in a more
rational manner. This alteration would result in a level of human progress not experienced previously.
The falsity of this technological theory is borne out by the continuation of war, government corruption,
greed, belief in economic fallacies, civic decay, cultural degradation, and global disorder sweeping
across the world. Humanity is incapable of change. The same weaknesses and self- destructive traits
which have plagued them throughout history are as prevalent today as they ever were.
Asimov's solution to the failure of humanity to change was to create an academic oriented benevolent
ruling class who could save the human race from destroying itself. He seems to have been well before
his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he
agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions,
so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses
is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed,
our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard
of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly
functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small
number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they
who pull the wires which control the public mind." –
Edward Bernays – Propaganda
In Part Two of this article I will compare and contrast Donald Trump's rise to power to the rise
of The Mule in Asimov's masterpiece. Unusually gifted individuals come along once in a lifetime to
disrupt the plans of the existing social order.
" He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and
Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses
could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to
guide their actions."
The masses aren't the ones begging to start all of these wars. They are the ones TRYING to
make a few good decisions. The Shadow Government and Deep State however, are hell bent on getting
us all killed. Who exactly is the problem here??
Asimov was a good writer and created some great fiction. That's as far as it goes.
Huxle LetThemEatRand •Mar 27,
2017 10:50 PM y is the one who predicted the current state of affairs. Orwell gets honorable
mention. You could also throw in some biblical passages for the mark of the beast, though the
best part was clearly written about Nero.
"... Legitimacy of the US "democratic" governance can survive only as long as: ..."
"... Or at least that their children could gain that better life, if they get some college degree and work hard. ..."
"... Actually "after 9/11" national security state is already a huge step forward in this direction, so we are almost arrived at the point when the USA democratic "façade" became Potemkin village for tourists. ..."
"... That's essentially the difference between "surface state" and the "deep state" that is now actively discussed in the USA due to attempt of color revolution against Trump with intelligence agencies and FBI coming out as political players. ..."
"... And as soon as any intelligence agency becomes a political player this means effective end of any, even traditional the USA form of "façade-based", two party oligarchical rule called "democracy." ..."
Legitimacy of the US "democratic" governance can survive only as long as:
People of America had an expectation that if they work hard they can gain a better
life. This is not true now for the majority (say, lower 80%) of population.
Or at least that their children could gain that better life, if they get some college
degree and work hard. This is also not true now for majority of graduates. Only those,
who graduates at the top of the class, or from Ivy League universities can expect to get decent
positions. Most graduation are happy to land at helpdesk, doing job that does not require any
college education, because it is better then being a waiter.
IMHO, if neither (1) not (2) are applicable the legitimacy of the democratic government evaporates.
And that creates favorable condition for the transition to the dictatorship in some form.
Actually "after 9/11" national security state is already a huge step forward in this direction,
so we are almost arrived at the point when the USA democratic "façade" became Potemkin village
for tourists.
That's essentially the difference between "surface state" and the "deep state" that is
now actively discussed in the USA due to attempt of color revolution against Trump with intelligence
agencies and FBI coming out as political players.
And as soon as any intelligence agency becomes a political player this means effective
end of any, even traditional the USA form of "façade-based", two party oligarchical rule called
"democracy."
That's a dictatorship: a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or by one
or several non-elected political agencies (like the Communist Party, or STASI). And were the power
is exercised through mechanisms that are completely outside the control of electorate.
If somebody here tells that Comey, or in the past Clapper and Michael Morell, were not a political
players in this presidential cycle, the danger is that half of Mexico and Canada readers of this
blog can die laughing.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... Naked Capitalism ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla ..."
"... There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla ..."
Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an
agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding
an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw
him melting into the Republican mélange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised
to create jobs, his "America First" policy looks more like "Wall Street First."
His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and
dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that
giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their
windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is
simply buy more property and assets already in place.
One of the first reactions to Trump's election victory was for stocks of the
most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe
taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education's knee-breaker
on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 now that it
seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a
green light for financial fraud.
Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman
Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary –
and Trump is pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting
fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and
savers "broader choice," e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into
for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers' unions.
This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that
neoliberals have been waiting for.
But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional
U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the
Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama's
"moderate" terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from
Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration's New Cold War with
Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting
his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for
starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.
Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members up their
spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP - producing a windfall worth tens of
billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe
must pay if it wants to endorse Germany's and the Baltics' confrontation with
Russia.
Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he
recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in
Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge
withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of
sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates
country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his
designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU's
breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.
Will Trump's Victory Break Up the Democratic Party?
At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how
successful these international reversals will be. What is more clear is what
Trump's political impact will have at home. His victory – or more accurately,
Hillary's resounding loss and the
way
she lost – has encouraged
enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what
President Trump may achieve vis-à-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos
agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.
The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and
the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires,
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics
encourages any identity
except
that of wage earners. The candidates
backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs pledged to promote Wall Street
and neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.
They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So
Trump's electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama's. Instead of
Trump's victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It
is as if identity politics is all they have.
Trying to ride on Barack Obama's coattails didn't work. Promising "hope and
change," he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the
Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept
into office by a national reaction against the George Bush's Oil War in Iraq
and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free
rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care
if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad
and often fraudulent loans.
But it turned out that Obama's role was to
prevent
the changes that
voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial
reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market
prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the
economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his
Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the
Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian
coup as well.
Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen
successor Hillary Clinton as his "Third Term." Enjoying this kiss of death,
Hillary promised to keep up Obama's policies.
The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters,
"Aren't you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Who were they
going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary? National income statistics showed
that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth
in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama's tenure went to them – the Donor
Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes
have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been
further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic
leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from
introducing his Single Payer proposal.)
No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for
where the top 5 percent, is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and
California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of
the Obama Administration's slogan of "hope and change," Trump characterized
Hillary's policy of continuing the economy's shrinkage for the 95% as "no hope
and no change."
Identity Politics as Anti-Labor Politics
A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its
aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women,
LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by
organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street
(and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold
War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.
The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity
politics strips away thinking of one's interest in terms of having to work for
a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck
stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or
education, or better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak
of protecting debtors.
Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and
unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim
Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide
demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the
Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders' campaign in fact
threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were
over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome.
Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as
Putin's Republican leadership.
In contrast to Sanders' attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a
common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, in
opposing Wall Street's replacing the government as central planner – the
Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every
other, setting themselves at each other's heels. Clinton strategist John
Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of
distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between
whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals' nightmare.
No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to
keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.
When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or
anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump
supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women's March on
Saturday led even the pro-Democrat
New York Times
to write a
front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did
not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates,
students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.
The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the
Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on
Naked Capitalism
: "the track
record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and
the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when
other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police
not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom
does not see it as a threat to the status quo."
[1]
Hillary's loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her
pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative
Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given
to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks
claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State
Department. Backing her supporters' attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic
Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an
estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work
for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to
banking that serves
their
needs, not those of Wall Street, and health
care that serves
their
needs, not those of the health-insurance and
pharmaceuticals monopolies.
Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared
being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he
can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a
new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he
will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the
Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854.
He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.
Trump's Effect on U.S. Political Party Realignment
During Trump's rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was
more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus
warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart.
The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but
losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not
support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in
their hands to enact and privatize.
The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country's two most
unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie
out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In
the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC,
its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie.
They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had
made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the
right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them
closely, yet still pose as the "lesser evil." That "centrism" is the essence of
the Clintons' "triangulation" strategy. It actually has been going on for a
half-century. "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when
he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is
also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two
of them'."
[2]
By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary's team paid
pollsters over $1 billion to tell her ("Mirror, mirror on the wall ") that she
was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince
the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much
as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a
reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy
television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her,
succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5
Percent who had benefited from Obama's pro-Wall Street policies.
Hillary's election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While
characterizing the working class as white racist "deplorables," allegedly
intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe
McCarthy and accused Trump of being "Putin's poodle" for proposing peace with
Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly
charge at
The New York Times
that President Trump is following
Moscow's orders. Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits
that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of
Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn't really win the
election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder
George Orwell's
1984
soared to the top of America's best-seller lists
in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.
This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations
succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed
to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA His foreign policy initiative
based on rapprochement with Russia and hopes to create a common front against
ISIS/Al Nusra seemed to be collapsing.
Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics
U.S. presidential elections no longer are much about policy. Like Obama
before him, Trump campaigned as a
rasa tabla
, a vehicle for everyone
to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past
century's idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy
vs. oligarchy.
Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would
become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared.
Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by their junk economics.
There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It
is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal
economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of
rasa tabla
politics.
Can the Democrats Lose Again in 2020?
Trump's November victory showed that voters found
him
to be the
Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was "throw out the bums"
and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists.
Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter
turnout has continued to plunge.
Although the Democrats' Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in
2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive
economic program to less threatening to their interests than the critique of
Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the
Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of
policy, but simply
ad hominum
. They will merely repeat Hillary's
campaign stance: They are
not
Trump. Their parades and street
demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic
policy.
On Friday, February 10, the party's Democratic Policy group held a retreat
for its members in Baltimore. Third Way "centrists" (Republicans running as
Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was
that no party policy was needed at all. "President Trump is a better
recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,' said Washington Rep.
Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (DCCC)."
[3]
But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and
Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or
education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory
roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump's
message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his
election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as "the gold standard" of
trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece
of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic
regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.
Instead of accepting even Sanders' centrist-left stance, the Democrats'
strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insist that his aides had committed
impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. "Rep. Marcia Fudge of
Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an "economic message"
aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did
not win on an economic message. "What Donald Trump did was address them at a
very different level - an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level," she
said. "If all we talk about is the economic message, we're not going to win."
[4]
This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the
"centrist" Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.
By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael
Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they
had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country
half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class,
unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street
privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex.
Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to
ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to
sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection,
environmental protection or other protection of the population against
financialized corporate monopolies.
Against this backdrop, Trump's promises and indeed his worldview seem
quixotic. The picture of America's future he has painted seems unattainable
within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to
the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes
abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.
There can't be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four
years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or
sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has
been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real
estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land
values.
The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on
corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental
protection. Trump may end up as America's Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S.
oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more
colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters
should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.
Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump's billionaire cabinet
may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did
to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public
wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump's his best chance to be
transformative is simply to be America's Yeltsin for his party's oligarchic
backers, putting the class war back in business.
What a Truly Transformative President Would Do/Would Have Done
No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the
problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The
only one way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy
competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political
horizon. Obama's doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy
from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a
progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political
party is preparing a program to juxtapose to Republican-Democratic austerity
and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs in
general.
Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public
option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against
financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection
of labor's right to unionize, or environmental regulations.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these
essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the
Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he
can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to
try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to
change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and
deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and
seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks
like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention
(many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a
corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher:
TINA – There Is No Alternative.
And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the
failure of the left to provide an alternative.
"... As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue. ..."
"... Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power. ..."
"... Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. ..."
"... The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. ..."
"... "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues," ..."
"... " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics." ..."
"... "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed." ..."
"... I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties. ..."
"... The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts. ..."
"... Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities. ..."
"... People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII. ..."
"... Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" ..."
"... Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior). ..."
"... Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home. ..."
"... Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01. ..."
"... Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it? ..."
"... It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools? ..."
"... The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions. ..."
"... The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity. ..."
"... "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." ..."
"... The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative. ..."
"... The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray. ..."
"... The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning. ..."
"... Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism. ..."
"... The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone. ..."
"... Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense. ..."
"... The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo. ..."
"... The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also. ..."
"... Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. ..."
"... The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few. ..."
"... Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise. ..."
As long as the people of America had a reasonable expectation of gaining a better life, or,
the next best thing, that their children would gain that better life, the Social Contract remained
strong. Aspiration was both a spur to striving within the existing system, and a palliative for
most discontents encountered. Where the status quo did not offer any real hope, the Civil Rights
for minorities being an example, more "robust" methods were necessary, and were employed. What
else is civil disobedience but counter violence against the State? Naturally, the State ramps
up it's 'violence' in an attempt to quash the disaffected masses.
In this struggle, optics and expectations are crucial. As Gil Scott-Heron famously invoked;
"The revolution will not be televised." Paradoxically, by ensuring the wide dissemination of images
of the nascent "Revolution," activists ensured that whatever came out of the Days of Rage would
not be a true revolution. The newsreels of colored people bravely enduring police oppression in
the American South guaranteed that that particular issue would not be dumped down Orwell's "Memory
Hole." Television footage of young American men fighting and dying in Vietnam spurred the families
of those who could even potentially be drafted to go overseas to die for their country to take
to the streets and vote against the war and the warmongers. Gay rights is generally considered
to have begun to take form and substance after the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in 1969. See:
https://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/
By "going postal," the New York gays declared loud and proud that the old way of doing business
was no longer acceptable to them.
As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property
Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and
working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored
"identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented.
On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints
of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored"
agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective.
It is all about control of the dialogue.
The main strength of the old style identity politics is it's ability to focus the energies
of participants toward a particular goal. To that end, the concept of the "United Front" is useful.
You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration is the operative concept. Thus, the development
and widespread dissemination of images of a uniting "struggle" are needed. All of this is actually
self evident. What is needed are "leaders" ready to stand up and shout it out over the rooftops.
When Paul Revere made his famous ride, he was actually stopped by British troops before he
could reach either Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. A companion, a Dr. Prescott made the actual
warnings to the American rebels. Revere and Prescott were members of an extensive Patriot organization.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards
a common goal. A "United Front" made the American Revolution. See:
http://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts
Today's struggle can proceed no differently.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating
towards a common goal
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." A bit
of wisdom from the mind of Ben Franklin in the early days of the revolution.
Let us remember, when a college student asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi whether the party might move
toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, "
We're capitalists. That's
just the way it is. ", and went on to support a return to noblesse oblige, completely failing
to grasp the contradiction between modern neoliberal theology (maximizing shareholder return/profits)
and such niceties as paying a living wage. We the left have a problem we need to attack head-on
– our semantics have been demonized. Socialism is widely disparaged as subordinating individual
will to the state – as tyranny – and the MSM often portrays economic downturns in social democracies
(Venezuela, Argentina) as caused by foolish socialist policies, not broadscale economic issues
(oil glut), or financial stupidity of prior governments (Argentina). I applaud Senator Sanders
for continuing to use the moniker "social democrat" as he has done much to legitimize the word.
We need more. Ich bin ein social democrat.
Oh yes, and I remember wondering when I first read about that "interaction," just what did
Pelosi really mean by Capitalist? As someone else here remarked, she might have been confusing
capitalist with corporatist in her mind.
seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations:
1. 'Nancy Pelosi asked whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system,
she answered, "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is."
ambrit: Excellent comment. What I would add, though, is that all three of the movements that
you cite had equality as a main goal: Black people wanted equality in civil rights and civil liberties.
The antiwar movement drew strength from the draft, which affected people of all classes (men most
directly) and led to various unequal uses of deferments that are causes of political problems
to this very day. Gay folk also wanted civil rights and civil liberties (although marriage equality
may not be the proper culmination–identity politics gone divergent).
A while back, I read Norberto Bobbio's influential little book, Right and Left. He states that
the main motivators of leftist politics are liberty, equality, and fraternité (let's call it solidarity).
And he points out that leftists usually place equality first. So to animate a new movement, we
have to get back to issues of political and economic equality. The metaphor of The One Percent
is a hint. That hint has to be expanded.
Good point. The American Revolt had it's "Committees of Correspondence." They operated outside
of the MSM of the day. The Civil Rights movement early on had the black churches as sanctuaries
and disseminators of the message. The anti-war movement had both the Underground press and, unwittingly,
later, the MSM of the day proclaiming the problem. In general, each information spreading system
used was not a part of the "Official Version" apparatus.
The point about equality is important. The unmentioned basis of Capitalism is competition.
Competition implies inequality as the outcome. This is not true aspiration, but aspiration's evil
twin, ambition. So, the Left's real uphill slog is going to be to frame the debate about social
policy in an anti-competitive form.
Bashing the .01% is always good fun, but, as many have remarked, and the recent failed Democrat
Party campaigns have demonstrated, a positive goal is needed to really motivate and engage those
of us "on the ground." As earlier remarked, a "Single Payer" healthcare campaign, framed as an
"equality" measure would do the trick. There are doubtless many other issues that would lend themselves
to a similar treatment. Meld these issues into a "Progressive United Front" campaign and we will
begin to see some movement.
In essence, as the earlier socialist and communist thinkers proclaimed, the ownership of the
means of production are a good place to start. Given the unequal distribution of such ownership
however, the next best thing would be the control of the distribution of the fruits of production;
especially germaine with the rise of automation.
I also see the dream ahead of him, beckoning, beguiling, beatifying despite the false realities
around him.
Something to believe in will generally trump something to be fearful of, in the hearts of men.
IMO there's not a practical electoral solution, in the sense of electing a bunch of candidates
at multiple levels of government to unwind or replace all the laws, regulations/lack of regulations,
court decisions, and algorithms that misgovern our lives and misappropriate our wealth.
Building on your comment ambrit@5:29 and Ulysses@8:38:
A – No more than 3 universal issues (Medicare for All; publicly funded tuition for post-secondary
education, training, and apprenticeships; end the wars, for example). Medicare for All is part
of the discussion now and should have a prominent place.
B – Activism continues, as it must and will, in other areas: issues of survival (police violence,
incarceration, homelessness and hunger; minimum wage ); support for activism across issues (Food
not Bombs, ACLU and NLG, Light Brigades, local jail and bail support ); and forward-looking activism
(local sustainable food and energy solutions, workplace and community coops ).
C – Electoral politics that functions as the political arm of the movement for "A" and locally
appropriate subsets of "B" issues. In practical term, this may need to be an insurgency in the
Dem ranks, or more organized Greens, plus coordination with other "third" parties that have a
presence and ballot access in some places.
Then we work on ambrit's:
"You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration"
Adding: "We recruit candidates who understand your issues and have policy proposals to address
them, you show up to vote".
I can't find much on the Light Brigades. Who are they?
And my issues at the universal level would be health care for all (with minimal fees and premiums),
free education for all, an end to the endless wars, and, if I may have a fourth, expansion of
Social Security with some big raises to recipients to give people a base income that they can
retire on (or safely go into disability retirement). The money is there for all of these, but
the political will consists of the likes of Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.
Yes: You watch my back, and I'll watch your back. But "back" is defined broadly–we are all
in this together.
Good Comment. What bothers me is there is a lot of conversation about all our issues and proposed
solutions, but I see no actions taking place. There are no leaders on the national level, other
than Senator Sanders. We need a Socialist Huey Long with a big horn and perhaps a little action
like, Act Up" to get things moving. There is going to be a revolt sooner or later. It will get
to a point where ordinary people, especially our young, who will not take it anymore.
Love Hudson, but no one is right about everything.
He accepts as an article of faith that it would be easier to start a new party than win primaries
in Dem party. Not clear at all.
Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run
Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues, it does not logically follow that voters do not often
think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural
"us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not
easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. And what exactly
is the Hudson platform to address debt or FIRE now? I understand the argument (as I understand
it) that 2009 was an opportunity to use bankruptcy of Wall Street to break up economic olarchy
and write down debt for homeowners. I agree. I am angry and frustrated by the lost opportunity.
I also understand the sly reference to having to wait for the next crisis to get another chance.
Why do we have to wait? This is Hudson's concession that there is no general understanding of
the debt problem or support for Willy-Nilly support for dismantling Wall Street or existing debt
relationships.
I am convinced by Hudson that rising housing prices are a scam for loading debt on people and
raising the burden of a rentier class. But most people who own houses are excited when you tell
them housing prices are going up. What exactly should be our political message.
Some districts have strong evangelical communities and find abortion to be the top issue year
in andvyear out. Some evangelicals stuck with Trump in the hope of a Supreme Court that will outlaw
abortion. How to Dems or a new Hudson party win in those districts?
Politics is a fluid business. Forget coalition building (extremely tough), even finding a message
for one voter (who may be of 2 or 3. Or 4 minds about the world, and change views daily, is tough.
In my view, a Progressive majority must be put together piece by piece, place by place, from
the ground up. Bernie articulated a place to start. The Schumer crowd own the Dems now, but it
is a fragile hold. We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate
those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party
is needed.
Because we have a political system–from the Fed to the Congress to the media–that is designed
to keep current arrangements in place. Public complacency has allowed this to happen and now only
another systemic breakdown is likely to force change on an entrenched elite and confused electorate.
One might hope that the Democratic party would be the necessary force for reform but it's surely
clear by now that its leadership intends to go down with the ship. Time for the rest of us to
pile into the lifeboats (a third party). And even if one believes there is hope for the Dems,
it's unlikely they will change without some serious threat to their power and that would be a
viable third party. For much of the country's history there were lots of third parties and splinter
movements which is what one would expect from such a diverse population. The duopoly is a very
artificial arrangement.
Sanders should never have taken this third party threat off the table and it is why the Dem
leadership doesn't take him seriously. It's also a reason for some of the rest of us to question
his seriousness. "Don't want to be the Nader" isn't the sort of call to arms that has one putting
up the Che posters.
Did Bernie have a big impact? The mainstream media mostly ignore him and the Dems go out of
their way to ignore him by running Perez. And didn't the Bernie endorsed primary challengers in
the last cycle do poorly?
You will only get the elites' attention by threatening their power, not their message. Obviously
establishing a viable third party is extremely difficult which is why I agree with Hudson that
it will take the next crisis to change things. Incrementalism has been shown not to work.
Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment
did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and
his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten
years if this tactic were widely deployed.
Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit
in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. A successful
third party will be very difficult to achieve, but is perhaps possible. A useful Democratic party
is not possible until every careerist is unemployed–ie until their employers run out of money.
That can't come about, as long as there are empowered Democrats and Republicans.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under
ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.
I agree with this statement.
And it's happening: various groups (Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats,
and probably others) are planning primary challengers in just that way. And it's already happened
at the
local and district level in California. It's a different political environment than even just
a few years ago and it will be even still more different when some (or, let's hope, many)
of these candidates start winning.
The real problem is corporatism. The power to make decisions on public policy has been transferred
from democratic government to corporations, run by oligarchs. Both political parties in the US
are committed to this political arrangement. The thin veneer of democracy is used to check public
dissatisfaction. In short order, even this facade will be deemed unnecessary and discarded. This
consolidation of power was enabled by masking class consciousness. Worker aspirations mirror their
corporate masters. Life consists of maximizing personal wealth in the form of money and possessions.
Mass media provides the conduit to achieve this conditioning.
Trying to rebuild the Democratic party form within is a waste of energy and time that most
citizens don't have. If anything, the existing political establishment has perfected the techniques
and tools needed to make dissent impotent. This is largely accomplished by perpetuating the myth
that change can occur by working within the existing system, and then undermining effective policy
that would focus on worker interests. The chumps get scraps.
In the end, oligarchy is the cost that must be paid for our modern life of convenience and
endless entertainment. Moving forward must be about rejection. Rejection of the current social
and cultural order. A new party, a true workers party, is needed to restore equilibrium to the
existing power imbalance. The mass of people who have dropped out of the workforce and electoral
system are waiting for leadership to offer a better vision for the future. This vision is not
forthcoming because the human imagination must turn outside the existing failed norms and seek
new horizons removed from capitalist ideology. Political power follows or grows naturally from
a social order, not the other way around. Imposed social orders are always unstable and need violence
to maintain. A way of life determines the political possibilities. This is why those wanting change
must always work outside the existing system, both mentally and physically.
Just as crony capitalist ideology turned the notion of individual freedom on its head to justify
the greatest inequality known to human societies, the remedy centers on the rejection of exploitive
violence. It is based on preservation, regeneration, and a spiritual awareness that one must give
back to the world and not only take from it. To my mind, coalitions built on these principles
stretch across all social groups. Spending time, money, and energy building these networks and
infrastructure will be productive and longer lasting. Strikes, boycotts, and dropping out of the
existing system sends a much more powerful message to the oligarchs. They will respond with violence,
but then their true nature is open for all to see, making it easier for others to reject their
ideology.
Capitalism was born of Feudalism. Individual rights superseding the rights of Kings. Nothing
lasts forever. A post- capitalist world must be first envisioned and then articulated. Capitalism
maintained the inequality and hierarchical use of violence of the previous system. This relationship
forms most of the underlying root causes of intractable problems faced today. Egalitarianism provides
a way and an alternative. Socialist ideas can be suppressed but never eradicated. Human social
evolution points in this direction. Slavery will never return. The human spirt will not allow
it.
What a cavalier and condescending dismissal. With an arrogant wave of the hand, history goes
*poof*. And though you "agree" (how generous of you!) )with some of the symptoms Hudson identifies,
you categorically deny what he identifies as the root systemic cause of those ills. Instead, a
little modest, cautious, sensible, "piece by piece", "place by place" reform around the edges,
and everything will work out just fine in its own time, because abortion.
You are an exemplary and model Democrat, and Exhibit A why left politics will never emerge
from within the Democrat Party.
although it may be an uphill climb now, striking and unionizing still sounds infinitely less
pie in the sky and far more brass tacks and addressing some of the actual problems, than creating
a 3rd party in the U.S.. If that is one's solution they have no right to criticize anyone on their
proposals not being practical. At least striking has some history of actually working.
It is the participation in our own destruction that I am trying to express and get my head
around. Engagement by all means, but somehow the rules need to be changed.
The amount of time, energy, and resources needed to engage in effective politics today is prohibitive
to most citizens. What Hudson is saying is that the two party system in America is broken and
the only way forward is to start anew. I would tend to agree. In my lifetime, the Democratic party
has been reforming for close to 40 years now. That is a long time to be ineffectual concerning
worker's interests. The long dissent of the American workforce is reaching critical mass and some
radical thinking and action is needed.
The left needs to develop some productive alternatives, which again Hudson points out. An egalitarian
alternative needs to be articulated. Candidates running for office as socialists, espousing actual
socialist ideals. Win or loose, speaking in public about socialist ideals can only help. Government
sponsorship of small business and cooperatives over monopolistic corporations. Actually running
and building sustainable communities. As was stated in comments, Sanders raised upwards of 240
million dollars during the last campaign. What is there to show for all that effort and resource
depletion?
An actual show of distain for the elite ruling class for their crass barbarism and masked cruelty
is a start. Followed by actually building something of lasting value.
The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple
physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning
your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever.
alrighty, everyone who can't get a job is overweight and a drug addict and unhealthy etc..
Get real. Old sometimes has something to do with it, just because companies do age discriminate
in hiring.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is
not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym.
People are not a miniscule fraction as stupid as you think they are, and I will posit that this
is one of, if not the main problem with democrat loyalists such as yourself.
first you say this
"Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to
run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues,"
shorter, I realize democrats don't represent you, and that's too bad but you have no other option
and PH doesn't want you to have another option.
followed by
" it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals
in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a
powerful effect on politics."
Is this unmoored jab at rural identity not a double negative that can be rephrased "it logically
follows that voters think of themselves in terms of racism or religion or guns"? and isn't that
just another way of saying people are stupid and you are not because you can hide your class and
race bias behind a double negative, and people being stupider than you will never know it because
clever, but clever ain't working anymore, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.
You
close with a call for incrementalism yeah that's worked really great for all of us in the hoi
polloi, and you don't fail to mention abortion, the only democrat platform, and schumer et al's
"fragile grip" is in reality an "iron law of institutions" grip and they and you are not going
to let go.
"We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas
to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed."
so who is this "we" kemo sabe? I am in the veal pen. Come into the veal pen with me. We will be
in the veal pen thanks but no thanks. I've had plenty of common sense discussions with my neighbors,
and it's depressing as we all know none of those sensible policies will be enacted by the useless
to the common citizen and enabler to the criminals on wall street democrat party, rotten to it's
core.
Федеральное агентство по управлению государственным имуществом (Росимущество) was what created
Oligarchs under Yeltsin. It was headed by Chubais who helped make Khordorovsky and the rest of
the Oligarchs incredibly rich. He then headed the 1996 Re-Election Campaign for Unpopular Yeltsin
and bought victory and sold off State assets for nugatory worth.
Khordorovsky was to deliver Yukos to Exxon and let US interests control Russia's natural resources.
Berezhovsky needed a "roof" – he had Chechens protecting his outside interests but once Yeltsin's
liver gave out the KGB Siloviki would put The Family on trial so he found Putin as a Lieut-Col.
with a background in St Petersburg where Chubais had been active for Sobchak also. Putin was the
"roof" to keep the KGB from executing the looters for treason.
Like a new Tsar with Boyars, Putin had to find which were his "Oligarchs" and Berezhovsky turned
his assets over to Abramovich who is Putin's man. Chubais now sits on CFR and JP Morgan Board
for his good works.
Trump won on the slogan Make America Great. I live in upstate NY which is strong republican.
These people thought the slogan meant great for them. That coupled with a bitter hate of Clinton
made it easy for Trump to get their vote. A sad thing is that these voters are very uninformed
and depend on what they know from corporate media especially FOX news. None of them know what
Neoliberal means and that the root of their problems lie with neoliberal policies.
When I tell
them that Obama and Cuomo aren't really democrats but moderate republicans they think I'm out
of my mind. I tend to look at thing objectively based on verifiable facts.Most of these voters
look at issues in an emotional way. They will say Obamacare is bad and need to be repealed. When
you ask them how it's bad the best they can come up with is it forces you to buy insurance and
you can't keep your own doctor. I guess what I'm saying is that the average voter is too lazy
to get informed and relies on the political propaganda fed to them.
At 75 years old I don't see
that the immediate future will change much. The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
Unless someone or a movement can educate them about the evils that are destroying their future,
democracy is dead. Because of how the economy is structured the economic future for most of the
population is grim. They will not be able to afford to retire and will live in poverty. Perhaps
this will wake them up. Unfortunately it will be too late for them.
At best we can work at the margin on the handful of people that are capable of rational thought.
Which is why nothing ever changes, appeals to emotion are always more potent than appeals to reason.
There is no solution.
I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of
the two parties.
The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced,
the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned,
an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their
own efforts.
Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families
struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees
and communities.
Now we have a government of the internally connected top 10%, with the bottom 90% detached
and watching from outside.
And CEO's and the executive class have loyalty only to their company's stock price.
The recent rehabilitation of serial screw-up George W. Bush and attempted elevation of serial
screw-up Hillary Clinton is direct evidence that the political class does not care how much harm
they do to the "deplorable" voters they appeal to every 2/4/6 years.
With the money sloshing around DC and the media control of content, how does one replace the
leadership of both parties with more progressive people in any reasonable time frame?
Per Mark Blyth, Global Trump_vs_deep_state is the current response, but what will this morph into after
Global Trump_vs_deep_state hangover manifests?.
I think although it may seem that only a small percent of the population is capable of rational
thought I think this is actually not the case and its more productive (and optomistic) to think
of this issue in terms of a behaviour rather than a fixed capability, like how some ancient Greek
philosophers thought about moral behaviour or how some modern phychologists think about psychopathy.
Almost everyone is capable of rational thought (or moral or psychopathitic behaviour) but its
how often or more precisly in what situations an individual decides to engage in or deploy rational
thought.
Capable of rational thought really doesn't do much good for all the things one has no exposure
to. Ok in this case they may have little real understanding of say leftists ideas. And I really
think they don't. That may not be the case for the political junkies here for political ideas,
but we all have our areas of things (not politics) we may have a similar stupidity about.
Sorry, but I think that's way too disrespectful of other people and not realistic. All, save
those with extreme mental disabilities, are capable of some degree of rational thought. That doesn't
mean they can be quickly or easily convinced, but they will be more amenable to persuasion if
you approach them as equals and open your mind to their reality in order to find the right terms
with which to present your ideas. Bernie has shown himself to be very good at that, as are all
good teachers. Those who insist on framing everything in their own terms without adapting their
communication to another's experience will always get blank stares.
Dehumanizing ("people are sheep") and dismissing our neighbors as incapable of rational (good?)
thinking will get us nowhere. Like I've said, the propaganda is working when we're dividing and
conquering ourselves. That horrid little word often seen in this context, "sheeple," is just another
word for "deplorables."
People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn
of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII.
Gore Vidal quotes JFK
as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters"
(emphasis original in the TRNN video,
The National Security State with Gore Vidal ). Psychology and other social sciences have been
weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were
nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to
control the outputs (behavior).
Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S.
government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the
past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries
and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent
at home.
Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in
a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to
JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01.
Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information
we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators
have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it?
Once again, TPTB thought they had found a magic method of machining people into permanent compliance.
But they neglected the fact that relying on psyops drives people crazy. You just can't keep rejecting
real reality and substituting a manufactured Narrative (looking at you, NYT) forever.
ISTM we're acting without sufficient contact with reality. The effort to control the population,
the better to exploit us, has driven many of us mad. Neglecting the century or so of effort that's
gone into manufacturing consent leads to blaming the victims.
Propagandists and PSYOPeratives have put out the people's eyes, and you berate them for their
blindness?
While I would absolutely agree with everything you've just said and believe the facts you've
cited are the main reason for the bleak outlook for our species, how the myriad of lies fed to
the population is received is a more complex process than just plain deception. People are incredibly
complex and operate on a number of levels simultaneously. For instance the notion that universal
health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt
and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning
eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook
this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
It's ironic that our evolutionary highly successful nature of collectivism is now working against
us as a species and leading to a destructive subservience that is almost sadomasochistic. If the
population were to be unequivocally presented with reality I doubt many would tolerate the state
we have now but conversely this would mean that the elite in our society had sanctioned truthfulness,
so we would not really be going against the wishes of the powerful. Basically the fact that the
powerful in our society have presented us with lies means lies are what they want us to believe,
so dutifully most will oblige, however obviously at odds with reality those lies are.
Why such an overwhelming percent of the population do not vote in their own economic interest
is because political affiliations seem to be a complex expression of self-identity, something
which includes attitudes, social prejudices and 'beliefs' that are dependent on complex emotional
interactions between internal and external events, and can include for instance a desire for status
within your tribe, family loyalty, even sadistic impulses. I;m probably wrong about most of this
but part of me cant help feeling some of the victims share a little of the blame
>> For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally
beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary
must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the
majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately
feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
You're projecting your knowledge and views, and then blaming people who don't see things your
way. A majority supports single payer, yes, but the rest is wishful thinking.
If you read Zinn's A People's History of the US, you'll see that even WWII was a manufactured
war. I'm willing to bet a majority still thinks we were attacked out of the blue on Pearl Harbor
Day, despite FDR's plan to provoke Japan. Or that incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the
war and saved tens of thousands of US lives. There was an almost perfectly complete news blackout
on the aftermath specifically so that opposition to the bombings couldn't form. There are endless
examples like this.
We're not told what we need to know to govern ourselves. What we are told amounts to propaganda,
sometimes explicitly so.
Yes, a lot of people have drunk the koolaid, some with gusto. Who's pouring it? You can blame
the victims all you like. I blame the people who've deliberately set out to deceive us.
What our deluded brothers and sisters need is our compassion. It's hard to have compassion
for someone trying to run you over for exercising your rights (been there, done that), but no
one ever said it would be easy.
The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
I think Trump, the Repubs and most of the Dems see that too. That's why they've promoted DeVos,
Arnie Duncan, and all the other advocates of "charter schools," strangled public education, and
attacked teachers.
The problem with this approach is that all this does is kill off liberal cosmopolitanism, not
Marxism. Marxism doesn't need a widespread secondarily-educated population to spread. And it definitely
does not need liberal cosmopolitanism as a stepping stone; quite the opposite, really. Just in
the US, when the wobblies and Black Panthers started turning red, how many of their rank and file
went to college or even finished high school?
Considering that the elites are using liberal cosmopolitanism to strangle Marxism (class-only
Marxists want to throw women and nonwhites under the bus to get their single-payer and you, the
woke liberal identitarian, must support capitalism to protect the marginalized), this strategy
is not only pointless but it's also self-defeating.
It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly
huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was
forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools?
The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier
to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had
an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the
hospital were non
profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit.
There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking
from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions.
There is a noticeable correlation between this act and the explosion of Healthcare costs.
The Miller Center had a series on Nixon expressing doubts to the Kaiser about HMOs. The arguments
played out just like charter schools today.
I recall hearing the tape of a conversation among Nixon and his aides regarding HMOs. The audio,
like most of the Johnson & Nixon tapes, was poor, but what did come through was Nixon's support
for Kaiser's business model, summed up by Erlichman as, "the less care they give them, the more
money they make."
The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide
a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats
have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity.
"As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US
of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American
extravagance, they have two of them'."
I seem to recall that the identity politics of yore were lacking in solidarity. The antiwar protestors, some of whom were hippies, were beaten up by working class union members.
Remember the hard hat riots? And the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era? Well, they were from the black
churches, and they thought that the hippies were uncouth.
The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the
most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing
racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand
to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative.
A cynic might say that liberal identity politics (as opposed to post-Frankfurt/Focault Marxist
identity politics) was intentionally designed to do these things both in the 60-70s and now.
I don't see how antiwar protestors qualify as identity politics, since the group is defined
by a policy concern, not by some quasi-biological tag. Same with working class union members;
policy and economic interests, not tags.
I'd say the same about the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era, even though
they did generally share the tag of being "black". They focused on a policy goal and welcomed
those who didn't share the tag to participate in the struggle.
Identity politics are not the same thing as left-wing or progressive or liberal (or whatever
you want to call it) politics. In very real sense, Identity politics are a form of anti-politics
since they don't address interests, policy or allow any form of accommodation or reconciliation
of different points of view.
Identity politics is about tags. Non-identity politics is about interests and policies.
But the focus is on the policy issues. The campaign for gay marriage was about getting gay
marriage, not about being gay. And anyone who supported gay marriage was a part of that campaign
- gay, straight, black, white, male, female; all the tags. It may have started with those who
were gay, but it wasn't exclusive to the tag.
By contrast, Hillary's campaign was just about the tags. Not doing anything for those with
the tags, or changing any policies, no matter how they affected various tags, or even addressing
any issues that are important to one or more of the tags, just acknowledging the tags and verbally
supporting pride in them. That's why even a bunch of people possessing the tags didn't support
her: there was nothing there for them, or, indeed, anyone else outside the financial and imperial
elite.
Abernathy and King were from black churches. The rest of the leadership came from the street
or universities. King's lament about the "white moderate" was code for the "black church." Ministers
were glorified house slaves and liked the big houses. Jim Crow worked for black ministers. If
better of blacks moved to white neighborhoods and more importantly white churches, who would put
money in the collection plate?
With the exception of Jackson when he showed up (he was young), those young black men who were
always around King were Communists and atheists. They didn't broadcast it for obvious reasons,
but a guy like Malcolm X was skeptical of King for real reasons.
Jackson was important because he forced the black churches to get with the program. If there
was a minister successor to King, the congregants might ask questions about their own ministers.
The black church hated hippies, but the real civil rights leadership didn't.
The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant
celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray.
The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction
that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem.
Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's
wheels turning.
Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire.
As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class.
Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the
ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures
being swarmed, consumerism.
Bernie picked up Occupy"s talking points (good plagarist!) but left the hurdle of recognizing
plutocracy the same as Occupy did. Plutocracy is democratic as well it just usnt!
What is there to show for 200 million in donations to overcome the Third Way? A new minuet
with the crushing DemocRATic "party".
The war has come home. First step is to admit it. Consistency in VALUES is the left"s primary
directive. There needs to be funerals for both parties not more illusion.
The tax break "fight" will be hilarious. Another example of how our rulers cannot solve a single
problem .
The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various
bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone.
You cannot heal a chronic disease without seeing the entirety of its degenerative properties.
We're fighting a nasty virus.
Bernie did not plagiarize Occupy. He had been saying the same things in Vermont for 25 years,
but saying them in ways that lots of very various people connected with.
20 years ago, Bernie lawn signs used to be run over by irate people who knew he was a no-good
dirty Socialist. But because he has consistently framed issues in terms of ordinary people's lives
and because he has always been absolutely honest and forthright, most of those people who flattened
the signs now like and respect him and vote for him. They also pay attention to issues that only
no-good dirty Socialists do in most other states.
"a revived protection of labor's right to unionize"
Do this and everything else will follow - don't do this and nothing will ever follow.
"It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims."
Don't depend on right or left parties. Depend on yourselves: rebuild American union density
(6% unions in private economy analogous to 20/10 BP - starves every other healthy process). Both
parties will come begging to your door.
Here's how to "do this":
[snip]
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been
a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room - or the missing T-Rex .
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years - and half the per capita income ago - the fed min
wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% - while the
top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it - how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony - overlap like min wage laws - especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing
to overlap since 1935;
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier;
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup - or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
[snip]
Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back
against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at
least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals
of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails"
and other trite nonsense.
Nor did they lose it by appealing to so-called identity politics or
tribalism. If the Left is going to move forward effectively it can't pretend we are merely having
class and by extension economic arguments. Race is the thru line and has consistently been since
the countries inception. Many things cited i.e. the New Deal, pro-Union policy, etc are standard
bearers on the Left but have also been rife with racist treatment of potential Black and Latino
allies. Why would that be ignored if we are only having conversations of class? Class does not
explain redlining which has economic and social implications.
These are complex issues, but they are not as class focused (solely) as many on the Left would
like to believe. Our failure to speak honestly and openly about it and critique capitalism and
its most malevolent (and seductive form neoliberalism) as being tied to the practice and idea
of white supremacy is why we ultimately will find it more and more challenging to wage a successful
countermovement against it.
Wow. Ok, so since racial bias was written into past economic policy that was intended to address
class issues, addressing class based inequality should just be abandoned?
How about just demanding policy that addresses class based inequality simply be written without
the racial bias? Why is this so difficult to get into the minds of liberals? This is not that
hard.
The refusal to recognize is a nice idea. I've often thought of late that Democrats, or at least
the Left, should refuse to recognize Trump's horrible cabinet appointments, even if the delegitimizing
effect is minimal. Just referring to these people at citizen or whatever rather than secretary
would be some small repudiation, at least.
There's a very long and comprehensive
musing on politics and public dialog at slatestarcodex. My takeaway: if your dialog is weaponized,
if you consider your mission to be "How do I force these people to admit that I'm right?" then
you'll keep seeing the same results we see now.
Been saying #TrumpIsObamaLegacy since early morning in November. Yves was WAAAAY ahead of the curve back in late 08 calling that out.
The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo.
The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because
Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful
and depressing times. May we do so also.
Great summary, forwarding to friends.
As commented above, progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well. Neolib always willing
to boost funding for any candidate of any party if primary challenged by a progressive. Takeover
of state party machinery e.g. Ca did have some success, but pretty slow.
Third party seems both the only way and imo more doable than many think unlike in the past,
electorate is now desperate for real change. Third party impossible until probable. IMO we are
now at just such a point.
But neolib will fight tooth and nail to keep a progressive party off the ballot....
progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well.
I'm not so sure about that. Here's the list of candidates backed by Our Revolution (not precisely
the same as Sanders, but close). I didn't bother to do an exact count, but it appears that the
winners exceed the losers by about 6 to 5.
The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures, governorships, and both houses
of Congress. Compared to the establishment Democratic Party as a whole, the Sanders people in
Our Revolution are doing pretty well. A new party isn't required; we just need some new people
in charge of the Democratic Party. Heck, a lot of the same people could remain in charge, so long
as they change their attitudes and stop obeying Wall Street and the billionaires.
Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week,
humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and
tears of their forebears.
Today, as the attack on what's left
of employee protections and benefits is ramped up, people are alienated from one another and encouraged
to channel their despair and anger into blaming scapegoats or invest their energy stoking paranoid
delusions about the illuminati and Russian agents. If that gets boring there's always alcohol
and heroin to take the edge off.
The left has a momentous job – it has to convince people to give a shit and think of their
fate as intertwined with others in a similar position. After decades of neoliberal economics empathy
and giving a shit are associated with weakness and losers in many people's minds. Nobody wants
to give a shit about anyone outside their preferred identity group or groups but everyone wants,
demands , others give a shit about them.
It's almost comical how self-defeating and illogical people can be.
My belief is that Trump (and his kin) is likely the 'apotheosis' of neoliberalism or, as is
far less likely, he (or they) might pleasantly surprise us.
Like Brexit in the UK, I for one, hopefully not mistakenly, mark this anti establishment ascendency
as the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics rather than a further ringing endorsement
ie I fully accept things may have to get worse before they get better.
People mostly vote to maintain a status quo they believe serves or may serve their interests
in the future or, increasingly in the case of ever plausible (to the trusting and naïve) neoliberalism,
out of misplaced hope, desperation, exasperation or understandable fear of the unknown.
The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of
this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers,
little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the
ever narrower interests of the few.
Unfortunately events are conspiring to demand the once virtuous, now vicious, circle be broken
by fair means or foul.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going
to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance
is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party
from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design
a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic
growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this
neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Its encouraging to know that minds like Hudson's are
thinking in these terms.
Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid
loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties
to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream"
Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition,
even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise.
The question might more appropriately
be can EITHER party survive Trump? Frankly, one can only HOPE that the current version of the
Democratic Party DOES go the way of the Whig Party. I can only hope that the Republicans stay
as gridlocked as they currently are by the stupid faction of their party.
"... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
"... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
"... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
"... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
"... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they
try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.
I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound
a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged
on their Christian values.
They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly
violent way.
Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become
"leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider
the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?
Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period.
That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US
neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God
knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution
of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard
of living and uncertain job prospects.
ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM
I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.
US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made
an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.
The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human
rights and the US' Bill of Rights.
The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their
media.....
Trump victory was almost 30 years in the making, and I think all presidents starting from Carter
contributed to it.
Even if Hillary became president this time, that would be just one term postponement on
the inevitable outcome of neoliberal domination for the last 30 years.
I think anybody with dictatorial inclinations and promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington,
DC now has serious changes on victory in the US Presidential elections. So after Trump I, we
might see Trump II.
So it people find that Trump betrays his election promised they will turn to democratic
Party. They will turn father right, to some Trump II.
Due to economic instability and loss of jobs, people are ready to trade (fake) two party
"democracy" (which ensures the rule of financial oligarchy by forcing to select between two
equally unpalatable candidates) that we have for economic security, even if the latter means
the slide to the dictatorship.
That's very sad, but I think this is a valid observation. What we experience is a new variation
of the theme first played in 1930th, after the crash of 1928.
The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after
financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their "way of life" and standards
of living is not new. In 1930th the US ruling class proved to be ready to accept the New Deal
as the alternative. In Germany it was not.
The Dems and The Repubs are
BOTH
austerity mongers. They both want to
starve the 99% and wage trillion dollar wars. The spoiler effect induced two
party system is what sustains the Deep State.
Of the now literally
hundreds of "fancy" voting methods all over the Internet, strategic hedge
simple score voting is the only one that specifically enables the common
voters to win elections against the two-party empowered Deep State. (All of
the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual "hobby club" elections.)
Too bad we don't have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1
and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war
monger. We might place 8 votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary
(or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for
Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore
them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten
votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of
candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve
candidates, so people don't hog voting booths), and then simply add all the
votes up.
We must also abolish Deep State subvertible election machines ("computer
voting"), and get back to had counted paper ballots, with results announced
at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation
centers.
b. Excellent post. The same phenomenon is occurring throughout the Atlantic
Alliance. This indicates that all share something in common. It is the
neo-liberal economic philosophy of the Oligarchy who have purchased western
politicians, media, think tanks and education and are superseding democracy
with corporate supranational rule. Inequality and chaos are hardwired into
the current system.
It's interesting that the Salon piece (essentially the Sanders viewpoint)
was written in response to a Vanity Fair piece (the Clintonite viewpoint)
that ends with the claim that non-Party members share
. . . the belief that the real enemy, the true Evil Empire, isn't Putin's
Russia but the Deep State, the CIA/F.B.I./N.S.A. alphabet-soup
national-security matrix. But if the Deep State can rid us of the
blighted presidency of Donald Trump, all I can say is "Go, State, go."
So that's your Clinton Democrat / McCain Republican viewpoint - aka
"neoliberal-neoconservative fascism." Rather tellingly, the Salon piece does
not include the world "neoliberal" but just rehashes the stale PR-speak of
"liberals vs. conservatives" that dominates mass corporate media in the
United States. In reality, policy in Washington is made by politicians and
bureaucrats who adhere to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and who
are really servants of consolidated wealth - the American oligarch class -
and their conflicts merely reflect disagreements among the oligarchs; for
example do Warren Buffett and George Soros and the Koch Brothers see
eye-to-eye on all issues? No, they don't, so their sock puppets like Bush
and Clinton have their differences. However, the neocons and neolibs are
so close to one another as to be indistinguishable
to the average
American citizen:
The main similarity between the two is that they have both become known
as "technofacists", meaning melders of corporate, state and military
power into a few political elites that allow comprehensive control. The
left and the right have marched full circle and met one another.
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
Another critical issue is using anti-trust to break up the media
conglomerates and destroy the centralized propaganda system that controls
U.S. corporate mass media, in which a handful of Wall Street-owned corporate
monsters dictate what kind of news stories are fed to the American public
via television, radio and print journalism.
These reforms seem highly unlikely, however, in the current political
environment.
What we probably have to look forward to is more likely continued
economic downturn and rising poverty. The deep state and establishment
politicians are not likely to give Trump anything, and will probably try to
push an economic collapse just to make Trump look bad - not that Trump's
policies have much to offer; infrastructure looks dead in the water and at
best will look like Iraqi Reconstruction 2.0 under GW Bush and Cheney. We'd
need an FDR-scale New Deal to turn that around and neither neocons nor
neolibs will ever go for that. Instead we'll likely get infighting and
factionalism, maybe a war between Trump and the Federal Reserve, etc.
Honestly given the rot in the federal government it seems the only hope
is for states to take matters into their own hands as much as possible and
set their own policies on rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs but
the federal government and their oligarchic corporate overlords are pressing
down on that as well. One hell of a nasty situation for the American people
is what it is, and maybe massive Soviet-scale collapse, and a fundamental
change in government (as happened with Putin in Russia post-Boris Yeltsin)
followed by rebuilding from the ground up is the only way out of this mess.
For too long, I've pointed out that the detailed list of
grievances stated in the
Declaration of Independence
were currently
alive and being carried out by the executive of the US federal government;
and that if the Patriots of 1776 were correct to revolt from British
tyranny, then the US citizenry was just as right and proper to revolt
against Outlaw US Empire tyranny. I expounded that position through the
comments at CommonDreams.org until I was banned because they went against
that website's support for Obama then the Killer Queen HRC.
At the end of the previous thread, I wrote that society has only one tool
to control human behavior--culture--and I've long argued that human culture
in the great majority of its societies is dysfunctional and has been for
quite some time--in what's now the USA, from the founding of Jamestown
onward. My view is the culture has reached a level of dystopia well beyond
the ability of anyone to return it to a functional state and find myself
agreeing with Reg Morrison--
The Spirit in the Gene
--that humanity is
what's known as a plague species, a conclusion shared by some very powerful
minds,
https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/
I don't particularly enjoy reaching such a conclusion given its meaning
for my progeny and the remainder of humanity. But unless we--humanity as a
whole--can regain control over ourselves through the imposition of a new,
stronger--perhaps seen as more ridged--culture capable of suborning vice and
desire to a satisfactory fitness for all, then we will reap the results of
having grossly overshot our ecological support systems and like other
species die-off as Morrison describes. How to accomplish such a radical
change in a very short time period given the levels of resistance to such
change is really the question of the moment. We know where the root of the
problem lies. But uprooting that weed that threatens the garden of humanity
presents the greatest challenge to humanity it will ever have to face.
The demodogs will not change any time soon if ever. They the party leaders
are only interest taking all the money the can from supporters small and
large giving to friends foundations and consultants.
It's funny that pseudo-Leftists like Dems, PS, Labour, SD and others don't
realize that what Kennedy once said still stands:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable.
Which is why it's no wonder many of those on the shitty end of the current
neo-liberal take-over are flocking to the few really leftist groups and to
the numerous and vast ultra-right parties/movements.
Which is also why trying to keep them out of power at all costs - as happens
in Europe, most notably in France - or trying to impeach/oust/coup/kill the
elected right-wing populist - as happens in the US right now - is a suicidal
move. If that sizable fraction of the population never gets anything, never
any part of power, not even a bone to gnaw, sooner or later, they'll just
get fed up, and when they'll have barely anything of value to lose, they
will go nuts. This, of course, would be even worse in the US than in EU,
considering that it's the part of society with the guns, the training to use
them, and more or less the will to use them if forced to.
But then, as another US president once said, the tree of liberty must be
refreshed in blood from time to time - his one famous quote who's
conspicuously absent from the Jefferson Memorial. And when I look closely, I
can't see any Western country where this "refreshment" isn't long overdue.
You're right, b. Dems will continue to bleed out. A good place to see this
will be the special election to replace in Georgia's 6th CD Rep. Tom Price,
who took the job to be Trump's Health and Human Services Secretary. Daily
Kos and ActBlue are shaking the can raising money for a young Dem staffer
named Jon Ossoff. Here's the Daily Kos
pitch
for Ossof:
But while Price might love him some Trump, his district doesn't feel the
same way. In fact, the 6th saw a remarkable shift on election night. Four
years ago, voters in this conservative but well-educated area supported
Mitt Romney by a wide 61-37 margin. In 2016, however, hostility toward
Trump gave the president just a 48-47 win-a stunning 23-point collapse.
That dramatic change in attitudes means this seat might just be in play.
The "Women's Strike" on International Women's Day was a dud. The Dems are
labeling what they're doing a "Resistance," as if they are fighting a
guerrilla war against Vichy. But what they're "fighting" for is really a
restoration of Vichy (Trump is more a caudillo) with young
corporate-friendly Dems like Ossoff.
Unfortunately, the Greens seem to be hobbled. They can't get
past the Democratic FEAR machine. And Jill Stein's recounts reeked of
collusion with Democrats.
That's why I switched from Greens to Pirate Party. Direct democracy has
appeal to anyone that doesn't want rule by a permanent monied class of
neolib cronys.
Actually I don't agree that the Left has lost. There's simply a lack of
ideas.
The extreme nationalist right goes in the US because geographically
isolated. In Europe it is time limited. In UK Brexit has won for the moment,
but it is falling apart, because it can't deliver economic success. (more to
see). In continental Europe, the extreme right are not gaining in the polls
(Wilders, Le Pen), rather stagnating.
Macron, in france, could have the right attitude, oriented to the young.
But it could turn bad.
The managed resistance serves corporate interests, just as the ruling party
does. Whichever party is in power. Billions of dollars in 1% money and
nearly all the media are behind keeping the 'resistance' and the party in
power the only two 'acceptable' vehicles for expressing yourself
politically.
But it's worse ... The universities are almost entirely populated by
identity politics and/or neoliberal 'left' professors, which of course
generates brain-fried future leaders and cadres of the two mainstream
parties. Such university environments also mean that alternative, real left
research and ideas are severely underfunded and legitimized.
But it's worse ... Even the left opposition to the two party system can't
bring itself to (or is too scared to) oppose open borders for economic
immigrants. Minimizing immigration had always been standard pro-worker
position prior to the rise of identity politics in the 1970s.
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor (real policy) under
the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply
economic migrants."
Sorry B, but this is outright bullshit. No country in EU-Europe needs to
import cheep labor from not-EU-countries. There are more then enough
EU-Europeans in search of better wages. The EU was extended exactly in order
to achieve this 'abundance' (o.k. not the only reason). The people you
denounce as "simply economic migrants" are not an imported good - they enter
the EU against all odds. And many, many are refguees coming from countries
ruined by western military interventions.
Well, if Zero Hedge is anything to go by, in a few years automation will
abolish the working class anyway. Then Bill Gates' depopulation scheme will
mop up the remnants.
"The ship was sinking---and
sinking fast. The captain told the passengers and crew, "We've got to get
the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
On the question of the far right, only if
substantial sections of the political spectrum are shut out is there scope
for the extremists to come in and fill the gap. That is the danger to a
minor degree in England and to a greater degree in Continental Europe, as we
are told it was the danger in the Weimar republic. Some precedent, that.
I am not sure about the "populist" movements in Continental Europe but
the Brexit vote in England and the Trump movement in America do not, in
spite of the almost universal assertion to the contrary, represent a swing
to the right, let alone the far right. They represent a return to the
centre, a centre that has long been shut out in Western politics generally
and that is now tentatively re-asserting itself. It is only if that return
to the centre fails that we need fear the Neo-Nazis and the like coming in
to fill the gap.
Great post, b. Short and sweet and right on the money.
There's certainly a
looming trend. Western Australia's 8 year-old (Turnbull affiliated) Liberal
Govt was annihilated at the weekend.
On Saturday night the interim result was:
Labor 39, Liberal 11, Nats 4, unresolved 5.
(39 seats in a 59-seat parliament)
Malcolm Turnbull is pretending to be 'philosophical' about it...
the 'left' is a gang of 'middle-class' would-be jacobins, directing 'the
masses' while eating cake. there is no left, there is no right, there is a
top - the few - and a bottom - the many. as b points out the desperately
vocal few are left and/or right, they are on their own side of the top,
definitely not on the side of us many on the bottom. their policies create
more and more of us every day. they
are
our fathers and mothers in
that sense. we will dance on their graves.
b, please don't say 'pseudo
democrats' it sounds too jacobin, like the trots at wsws.org and their
constant 'pseudo left'. 'fake' will do for pseudo. and it's two fewer key
strokes - three in the same row. stick with the bottom against the top.
write what you want of course ... that's just a rant roiling my gut
gaining vent.
B in case you do not know (I doubt that) "true left" has been murdered long
time ago also in Europe where betrayal of working class interests by the
so-called mainstream workers parties/socialists, so-called communists and
trade unions in the West was fought on the streets in 1968 Paris and all
over the Europe and surprisingly it spilled out to eastern Europe in a form
of Prague revolt, Warsaw riots and mass strikes that swept across the
eastern block in anger of betrayal of workers interests by the ruling
socialist workers parties who turned into a calcified cliques and turned
against socialist workers movements and ideals of egalitarianism and
equality and started selling out to the Western oligarchs.
It was at that
time that under the guise of fake political detente first time massive
policies of outsourcing jobs from the western Europe to the Eastern Europe
commenced (starting with Hungary and Poland and later in Romania where the
Ceausescu's mafia turn away openly from Russian sphere of influence in
ideological, economic and political realm) in a ploy to provoke strikes in
the West and subsequently shutting down the factories (in fact transferring
the production to the eastern block in Europe and/or south America ruled
under dictatorships) if demanded by the oligarchs concessions of lowering
wages and decrease of benefits was not agreed upon by the Trade Unions.
In other words if Trade Unions did not completely capitulate they close
striking factories. Similar tactics have been use in the US under
environmental or productivity requirements pretension in 1960-tois and
1970-ties and later openly outsourcing for profits down south Mason-Dickson
line parallel and later to Mexico and Asia.
This unified betrayal of working class simultaneously by the West and the
East prompted proud vanguard of working class (leftists students of European
Universities and some of the trade unions) to respond to the exigent
circumstances, to respond to mortal threat to workers movements all over the
Europe in 1960-ties and 1970-ties.
These were unsung heroes of last true revolutionary leftist organizations
such as ETA, BR, RAF, AD, FLQ (in Canada) who took upon themselves a heroic,
revolutionary responsibility for defending vital interests of working
people, betrayed by mainstream leftists political parties, via a measured,
targeted and restrained self-defense campaign that aimed at threatening and
destruction of vital economic and financial interest of European oligarchy
including direct assaults on their personal safety and welfare, as a way to,
through a personal pain, humanize for them their abhorrent inhumane ways and
to make them suffer as working class comrades suffered under their inhuman
policies and acts including of violence, intimidation and murder.
This was the last stand of the true left against evil of spawning global
neoliberalism that in following decades swept the world with no opposition
to speak of left to fight it may be except for neo-Maoist guerrillas in
South America and Indian subcontinent. Even anti-imperial Palestinian FATAH
has been tamed while Islamic/religious movements have been supported to
control leftist tendencies within populations, a consequences of such a cold
decision of globalists we live with today.
This was the last stand of the true left in the Eastern and Western
Europe against betrayal of the Soviet Union elites, betrayal of the programs
and ideals of the international working class struggle they proliferated all
over the world.
It was utter betrayal by the descendants of soviet revolutionaries who
later transformed the hope for just, socialist egalitarian project into a
shallow propaganda façade of a mafia state conspiring with the West to rob
their own working people of the national treasure soviet/Eastern Block
working class worked hard to produce and preserve for future generations.
The betrayal culminated with a western orchestrated political collapse of
Soviet Union while the country was still on sound economic footing despite
of cold war military baggage, western embargoes and massive theft of the
corrupted party apparatchiks and cronies of Soviet ruling elite in last
decade before 1991, in way resembling massive US national treasure theft by
US banking mafia especially after 2008.
It is true that true left in US (decades before) and in Europe had to be
murdered since it was the last bastion of defenders of working class
interests against neoliberal globalist visions of a dystopia under umbrella
of US imperial neoconservative rule.
Now voters throughout the world have only two "no choice" choices between
full throttle globalist neoliberalism or globalist neoliberalism with
national flavor of corrupted Identity Politics of race or nationality, a
politics of division to prevent reinsurgency of the true leftist ideology of
simple self-defense or working class under assault that naturally brews
underneath the political reality of mass extermination and neoliberal
slavery.
The call to International Working Class: Proletariat or more
appropriately today "Precariat of the World Unite" has not been more
appropriate and needed since at least 1848 after collapse of another
globalization freed trade sham under umbrella of British empire.
We must unite, and not succumb to a mass manipulation and stay united in
solidarity among all ordinary working people who see through provocation and
manipulation of identity politics of phony left or phony right and see that
they do not have any interest in this fight set up in a way that ordinary
people can only lose while cruel inhumane neoliberalism will always win.
I contributed to a progressive blog for years until I was finally kicked off
for suggesting Bernie was herding progressives into Hillary's tent. I often
criticized Obama's foreign policy and the local partisan blogs--when they
weren't ignoring the perspective I represented--ridiculed me for being a
"conspiracy theorist" when I pushed back against the anti-Russian consensus.
I spent many years working with chronic homeless people in Montana in the
"progressive" utopia known as Missoula and when the Democrats that run this
town aren't actively making housing more unaffordable with their bonds for
parks and endless schemes to gentrify this town into being Boulder,
Colorado, they are making symbolic stands against guns and enabling Uber.
now I work with aging individuals and I am learning a lot about the cruel
complexity of Medicare and Medicaid. it's already really bad and, sadly, it
will only get worse--just in time for the American Boomer generation's
silver tsunami to hit entitlement programs.
I noticed a lot of British Proletariat have moved to the Costa del Sol
leaving plenty of job openings for the Polish and Roumanian Proletariat. Not
sure if this is a typical European trend.
It reminds me of the attitudes espoused by Ishmael:
"The ship was sinking---and sinking fast. The captain told the passengers
and crew, "We've got to get the lifeboats in the water right away."
But the crew said, "First we have to end capitalist oppression of the
working class. Then we'll take care of the lifeboats."
Then the women said, "First we want equal pay for equal work. The
lifeboats can wait."
The racial minorities said, "First we need to end racial discrimination.
Then seating in the lifeboats will be allotted fairly."
The captain said, "These are all important issues, but they won't matter
a damn if we don't survive. We've got to lower the lifeboats right away!"
But the religionists said, "First we need to bring prayer back into the
classroom. This is more important than lifeboats."
Then the pro-life contingent said, "First we must outlaw abortion.
Fetuses have just as much right to be in those lifeboats as anyone else."
The right-to-choose contingent said, "First acknowledge our right to
abortion, then we'll help with the lifeboats."
The socialists said, "First we must redistribute the wealth. Once that's
done everyone will work equally hard at lowering the lifeboats."
The animal-rights activists said, "First we must end the use of animals
in medical experiments. We can't let this be subordinated to lowering the
lifeboats."
Finally the ship sank, and because none of the lifeboats had been
lowered, everyone drowned.
The last thought of more than one of them was, "I never dreamed that
solving humanity's problems would take so long---or that the ship would sink
so SUDDENLY."
― Daniel Quinn
Life isn't gonna get better for those who are not born into a solidly upper
middle class family until nation states are downsized. amerika needs to be
carved up into 40 or 50 - units maybe even more particularly for the large
population seaboard 'states'. The one good thing about the brexit the
englander tory government is gonna deliver is that it is likely to cause
scots and maybe even ulster-people to leave the union.
I've lived in quite
a few nation states over the years and have found that a small population
state is far more responsive to the needs of its citizens than large ones -
even when a mob of carpet-bagging greedheads has jerry-mandered their way
into political power in a small state and an allegedly humanist political
entity is running the large state this holds true.
As far as I can discern there are two reasons for this or maybe 2 facets
of one reason. Firstly even the rightist greedheads cannot shit on any group
be it divided by race gender or sexual preference long term in a small
population state. The reason is that in smaller population units people tend
to know others better and obvious injustices always reach the ears and
consciences of rightist voters - even supporters of racist or sexist asshole
governments and it results in a backlash. Humanist pols in large entities
fall back on 'pragmatic' excuses about 'perception' at the drop of a hat -
no different in action than their 'enemy'.
The second reason is the other end of the first. Because of that degrees of
separation thing, when you live in a small population political unit, you
find you will always know someone who knows any political aspirant. Those
with a rep for being greedy, malicious or deceitful cannot hide behind press
spokespeople and bullshit for long - they cop the flick quickly.
I have long believed that this is the real motive for the corporatists to
support politicians' incessant centralising & empire building.
Claims about large population groups somehow being more efficient are
quickly shown to be false when put to the test of reality. In nature
biological systems, even those within large entities are localised and full
of seemingly inefficient redundancies because one thing evolution has taught
is that a system that has inbuilt alternative modes of survivability will
keep the entity alive much longer than some 'simple & straightforward'
system whose failure means the death or massive disability of the entity.
Corporations themselves tend to be labyrinthine full of small similarly
named but legally discrete modules because that is what works best, yet
corporations keep underwriting politicians who strive to make their 'entity'
bigger, more centralised and 'simpler' - why?
Well because political failure is a capitalist's best ally and of course
when a political entity is really large as amerika is, it is possible to
deceive all the people all the time. The average citizen is a stranger to
any/all of the members of the political elite and as such are entirely
dependent upon third party information vectors - the so-called mainstream
media who push out whatever deceit their masters instruct them to.
I make the point in this thread because too many people appear to believe
that it would be possible to reform the amerikan political system despite
the fact that helluva lot have already tried and failed long before they got
anywhere near the centre of power.
It just isn't possible because of the simple principle that anyone who is
capable of convincing large numbers of people who he/she has never had any
personal contact with, to support their 'character', ideas and political
objectives is by virtue of their success, unworthy of anyone's vote.
No person can convince that many strangers without resorting to some form
of gamesmanship and that makes them a bad choice. There is no way around
that reality yet most citizens adopt the usual cognitive dissonace every
election cycle and pay no heed to what should be blindingly self-evident.
Finally!...this is where all mericans eyes and ears has to be, i.e if they
still have them...non is so blind as those who refuse to see.Clean your own
backyards before commenting on or trying to clean others.
b's premise is that disenfranchised voters will go the polls for far right
interests under the promise of nationalistic interests and the policy that
springs from this. However, I do not believe that they will rue the day for
this choice from being squeezed out. The Nazi party ascension was a huge
success for bread and butter interests of the common kraut. Autobahn,
infrastructure, industry: this nationalism scared the allies enough to go to
war with Germany for asserting it's independence and own interests. Are we
Weimar Germany? No, no, no. Our military is already to the hilt and yet is
being halted in its advance by Russia, Iran, etc. You can't keep squeezing
the same lemon and expect more lemonade. The only option for Trump is to
invest in America again, period. Anything less or a further downward
trajectory will only incite the deplorables more and Trump would be gone
after four years, and maybe sooner to the clicking of boots marching on the
White House. Something truly unpredictable and unexpected might transpire at
that juncture.
You said:
/~~~~~~~~~~
As blues@5 notes above, fixing the electoral system (paper ballots,
ranked-choice voting, voting districts that are coherent regional sectors,
not octopus-like, maybe drawn along watershed boundaries, etc.) is a key
step in breaking their grip on power.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, what the "election methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice
voting" always fails spectacularly. It is quite different than what they
call "score voting", which can actually work, if kept simple enough.
Like other people never heard of Preet Bharara. Appears he was called the
"Sheriff of Wall Street". Looked up his record and yes, he did not put any
banksters in jail. Lots of fines which were tax deductible I believe.
Strange Sheriff who has no jail. I would bet he joins a Wall Street legal
firm and gets paid six-to-seven figures to defend the banksters.
This is where Wall Street feared Sanders--Bernie appeared to insist the
Sheriff's he appointed actually have jails.
A safe bet: next wednesday ultra right-wing Geert Wilders will win the dutch
elections, after the diplomatic row with sultan-wanna-be Erdogan. And then
Marine Le Pen...
In the US, the Democrats and Republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Left wing, Right Wing
The US is a democratic theme park, where the levers and handles are not
attached to anything,
whose only purpose is to deceive the masses into thinking that
they make a "difference"
blues | Mar 13, 2017 12:31:00 AM |
Yep they can be relied upon to be corporate slaves for sure I cannot think
of a single example over the past 50 years of any amerikan pol who succeeded
at a national level, who wasn't a forked toungued corporate shill.
There are plenty of examples of pols whose history at a low level 'seemed
OK' - where their occasional examples of perfidy could be dismissed as just
having to toe the party line; "Once he's his own man/woman he will really
strut his/her stuff for the people" a certain Oblamblamblam comes to mind as
the most egregious recent example - when they get in power everyone gets to
see what whores they always were. Whores concealing their inner asshole to
get into real power. That type of duplicity is much more difficult to pull
off in smaller populations - it gets found out and the pol really struggles
to get past the bad reputation chiefly because a lot of voters can put a
face to the 'victim' which makes the evil palpable.
What I find really odd
is the way that even self described lefties who acknowledge the massive evil
committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or justify the evil.
It goes to show how brainwashed all amerikans are. I guess they think
everyone feels that way - when people who haven't been subjected to that
level of conditioning about their homeland actually don't hold that blind
'right or wrong determination. I like where I live now and everything else
being equal probably would go in to bat for my friends or family if this
country somehow got into a tussle. But I would back off and advocate for the
other side in a heartbeat if I felt the nation I lived in was doing wrong.
I was living in Australia when Gulf War 1 kicked off and up until that point
I doubt there was a more dedicatedly loyal Australian but the cynical
decision to suppoft GH Bush made by the Australian Labor Party just wouldn't
wash and without wanting to be accused of the current heinous crime de jour
ie virtue signalling, I like many others took a stance against my adopted
nation that cost me professionally & personally. This was no great
achievement by me, it was easy because I hadn't been indoctrinated into any
sort of exceptionalism.
Yet I see the effects of the cradle to the grave conditioning amerikans are
subjected to in the posts on virtually any subject made by amerikans.
That of itself makes the destruction of amerika essential, a prerequisite
that must be met if there is to be any real change in the amerikan political
structure.
@ Debsisdead who wrote about ".....how brainwashed amerikans are." and
"
What I find really odd is the way that even self described lefties who
acknowledge the massive evil committed by amerika still seek to evade and/or
justify the evil.
"
I live in the belly of the beast you want to destroy. What exactly is it
that I should do to effect your goal? I continue to struggle with knowing
that. I also disagree that it is amerika that must be destroyed but the
tools of those that control our world.......private finance.
I also want
to state to commenter karlof1 that her call for focus on "culture" is
exactly what I think I am attacking by wanting to end private finance. And I
had the pleasure of studying under an anthropologist for a year and very
much appreciate that perspective on our current social maladies. I think
that anthropological characterizations of our species are harder to
misrepresent than history....hence my reference to tenets of social
organization, etc.
We need some adults in the world to stand up to the bastardization of
language and communication.
Any form of social organization not based on any type of compulsion is
inherently socialistic. If we can agree to socialize the provision of water,
electricity, etc. why can't we do the same for finance?
Probably for the same reason we continue to prattle on about right/left
mythologies and ignore the top/bottom reality.
b, excellent analysis. Amerika is rotten to its core. There are no
cures..... just sit and watch on the sideline for these tugs NeoCon,
NeoLiberal, progressive etc.. Kill themselves and blames it on Putin.
I
hold two valid passports, neither better than the other. Hot frying pans,
hot boiling oil?
b said.."When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and
other such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be the
well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow
from and after that."
Private finance... most countries have a reserve bank. Yours has the
fed.
Your country has made private money an ideology and tries to export this
ideology around the globe. The opposite extreme to collective communism.
Most countries have foreign policy and foreign ministers. When I looked up
the websites of Your presidential candidates, none had a foreign policy. In
place, all had war policy. Sanders had his titled war and peace.
Most countries have foreign ministers. Your country has a secretary of
state. I guess when you are a country that feels it has the god given right
to rule the world, no country is foreign, all are vassal states.
Your country needs to collapse, or be destroyed, to knock this ideology
out of the inhabitants, and then rebuilt as a normal country.
What the US is now, is just a natural progression of its foundations.
I think there's no left
left for the simple reason that it's role in the system, at least since the
end of ww2, became void after 91. No competing system, no need for niceties,
back to the 30's, plenty of unfinished business, 80 years of taxes to get
back. New Deal and European Social Model are obsolete. The armies of workers
offshored, what is left is a kind of lumpen, busy fingering their
smartphones. A highly educated lumpen, probably the highest educated
generation ever, but lumpen nonetheless, Indoctrinated by all media to
individualism, their atomization seems assured. I wonder if anyone under 30
reads MoA. Might be wrong but looks like most of us are over 60 considering
the muppet like kind of grumpyness that erupts so often.
There are drops in the ocean, in places were solidarity still has strong
roots.
Marinaleda
(sorry, the english wiki sucks, a machine translation from
the spanish wiki is certainly more informative) 0% unemployment, equal pay
to all residents, housing provided through self-building, the city council
provides plot, technical supervision, building materials, charges 15 euros
monthly rent. Collective economy based on farming, husbandry and industrial
transformation of it's products. I repeat, equal pay to all residents 1,128
euros for 35 hours a week. Just a drop in the ocean, but a worthy one.
Elsewhere true social-democracy can be found in Latin America. Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Equador, Bolivia, Uruguay pop up as examples that neoliberalism,
racism and neocolonialism can be defeated, on their terms, even if there are
setbacks like Brazil and Argentina. There one can find rivers of solidarity.
Telesur
english
keeps you up to date, with better coverage on Syria than CNN.
All those USAG's and IG's and NO one wants or has investigated where all
those Pentagon missing trillions went to?
Ditto for the MSM, who use all that print space pushing to let men dressed
as women use the little girl's bathroom. The USA project has failed, it's
Kaput, time to turn out the lights.
The 'Left' has been bought by the oligarchs, just like the media, the NGOs,
the 'human rights' organizations, etc. Tony Blair was perhaps the most
blatant example, especially with his 'third way', undefined by him to this
day. I guess it tried to merge bits from the right such as Nationalism and
bits from the left such as Socialism, but who knows!
I am German but not living in Germany. I am disgusted with my compatriots.
They seem to have bought the line that in order to atone for their parents
or grandparents' crimes they have to open the doors to the dregs of the
Earth and let themselves get plundered and their daughters raped without a
protest. Meanwhile, the German police continue to prosecute Germans for any
transgression, including speaking out about it.
So the left is good at pointing to its own flaws & decay but your simplistic
view of a "static" right that doesn't evolve and alway represent the "evil"
is laughable. Both the left and right have merged on most issue, it's a
system of croony capitalism with a big government and where "financial
capitalism" has destroyed industrial capitalism and innovations. Who would
invest to hire employees or innovate if it's more lucrative to sell private
bonds to a central bank or "buy back" the shares of the cies (to boost their
price with a loan in order to get a "productivity" bonus?
A long, long time ago both left/right were pretending to offer a solution
and improve the living standards, one faction with individual liberties, low
taxes and a sound money policy (gold & silver) while the left was fighting
against inequalities and proposing wealth redistribution with a big
government & taxes. Both the left & right started to be coopted in the
1960's
"Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep [sic: that should be
"cheap"] labor (real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees"
(marketing policy) which are simply economic migrants. (Even parts of the
German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)"
Kudos. It's
rare to see someone intelligent admit that an open borders immigration
policy is all about cheap labor, period. Bernie Sanders started to say that,
but after a couple of days of being screamed at for his 'racism' he of
course folded.
I note that by refusing to acknowledge that importing massive numbers of
workers we are pushing wages down, we are also responsible for the misery in
places like Yemen and Somalia etc. How can we expect people in these places
to stop having more children than they can afford, when our
Nobel-prizewinning whores keep screaming that more people are always better?
I mean, if we propagandize that eating arsenic is wonderful (or at lest not
an issue), and people somewhere else keep eating arsenic, we are to blame.
The characteristics which define Right-wingers are...
1. They are are obliged to believe their own bullshit in order to sell it to
the masses.
2. Bribery is an indispensable component of Modern Democracy.
3. Whenever one of their inane schemes backfires, it's ALWAYS somebody
else's fault, NEVER their own.
Malcolm & the Liberals will spend the next
6 months looking for scapegoats (with their fingers in their ears - another
R-W trait).
Democrats become neoliberal Republicans, letting actual Republicans get
elected. Rinse and repeat while blaming Russia for failure. That is the
center-right mantra of the elite Democrats and their NGO supporters (who are
well paid to represent the party line without deviation, if they deviate
they get cut off). Yet my Democrat friends howl that I'm a Trump supporter
because I wouldn't vote for Hillary.
The unfortunate truth is that outside
of protest votes there is no political force in America for dissenters to
turn to outside of what they can do on their own. The two-headed hydra of
the Demopublicans appears to be fighting against itself now but in reality
they still agree on most issues, to the detriment of all working people.
@35 Your version of "score voting" is clearly the best approach to "ranked
choice voting" as currently used. Also, using paper ballots that are counted
by optical scanning machines? That's just as subject to hacking as
electronic voting machines are, since nobody is going to back and hand-count
those paper ballots.
But really, under current finance rules, the
oligarchs tightly control the electoral process via their control of
corporate media and their ability to run puppet candidates against any
honest politicians who defy their agenda. Ultimately this is why politicians
gravitate towards the BS issues describe by b, i.e.
"When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other
such niceties beat out programs to serve the basic needs of the common
people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must always be
the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues
follow from and after that."
But addressing the well-being of the working people - wages, homes,
affordable healthcare for their parents and education for their children -
that impacts multinational corporate profits. This is why politicians steer
clear of such issues - they don't want to incur the anger of the oligarchs,
who can spend millions to get them removed from office. Journalists do the
exact same thing, wanting to keep their jobs in corporate media outfits
controlled by Wall Street oligarchs. This is highly similar to how the
oligarchs ran Russia during the Boris Yeltsin era.
There are clearly many similarites between the Russian billionaires of
that era and their various American counterparts today, from the Silicon
Valley billionaires to the oil & gas billionaires to the finance
billionaires; they could never have made all that money without the active
cooperation of politicians and bureaucrats who serve their interests in
Washington as well as in many state governments. This vast extraction of
wealth from the middle class, coupled with a desire to control the whole
world and move money freely across borders without restrictions, and to use
the military to invade and crush any countries who don't go with the
program, that's what the neocon-neolib agenda is all about.
When people like b start to make tremendous confusion between the Neoliberal
Democratic party and the Left, I fear things will go from bad to worse ...
Confusing Neolib and Left after all these years, b? There's no light at the
end of the tunnel, huh?
We've heard stupid people say that Hitler was Socialist ... after all the
NSDAP had the "S", hadn't it? But they are stupid people, right?
Now this?
Well-meaning populist politicians throughout history are either bought off
or assassinated.
Populist rhetoric is tolerated (and necessary for R vs. D political
theater to function).
The rhetoric is one thing. BUT if anyone actually DOES anything of value
for the common people, he will be maligned, castigated, shunned and soon
become enmeshed in a manufactured scandal.
@ nonsense factory | Mar 13, 2017 10:36:25 AM | 58
What the "election
methods cognoscenti" call "ranked-choice voting" is quite distinct from
"score voting" With the score voting method I described you could give from
(1) to (10) votes to up to (12) candidates. So you could give, for example,
(10) votes to Candidates (A), (B), and (C), and (8) votes to (D), (E), and
(F). But with ranked choice voting, you cannot do that, since you must
"rank" the candidates in an "ordinal" fashion. This could look like: (A) >
(B) > (C) >(D) > (E) > (F). And this forced "ranking" leads to astonishingly
complex dilemmas. So, score voting is definitely not a version of ranked
voting.
I did insist on "hand counted paper ballots" because ballot scanning
machines are absurdly complex, and can easily be hacked. Remember that the
Deep State will always completely control anything that becomes sufficiently
complex. The fine print on insurance policies is an example.
Take a look at the Italian Cooking Show ladies. They aren't fat. Their
immune system see gluten as an invader causing physical inflammation.
Personally if I eat gluten my lower gut blows up like an inflated bicycle
tire. Gluten intolerance is not a trend. Check out online videos titled
'wheat belly.'
The wheat we eat today has been genetically modified mainly to increase
crop yields.
Yep. There's a reason the Democratic Socialists of America has seen a huge
explosion in growth over the past year. The Democratic Party has no soul,
and the DSA, by far the most major democratic socialist group in the
country, is benefiting from Bernie Sanders constantly calling himself a
"democratic socialist." If Democrats don't take their cue from this and
other leftist groups, they're going to lose elections for decades to come.
We need policies that work for the people, not neoliberal giveaways to
corporations or conservative policies outright hostile to people who aren't
rich.
What do you call a Social-Democracy without social-democrats?
Although
many have called the "crisis of social-democracy" in previous years
(especially after the "crash" of 2007-8), so far it is James Corbett that
has given us the most extensive non-scholar research on
How The Left Stopped Worrying and Learned to Embrace War
This is disturbingly close to what a co-worker said to me, before knowing
my views about the matter, when US-backed forces were overthrowing Gaddafi
in Libya: "Go, rebels, go!" He said he "normally" wasn't pro-war. A lot of
ditzy liberals out there.
b states that the disenfranchised will rue the day they threw in their card
for the far-right. I am not sure that this reality will pan out here in the
states, though I am unsure what will ultimately transpire. My reasonING for
this goes back to the nazification of Germany and the great benefits to that
nationalist movement in general. Autobahn, infrastructure, industry: their
new deal was very beneficial for the common kraut in addressing their
concerns, though this nationalism scared the shit out of the global finance
cabal and hence war. I am not entirely versed as to the legitimacy of their
claim to Poland or the moral implications of that seizure, though the ethnic
cleanses in the Russian steppes were evil.
My point is that nationalism
could be one of the only forces that could bring down the global finance
elite. This propelled me to vote for Trump and to hold out hope for a while.
My thought is that we already have military spending covered and I don't see
how the trickle down of more military spending would impress the deplorables
too much. If Trump wants a 2.0, he will have to invest in another new deal.
And what choice does he have? Continually being blocked my Russia and Iran?
I am not convinced yet of his total idiocy, but if he continues along a
neoconservative route, there will be little doubt. I guess tyrannies are
stupid after all. Are Americans that stupid, too? We'll see.
Clueless Joe 16
I've started to like that JFK quote more and more these days, too. At the
time he did not mean it for the US but it truly applies here.
1945 - 2000 +. In Europe the 'Left' was overcome in principally 2 ways.
1)
Was the 'red scare of communism', i.e. against the USSR - old memes now home
again. Even though there were some quite strong Communist parties,
particularly in France. (Today, the ex-leader of the dead communist party,
R. Hue, has come out supporting Macron.) The 'liberals' (economic
liberalism) of course used any tool and propaganda to hand.
2) The expansion of W economies, 1950-1980 (about), that so to speak
'lifted all boats', and afforded for ex. cars, fridges, TVs, and at the
start, just the basics like a small flat and some electricity, and water
plus a flush toilet (or better services for small houses) plus universal
free education (to age 14-15) and some basic health / social care. Transport
flowered (fossil fuel use and railways) As opposed to living in a hut in a
filthy slum though rurals were always better off. The economy basically
boomed and jobs, even if ugly and badly paid, were available. This was all a
tremendous advance and it was credited to a 'liberal' economic model.
NOT-communist. (Though it had nothing to do with any political arrangement
per se. See Hobsbawm on the USSR.)
Later, Third-wayers (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair..) tried to 'snow' ppl who
would become 'poorer' with fakey Socialist-Dem party platforms, actually
favoring the 'rich' (Corps, Finance, MIC, Big Gov..), in an attempt to keep
ppl quiet. This 'third way' has now failed, ppl turn where they can, for now
it is voting for the 'alt-right' (Trump, Wilders, Le Pen..) along a sort of
nationalist line, which seems to contain germs of proto-fascim (as some
would say), but which is actually principally directed against the PTB.
I haven't yet read comments, but actually I don't agree with the title of
this piece, though the point about no left is certainly valid. I really
can't see folk just swinging far right because there is nowhere else to go,
since at least in this country, the US, we were burned so badly by the right
- the right took us into Iraq and we have not escaped the horrors there even
now. No way we're going back to that group of crazies just because another
group of crazies, and now apparently Trump as well, are marching to the same
bloody tune. We are being smothered by all of them.
I'm no prognosticator
- I can't see the future. All I can do is say this ongoing spilling of blood
is not what I voted for, and thank heavens I did not vote for Trump. I don't
blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In doing that, they
were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what Trump said he would
do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of citizens' grievances.
He hasn't, and now we know. What happens next is anyone's guess but it won't
be more of the same, not in this country. Experience does matter, and when
we sort ourselves out and finish licking our wounds, us deplorables will
build on what has come before. And perhaps in other countries citizens
facing such non-choices and aware of what has happened here will trim their
sails accordingly.
The great tragedy of the collapse of the left is that there will be nobody
around to protect the minorities who live in the nations of the West. As a
nonwhite American, I see the polarization of politics around racial lines is
a catastrophe waiting to happen. The Democrats want to play the good cop,
using fear of to control their minority vote bank while doing sweet F A for
their communities that they profess to love so much. The Trumpian right has
now dropped all pretense and is openly embracing white supremacy, race
baiting for votes and stirring up all kinds of anti-foreigner sentiment on
top of the folksy old fashioned racism done by "good" GOPers. As disgusting
as the smug, patronizing prejudice of liberals is, the wild vitriolic hatred
found in parts of the white community is backed up with state force. Even
when faced with this reality, the Democratic party views discussions of
economic issues as pandering to the "deplorables"! Never mind the rampant
poverty and unemployment in black and latin ghettoes, talking about jobs is
racism! They will continue this political death spiral and we will pay the
price. There have been two shootings I know of where Indians (mistaken for
Muslims by rednecks hopped up on hate) and I'm sure we'll see plenty more.
God help Europe when their right wingers crack down on the Muslims. You
think the young are being radicalized now? You ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't blame those who did, thinking he might break the mold. In
doing that, they were not 'voting far right.' They were voting for what
Trump said he would do, act peacefully towards each country, take care of
citizens' grievances.
Yes, right on. And that extends to all the 'nationalist' voters. What
they - perhaps confusedly for some - are trying to effect is a timid step in
the present horrific political landscape, towards having a say, >> having
the space, and scope, of decision-making circumsribed, and made not only
smaller, but more rigidly, clearly defined - in this case down to nation
size where the ppl may hopefully garner some more power.
The labels 'right' and 'left' of course are nonsense, but we all use them
as 'tags' for e.g. Dems vs. Reps, and that's ok, as long as everyone
undertands the short-hand. Being 'nationalist', 'anti-globalist',
'localist', 'community oriented' (footnotes skipped) is not left or right,
it doesn't project to any point on the left-right polarity. Nor does it
relate to an authoritarian, controlling axis. vs. a libertarian one. But of
course these challengers are painted as Hitler 'nationalist' stooges and
putative vicious invaders, war mongers, conquerers, as is for ex. Putin.
And if anyone is interested, I chose the name "Perimetr" because that is the
way my friend Colonel Yarynich spelled it . . .
Also known as the "Deadhand" system, Perimetr is a semi-automated system
through which a retaliatory nuclear strike can be ordered by a decapitated
Russian National Command Authority. Perimetr came into being in the 1980s
and appears to still be functional. You can read a detailed analysis of it
in the book by Colonel Valery Yarynich, "C3: Nuclear Command, Control,
Cooperation" (if you can get your hands on a copy).
https://www.amazon.com/C3-Nuclear-Command-Control-Cooperation/dp/1932019081
Perimetr uses emergency communication rockets to issue launch orders to
any (surviving) Russian nuclear forces; such orders would automatically
trigger a launch of these forces without further human intervention. The
crew that mans the Perimetr launch control center requires several things to
happen before they launch: (1) an initial preliminary authorization from the
National Command Authority following the detection of an incoming attack,
(2) a complete loss of communication on all channels (various radio
frequencies, land lines, etc) with the National Command Authority, and (3) a
simultaneously set of positive signals from seismic, optical, and
radiological nuclear detonation detectors indicating that a nuclear attack
has occurred.
At that point, the crew is ordered to launch the ECRs. This "Deadhand"
launches the missiles even after those who gave the preliminary launch order
have been incinerated in a nuclear strike. Valery thought that Perimetr
added a measure of safety having the system, in that it would make it less
likely that the NCA would launch a "retaliatory" strike (Launch on Warning,
LOW) before nuclear detonations confirmed the strike was real (if the
warning was false, then the "retaliatory strike" would actually be a first
strike . . . hence Perimetr offers some certainty of retaliation for
choosing to "ride out" a perceived attack). I took less comfort that did
Valery, as I found it disconcerting that there was a non-human mechanism or
means to order a Russian nuclear attack.
@21
The aim of importing cheap labour is to allow continued expansion of capital
without depressing the rate of profit. Unless the labour force constantly
expands, any accumulation of capital tends to drive down the rate of profit
in two ways: 1) it raises the ratio of capital stock to national income, so
if the wage share remains the same, the rate of profit falls; 2)
Accumulation of capital faster than the growth of the labour force creates a
sellers market for labour and allows real wages to rise. For these two
reasons big business favours rapid immigration.
Are you illiterate?
"Perimeter" is graphically different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly,
interested people can differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do
not worry, kid.
The thing is black people in USA are fed up. White people (including some
jews) are fed up. Black people have been marginalized and are no longer the
primary darlings of the Bleeding Heart Party. You must add as well that many
of them like Carson are quite conservative and wealthy, so they go
Republican. One cannot discount the very high sense of patriotism that many
Afro-Americans feel for the USA. They can smell the BS.
"White's", can be racially disparaged, mocked, used and abused and it O.K.
You can call a certain segment of the population; "White Trash", white
bitch, fucking cracker, honky, racist, etc, etc and they just have to take
it.
You can openly say that it's no longer their country, that they will no
longer be the majority, if you are an immigrant and have a short time in
USA, you are toasted and cheered while saying it. So soft genocide against
"whites" is ok.
This is wrong and it's true what B say's, there is nothing LEFT. I gave
Obama 8 and I'm still waiting for my change.
- Someone in a townhall meeting asked a Democratic representitive: "What do
the Democrats stand for". And the representitive replied with platitudes.
and the whole thing was captured on video.
the left in America is small and estranged, like an illegitimate child. the
blacks fucked up long ago when they aligned with the Democratic Party,
which, as we know, is just a gaggle of pro-war liberals. their reckoning is
on its way...like a bad asteroid.
i'd check out the relationship between the exponential growth
in the use of glyphosate, decimated microbial populations in the human gut
as a result of its use, and the sudden eruption of gluten intolerance.
that'd get any biochemist / epidemiologist fired in short order, or
demonized on publication. i'm sure that's why we haven't seen it.
@ Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 14, 2017 3:55:52 AM | 85
Thank you for the link.
Succint & concise. Tragicomedy(sic) ... :(
What was highlighted with cutting clarity is what the average Joe & Betty
six-pack, and not just Stateside, throughout the 'West' are primarily up in
arms about, IMV. And the Owned & Controlled, Corporate 'Mainstream'
Mega-Media will not touch it nor even acknowledge 'it' ... hopefully
the scales will fall
from enough peoples eyes to awaken from the
somnolance induced by all-encompassing '
digital valium
' ...
If locales can ever reach a critical mass re numbers ... maybe the
Tumbrels
will yet again roll to swing humanities 'pendulum' back the other way. If
they don't ...
There never has been a political party of the Left in America that held any
political power or even a balance of power at important state or federal
levels. Leaders of the emerging Left in America have been either jailed or
assassinated. Any other leaders of the people, not necessarily of the left,
have also met a similar fate. The American establishment has always been a
repressive clique of any populous movements. Other western nations, being
further from the central authority, developed at minimum Leftist political
opposition that at least held a balance of power enough to effect national
policies that were of benefit to the working classes as defined. In America
Leftist appeal of grievances was applied through the existing two party
system, mainly the Democrats with their unionized labour wing. This has all
fallen by the wayside. Enough said....
RE: Perimeter | Mar 13, 2017 10:14:10 PM | 83 "Perimeter" is graphically
different of "Perimetr". In addition and mainly, interested people can
differentiate one from the other ideologically. So do not worry, kid.
Well
let's see, would Circe be upset if someone started posting under "Circes"?
Would Outraged mind if someone started posting here as "Outrages"? How about
"Alberto" instead of "ALberto"??
Sorry, there are lots of other names available, so what is the point in
posting under one that is essentially identical to mine, except to confuse
those who might not be paying much attention?
@84, the racial-ethnic divides among populations pale in comparison to the
divisions between classes. The Reptilian Order must rake up the former
through media exploits lest the proles wise up to the latter.
Outraged @ 89
Thanks for the compliment on the other thread.
I also value what you write.
In certain conditions it is possible to attain meaningfull goals without
setting the tumbrells in motion. I linked to
Marinaleda
in a comment above. They din't decapitate the Duque del Infantado, they cut
a substantial part of his estate. It was possible for 3 reasons, a
charismatic leader, a strong sense of solidarity and a strong cultural
identity. It's a tiny scale but if one looks at current examples in a
multinational scale Chávez, Evo, Correa, Kirchner, Lula, were/are all
outstanding leaders in nations that have strong cultural identities and a
solidarity forged by resistance.
BRF @ 90
Exactly, jailed or assassinated. And when this was no longer feasible, when
human rights became a tool in the cold war, the discourse was deflected to
identitary policies and sex drugs and r&r
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
My views tend towards
pacifism these last many years and am totally opposed to capital punishment
for common criminal acts ... the death of even one innocent due to failures
of the system, injustice, or mere errors, is one life too many, IMV.
Have personally seen the dire consequences of psychopaths & sociopaths,
in Military, Intelligence, Government & Corporate environments, in positions
of leadership/authority. They select alike as near peers and congregate
fellow-travellers, arch-opportunists & sellswords as underlings,
enablers/facilitators.
Yet, long reflection on ... bitter ... experiences, have brought me to a
perceived unpalatable truth, that there likely must be, long overdue, a cull
of the 'Impune', via the tender mercies of such as madame guillotine, to
reset the balance, for their number and reach in primarily western first
world countries has become a vast cancer upon humanity.
If one can be reviled by the community and dealt with at Law for a simple
common murder, why can one who abuses the authority of the State, or
delegated thereof, order policies or acts that result in dozens, 100's or
thousands or more deaths of innocents, yet be impune, wholly and forever,
unassailable, unaccountable ?
When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once again quietly
assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium of Caesars,
Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past ?
Had thought the last 'Sun King' was in France ~160 years ago ...
Technology has opened a Pandora's Box of expanding destructive forces &
potentialities at the behest of these psychopaths that, as Karlof1 somewhat
similarly fears, will have a singular end result, if left unchecked.
Do not believe a little pruning of wealth/capital will any longer suffice
... Iceland alone, started tentatively upon the right path, after the GFC.
"When exactly was it that Presidents & Prime Ministers once
again quietly assumed the pseudo-Regnum like Majesty & Dictatorial Imperium
of Caesars, Emperors, Kings/Monarchs of history past?"
I don't believe the Divine Right of Monarchs was ever completely expunged
as it continued to operate in the shadows until it retuned to the surface at
WW2's end with Truman.
Don't know how much you agree with my assessment above @12, but one of
the smartest people I've ever known--the late Lynn Margulis, Carl Sagan's
first wife, the superior microbiologist who proved symbiosis within species
and agent of evolution to be fact--wrote the forward to the paperback
edition of Morrison's work I cited, agreeing with him.
It's easy to observe and analyze the situation then prescribe the remedy.
But said remedy must be applied by millions of currently very disparate
individuals having almost no solidarity or in agreement about said remedy,
or even knowing a remedy exists. I'd do more, but my responsibilities limit
me to my current activities--writing and exhorting those able to act.
The great irony of our dilemma is humans have overcome Nature in almost
every sphere, yet that triumph is precisely what threatens humanity and the
biota--a triumph driven by Nature itself. So, to overcome our overcoming of
Nature, we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting the
impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture, by making certain actions by humans taboo and their
violation punishable by death as the Polynesians practiced.
Yes, radical, controversial, requiring a great deal of prior knowledge to
comprehend the logic driving the remedy. Yet, as Spock would say, there it
is: Long life and prosperity lies down remedy's path; massive destruction,
pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo continues.
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
... it returned to the surface at WW2's end with Truman.
... we must again triumph at overcoming our Human Nature by limiting
the impact of Nature on our actions through the use of a very ancient
technology--culture,
by making certain actions by humans
(Leaders/Leadership) taboo and their violation punishable by death
as the Polynesians practiced.
... massive destruction, pain and eventual oblivion if the status quo
continues.
Concur.
Yet, would take that slightly further re amending formal application of
Law & Sentencing & Punishment.
A number of Navies apply Mandatory MAXIMUM punishments for any offense,
where found guilty, committed outside the parent nations 12 Mile limit, for
good reason re discipline under a Captain's authority ... the ship becomes
the nation and the crew the 'people' thereof and the ultimate survival of
all dependent upon such.
The
greater
the status, rank, education, authority, experience,
length of service of the '
Taboo Breaker,
' (
Leaders/Leadership
),
the less any mitigating circumstances can be considered, and the
proportionally higher the punishment, towards the maximum. Such should be
able to plead no excuse, ignorance or misunderstanding, or lack of
comprehension whatsoever, compared to a 'Constable/Trooper/Sailor/Airman'.
The pyramid of actual accountability & consequent punishment, must be
inverted
, by society.
If one looks carefully throughout humanities recorded history, across
cultures, down thru millennia, sooner or later the stone (
society
)
could be squeezed no further, and there was inevitably blowback and a,
culling.
Yet, since the inter-continent telegraph and the widespread ubiquitous
distribution of the mass 'Press', concurrent with the machinations of the
Bankers & War Profiteers behind the scenes since the late 1800's, IMV, the
ability to manipulate, divide & rule, society has become an artform, ever
accelerating in scope, scale & effectiveness, preventing the necessary
'cull' in the 'International Community' of the 'west'.
IMV, the old grey men may have misunderstood/underestimated the accident
of the 'net, hence desperation of such as ProPornOT etc, which provides
alternate independent voices re communication & re perceived reality ... it
may be enough, a small window of opportunity given the obvious accident of
'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a reckoning, there are a few
discordant shrill cries and desperate pleas arising amongst the 'narrative'
from the Globalists/Atlanticists (US/EU/UK/AUS/CAN), to believe & trust TPTB
... but only if there is a true, not faux,
accounting
.
Otherwise, yes, almost inevitably, your last. Faint hope ...
"... it may be enough, a small window of opportunity given
the obvious accident of 'Trumps' ascension, to possibly enable a
reckoning..."
Like using The Force to guide a missile into the exhaust shaft of the
Death Star. But that was just one victory amidst many losses prior to the
decapitation of the sole Evil Leader. I believe our task just as daunting
with our enemy best depicted as The Hydra. In both myths, Good triumphed. In
both tales, the multitude of innocents had no idea what was taking place or
why. I don't think we can prevail unless the multitudes know what's
happening and why. All too often they seem to differ little from my
Alzheimer's afflicted mom. But her fate is determined; it's just a matter of
time. Our fate's in the balance, with time being of the essence.
When "the left" endlessly debates which core issues or constituencies must be sacrificed for political
gain, as if economic justice for the poor and the working class could be separated from social
justice for women and people of color and the LGBT community and immigrants and people with disabilities,
it is no longer functioning as the left.
When LGBT claptrap, gluten free food, political correctness and other such niceties beat out programs
to serve the basic needs of the common people nothing "left" is left. The priority on the left must
always be the well-being of the working people. All the other nice-to-have issues follow from and
after that.
Many nominally social-democratic parties in Europe are on the same downward trajectory as the
Democrats in the U.S. for the very same reason. Their real policies are center right. Their marketing
policies hiding the real ones are to care for this or that minority interest or problem the majority
of the people has no reason to care about. Real wages sink but they continue to import cheep labor
(real policy) under the disguise of helping "refugees" (marketing policy) which are simply economic
migrants. (Even parts of the German "Die Linke" party are infected with such nonsense.)
The people with real economic problems, those who have reason to fear the future, have no one
in the traditional political spectrum that even pretends to care about them. Those are the voters
now streaming to the far right. (They will again get screwed. The far right has an economic agenda
that is totally hostile to them. But it at least promises to do something about their fears.) Where
else should they go?
The U.S. Democrats are currently applauding the former United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet
Bharara. The position is a political appointed one. Whoever is appointed serves "at the pleasure
of the President". It is completely normal that people in such positions get replaced when the presidency
changes from one party to the other. The justice department asked Bharara to "voluntary resign".
He rejected that, he was fired.
Oh what a brave man! Applause!
The dude served as United States attorney during the mortgage scams and financial crash. Wall
Street was part of his beat. How many of the involved banksters did he prosecute? Well, exactly zero.
What a hero! How many votes did the Democrats lose because they did not go after the criminals ruling
Wall Street?
Bharara is one reason the Democrats lost the election. Oh yes, he is part of a minority and that
makes him a favorite with the pseudo left Democrats. But he did nothing while millions got robbed.
How can one expect to get votes when one compliments such persons?
But the top reader comments to the New York Times
report on the issue
are full of voices who laud Bharara for his meaning- and useless "resistance"
to Trump.
Those are the "voices of the people" the political functionaries of the Democratic Party want
to read and hear. Likely the only ones. But those are the voices of people (if real at all and not
marketing sock-puppets) who are themselves a tiny, well pampered minority. Not the people one needs
to win elections.
Unless they change their political program (not just its marketing) and unless they go back to
consistently argue for the people in the lower third of the economic scale the Democrats in the U.S.
and the Social-Democrats in Europe will continue to lose voters. The far right will, for lack of
political alternative, be the party that picks up their votes.
There is more than one joke. Our constitutional dollar
democracy with its gerrymandering, limitless congressional
revolving doors, SCOTUS unanswerable to the electorate, and
first past the post voting provides loads of punch lines, not
the least of which is the de facto two party system itself.
Two competitors is merely duopoly. It takes a minimum of
three viable choices to have any returns from competition
that are significant to the consumers' preferences. Two
competitors merely play off each other in predictable and
increasingly ossified patterns.
One very big quibble: >>SCOTUS unanswerable to the
electorate<<
As bad as the SCOTUS can be, it would be
unimaginably worse if it were subject to elections.
The big problem is that the Founders did not imagine life
expectancies into the 80s. Throughout the 19th Century, the
median time on the bench was about 14 years, and about 1/3 of
all Justices served less than 10 years -- they got sick or
died. Now the median time on the bench is 25 years, which is
totally unacceptable.
If SCOTUS terms were set at 18 years, with a new Justice
appointed every 2 years, independence would be preserved
without the imposition of the "dead hands." Emeritus Justices
could continue to serve on the appellate courts, and
provisions would have to be made for deaths or retirements
during the 18 year terms, but you get the idea.
I did not mean elections. One of my favorite planks of the
1912 Bull Moose Party was the right for popular petition and
referendum to overturn an unpopular SCOTUS decision. Roe V.
Wade could not be overturned by referendum (which some fear
but votes are measured by heat count rather than audible
volume). Citizen United would be overturned by referendum. I
trust democracy more than most, but still I don't get silly
about it.
"... Originally published at the Tax Justice Network ..."
"... US finance sector is a net drag on their economy ..."
"... It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon feeling that they are the ones to blame. ..."
"... The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political and legal backing. ..."
"... As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table." ..."
"... Did I hear that right – the private finance sector will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already) 14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is. ..."
"... yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on? ..."
"... I don't know, how much money do you have left? ..."
"... It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members. ..."
"... The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today. ..."
"... One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial services at the earliest opportunity. ..."
"... I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit in some cases on a subconscious level. ..."
In our March 2017 Taxcast: the high price we're paying for our finance sectors – we look at staggering
statistics showing how the US finance sector is a net drag on their economy .
Also, as the British government initiates Brexit divorce negotiations to leave the EU, we discuss
something they ought to know, but obviously don't – they're actually in a very weak position. Could
it mean the beginning of the end of the finance curse gripping the UK economy?
If you look at particular finance centres, say London and New York, the problem is that the
net cost of this system is quite significant, it imposes a cost not only on people who use finance
but for the whole economy. So, what we need to think about is what are the more productive activities
that ought to be substituted for these excessive aspects of finance?
John Christensen, Tax Justice Network on Britain's weak position in Brexit negotiations:
We might be seeing the start of the end of Britain's grip by the Finance Curse
https://www.youtube.com/embed/E7oOiJl1n1I
Download the mp3 to listen offline anytime on your computer, mobile/cell phone or handheld device
by right clicking
here and selecting
'save link as'.
Want to subscribe? Subscribe via email by contacting the Taxcast producer on naomi [at] taxjustice.net
OR subscribe to the Taxcast RSS feed here
OR subscribe to our youtube channel,
Tax Justice TV OR find
us on
iTunes
It is a cleverly worked out system for wealth transfer. Complex laws, political backing and
protection even if you break the law. At least in the old days when you got robbed you had the signal of having a pistol pointed
at you. The modern version, with all the insider media psyops, leaves those who are preyed upon
feeling that they are the ones to blame.
The business model is straight out of the Cosa Nostra playbook – except there is media, political
and legal backing.
As an Italian friend of mine (who rarely goes north of 14th Street) once remarked, "The difference
between the Mafia and bankers is that the Mafia always leaves a few crumbs on the table."
"Wouldn't you rather give me my money, that you have in your pocket, rather than force me
to take the pistol out of my pocket, and point it at you, and rob you, and become a criminal?"
As you can clearly see, the logic is flawless, we are all much better off acquiescing to the
reasonable demands of the FIRE sector, the only alternative being an admission that we're in the
clutches of a deeply organized criminal element.
Did I hear that right – the private finance sector
will have cost us (in the US) 23Tr$ by 2020. And from 1990 to 2005 big finance cost us (already)
14Tr in fees, pay, fraud, misallocation and lost productivity. Yet we continue to deregulate even
though all governments know how destructive deregulated finance is.
And we know that the US is
the biggest and most secret tax haven of them all
The first part of Taxcast speculated that Brexit
will actually free the UK from the stranglehold of big finance and the country will be able to
move on to more productive economic activity. So let us hope the US comes to its senses – just
as the EU has finally isolated the rot of UK finance, maybe the rest of the world will isolate
us.
Regulation seems to be hand-in-glove with national sovereignty. Whereas globalized finance
might have escaped national regulation bec. there was always a safe haven for banksters, now with
a backlash of indignant people all over the world there will be re-regulation at national levels.
Since there is no global authority that can do that yet. Anyway, now that economies are trashed,
there is way too much hot money to find good investments. It has already become absurd.
I would not be so hasty thinking that the EU(27) has finally isolated the rot of UK finance.
Much of that finance was not UK, but using the UK. The EU(27) is no less corrupt than the UK and
as susceptible to big finance's charms.
I worked as a lobbyist in Brussels (and Basel and DC) for years.
yes, the EU does seem to be hungry to grab up all that finance for itself I keep thinking
about Schaeuble coming to NYC c2012 and holding an impromptu news conference wherein he said it
was fine with him if some banks went down because "we are overbanked." But we do have to admit
that "overbanked" is an understatement since there are no productive investments and it's just
self-defeating. I mean, how long can this go on?
I'm not sure I get the 'rules on financial services are different than other goods and services'
line being peddled here though. Maybe in theory, but it's pretty much a moot point.
It pays to remember that prior to 2008, hot (sovereign state backed) money flowed unimpeded
like water across all EU borders, regardless of regulation, in search of quick handsome and easy
returns, and much of it from subsequently bailed out by the ECB backdoor major lenders in France
and Germany lending recklessly to poorer EZ members.
The lasting results of this and its hasty, damaging retreat and the inequitable socialisation
of the debt across the EZ are, of course, still being felt today.
One of the major causes of the financial crisis was lax global regulation period. So let's
not kid ourselves that by removing the UK from the European Union equation it is suddenly going
to render it a bastion of sound prudential banking practice, particularly given various members
recent comments that they intend to do anything in their power to tempt a post Brexit UK's financial
services at the earliest opportunity.
I do subscribe to the belief that the UK financial services sector has been and still is toxic
to its economy and long-term future, and without a doubt this informed the Brexit vote, albeit
in some cases on a subconscious level.
"... He has the data that shows the Trump family and many others were under surveillance for a decade or more when he was still there. 600,000,000 pages of data. ..."
I read that info/ letter on another blog. I hope Dennis and Larry succeed, but there is one thing I don't quite understand.
If Montgomery left the NSA a few years ago how can he have hard evidence Trump and his team were surveilled ? ( other than one
of his former workmates telling him). If he has just been told that makes it hard to prove unless the workmate took a copy of
the data and gave it to Montgomery.
He has the data that shows the Trump family and many others were under surveillance for a decade or more when he was still
there. 600,000,000 pages of data.
We're waay beyond Trump being surveilled after the November vote.
There is more than one joke. Our constitutional dollar
democracy with its gerrymandering, limitless congressional
revolving doors, SCOTUS unanswerable to the electorate, and
first past the post voting provides loads of punch lines, not
the least of which is the de facto two party system itself.
Two competitors is merely duopoly. It takes a minimum of
three viable choices to have any returns from competition
that are significant to the consumers' preferences. Two
competitors merely play off each other in predictable and
increasingly ossified patterns.
One very big quibble: >>SCOTUS unanswerable to the
electorate<<
As bad as the SCOTUS can be, it would be
unimaginably worse if it were subject to elections.
The big problem is that the Founders did not imagine life
expectancies into the 80s. Throughout the 19th Century, the
median time on the bench was about 14 years, and about 1/3 of
all Justices served less than 10 years -- they got sick or
died. Now the median time on the bench is 25 years, which is
totally unacceptable.
If SCOTUS terms were set at 18 years, with a new Justice
appointed every 2 years, independence would be preserved
without the imposition of the "dead hands." Emeritus Justices
could continue to serve on the appellate courts, and
provisions would have to be made for deaths or retirements
during the 18 year terms, but you get the idea.
I did not mean elections. One of my favorite planks of the
1912 Bull Moose Party was the right for popular petition and
referendum to overturn an unpopular SCOTUS decision. Roe V.
Wade could not be overturned by referendum (which some fear
but votes are measured by heat count rather than audible
volume). Citizen United would be overturned by referendum. I
trust democracy more than most, but still I don't get silly
about it.
I will take your word for it. We don't watch either CNN nor
Fox News at my house. Mostly we watch local (same news and
weather crew here appears on each the WWBT/WRLH local NBC/Fox
affiliates) news with some sampling of MSNBC and Sunday
morning ABC and CBS shows along with the daily half hour of
NBC network following the evening local. Cable news is sort
of an oxymoron given the prevailing editorial slants. The now
retired local TV news anchor Gene Cox laid the groundwork for
the best news team in central VA by setting a high bar at his
station. Gene laid it all out southern fried with satirical
humor and honesty unusual in TV news.
Ok, so, who do you want a post mortum to produce as the
Democratic Trump?
Who would be the Democratic Freedom
caucus obstructing all change unless all private property is
confiscated?
You are merely saying Democrats must be more like
Republicans. More extreme.
Democrats are centrists and moderates and thus unable to
promise silver bullet solutions, free lunches, ...
Democrats just can't lie like Republicans have
increasingly done since Reagan promised free lunches and
failed to deliver, causing increasing anger among those
Reagan betrayed.
Maybe a post mortem would simply reveal that Democrats should
have had a coherent economic message and pursued a strategy
of standing up for working America for the past 8 years. For
example, having Pelosi demand votes on increasing the minimum
wage as often as Ryan demanded votes on killing Obamacare...
Any honest post mortem would have revealed that standing with
billionaires and the Wall Street banking cartel--and not
prosecuting a single Wall Street banker--is not a winning
strategy...
Do you understand how Congress Works?
Pelosi has not had power to demand any votes since 2010.
As soon as the Dems came to power in 2007, they raised the
MinWage and Bush signed.
There were several yearly increases.
You are repeating GOP nonsense
Do you understand how Congress works? Pelosi could have
proposed legislation in 2009-2010 to increase the minimum
wage and index it to inflation. With a filibuster proof
majority in the Senate it could have passed.
The Senate
could have repeatedly proposed increasing the minimum wage
any time until 2015...and Democrats could have attempted to
attach minimum wage legislation as a budget rider any time
they wanted. They didn't.
That Pelosi did not resign immediately following the 2016
election or, not having offered her resignation, that
Congressional Democrats did not demand it is an indication
that the party still has deep-rooted problems. (Pelosi may
not be the cause of those problems but given how badly
they've fared since 2010 she's clearly not the solution. She
has no business remaining as minority leader.) I'm fine with
Perez as DNC chair but Ellison should be minority leader.
"Medicare for all" may be the best battle cry. 65-70% of the
U.S. people want a single-payer. Bernie Sanders has
effectively destroyed the old Democratic Party and sits in a
commanding position as spokesman, he gets 6 TV cameras with
an hour's notice and he is probably the most popular
politician in the U.S. The Democrats don't have to push it
for now, they can wait for news to develop. This is all on
the Republicans. Let the managerial disaster of Trump and the
utter immorality of the "Freedom Caucus" sink in a little
more, this story has "legs" as they say in show biz.
David Frum, the excommunicated conservative wrote in 2010:
""The real leaders are on TV and radio"
Bernie Sanders is
the Dems TV leader.
Simple ideas repeated endlessly, easy to memorize slogans
Knows how to manipulate emotions
In the Twitter Age, this is how all successful politicians
must message
Simple
slogans repeated often isn't a new approach to politics. It
goes back well over a century. "Keep it simple and take
credit." Liberals haven't been very good at that in recent
decades. (In contrast, FDR was.) Most people aren't wonks nor
do they desire to become one. Messaging which presumes that
they are or do is not a recipe for success.
Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party.
He is a better TV messenger and ambassador to the public
He plays the Paternalistic Grandfather who does not trigger
culture shock among white voters on TV
More like the cranky uncle, whom you had better listen to.
Bernie Sanders is currently the most popular politician in
the United States, by a long shot:
Sanders won New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Utah,
Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Rhode Island,
Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota.
*and
he was close in many states like losing Massachusetts 606k to
589k. And the entire second half of the primary the DNC was
repeating how Hillary had won mathematically over and over
even though people hadn't voted.
"Sanders has not "destroyed" the old Democratic Party"
No
he is not stupid. What he has done is moving the Overton
window - something that was long overdue. There is definitely
an opening to make ObamaCare the first step towards MediCare
for all (as it always was intended by by all but the
bluedogs). But as good as Sanders is at message and getting
the crowds going, he is going to need help with the
politicking to actually get it done.
One issue going forward is whether the Dems should offer
their own plan. I think they should.
As a few others have
pointed out, Trump is not wedded to the GOP establishment. If
he thinks he can "WIN bigly!" by allying with Dems, he will
do so. I happen to think that he is mainly against
"Obamacare" because Obama humiliated him at the White House
Correspondents' Dinner once upon a time, and he is nothing if
not vengeful. He wants to obliterate Obama's legacy.
So Dems need to make a big stink any time Trump
administrativley undercuts Obamacare provisions to try to
make it fail. But also they should give him the chance to do
something he can call Trumpcare that actually works.
Obamacare does have some major problems (the individual
mandate is hated, and the penalty isn't big enough. More
young people need to buy in. Some of the Exchanges and health
care provider networks are too narrow.
In addition to the "public option" and age 55+ Medicare
buy-in, one thing that might work is abollishing the mandate
and penalty and replaciing them with automatic enrollment.
Call it "You're employed, you're covered!"
Just like SS, Medicare, unemployment and disability
deductions to paychecks, establish a Health Care automatic
deductible. If your employer offers healthcare, the
deductible is reduced by the amount of the premium, all the
way to zero if applicable.
If your employer doesn't offer healthcare, if you are under
age 40, you are automatically enrolled in the least expensive
Bronze plan in your state. If you are 40 or older, you are
automatically enrolled in the least expensive Silver plan in
your state.
The deductible would also include a small contribution
towards Medicaid. Then, if you are unemployed, you are
automatically enrolled in Medicaid, but can continue with the
silver or bronze plan as above if you choose.
Dems could turmpet such a plan to "Reform and Improve"
Obamacare, and campaign on pushing for it if they get a
Congressional majority. Call it Trumpcare and President
Caligula might sign on.
I agree that there might be an opening for that after the
midterms. If Trump pushes on the weak spots of ObamaCare
rather than fixing them, he will have backed himself into a
corner that only the democrats can help him get out of. Right
now democrats just need to do a lot of nice talk about being
willing to sit down with the President and negotiate a common
sense bipartisan solution.
No. Republicans must be driven by fear to sit down with
Democrats to get their help. Republicans must own whatever
they get Democrats to support so Republicans can't turn
around and attack the result like they attacked the
Republican defined Obamacare.
Medicaid is Republican
defined - Medicare for the poor gave too much to the inferior
poor and disabled. The old were superior because they are the
fit who survived, thus they are rewarded with Medicare.
The Obamacare public option is Medicaid. Government health
care for losers. Anyone can qualify by choosing to be losers.
Obamacare does have the public option progressives demanded,
but it's not the public option for winners.
Name the Senators, representatives, and governors Bernie Bros
have delivered?
Where are the Bernie Bros Newts, Cruz,
Marcos, ...?
I'm in my 70th year. Conservatives attacked liberals in
the 60s, my youth, as promising free lunches to gain power.
But what they really hated was liberals convinced voters to
tax all voters to pay for the things most voters wanted
everyone to have, BASED ON SOUND ECONOMICS TO MAXIMIZE
EFFICIENCY AND WELFARE.
Friedman led the effort to distort theory to eliminate the
broad meaning of general welfare in economics. He did it by
eliminating the hard connection between labor cost and gdp.
He argued that labor costs and consumption can be cut to
increase profits, and that contrary to theory, higher profits
is more efficient.
Laffer applied operations theory to taxes, as if
government was taxing to maximize profits.
Thus supply side theory of profit maximization.
The result delivered was the imperative to cut taxes. To
cut labor costs.
Thus they argued that every economic measure improves if
taxes and wages are cut.
Reaganomics would deliver more stuff at lower cost, higher
profut, and that makes everyone better off, especially those
in poverty.
Friedman saw consumption as a bad thing. He wanted higher
gdp, less consumption.
In other words, he rewrote Adam Smith attack on mercantile
economics into a justification of returning to mercantile
economic policy.
So, who do Bernie Bros offer as the Milton Friedman and
Laffer to create an intellectual foundation to refute Adam
Smith, FDR, Keynes, Galbraith, are return to hunter gatherer
economics? Who is the economist who can convince us that
Marxist economic theory will work, as long as it's not
captured by right wing capitalists like Fidel Castro, Chavez,
Stalin, Lenin, the founders of Israel, ....
Bernie certainly must be influenced by the same economic
theory that created Israel. It grew from the same Marxist
roots in Germany that powered Stalin and Lenin. Bernie is a
pre-WWII Zionist as best I can tell.
Why wouldn't Bernie deliver Israel governance to the US?
How would he prevent the greedy from joining the Movement?
And Israel has the social welfare state system Bernie
wants. Hundreds of thousands of men do not work so they can
study supported by welfare. Universal health care. Women are
very equal in status.
I grew up heating the Zionist Dream, theory, much like
Bernie did, but from conservative Indiana. Seemed very
idealist virtue becoming reality in the 50s and 60s.
I have often used Israel as the example of a good
universal health care system, of education, of welfare.
Never heard Bernie say, "I want the US to be like Israel."
Why not? Why Sweden?
Frank is wrong. What the GOP establishment dislikes most
about Obamacare is the taxes on the wealthy. Medicare for all
would have to be paid for by taxes on the wealthy or
substantial payroll tax increases on the working class.
This does not meet GOP or Trump objectives for tax cuts on
the wealthy.
The TV and radio talk uses Obamacare bashing to sell ads.
They can easily change the subject to some other click bait.
Medicare for all? NaGonnaHappN
Frank was not suggesting that the GOP establishment would
support Medicare for all. Frank was suggesting that Trump
would essentially change parties to become a Democrat. As
dubious as that notion is, more importantly it is premature.
If Democrats win back both chambers of Congress, then it
would at least be mechanically possible if still
extraordinarily dubious. Mostly though Frank was just
reaching for something worth saying. Now is a tuff time for
commentary on the political economy.
Jonny Bakho: "Medicare for all would have to be paid for by
taxes"
Theoretically you don't have to raises taxes if you
get private insurers out of the game. They are a big expense,
and give no value-added.
Doesn't mean that is politically possible, with Trump and
a GOP Congress. But Trump and a Democratic Congress? I
couldn't predict. Keep in mind that this man is almost an
ideological vacuum, no managerial skills, has no constant
concerns for anything except keeping himself in the
spotlights, to be loved. And he just learned that the Freedom
Caucus is implacably nuts.
Thank the Great
Flying Spaghetti Monster for that!!!!
Everytime the centrist dems - or mainly GOPers - try to
sell out social insurance programs, the Freedom Caucus stands
in their way. As a progressive, I am deeply and profoundly
grateful!
"They are a big expense, and give no value-added."
[Someone
has to do claims processing. The resistance against growing
the federal payroll is an unnecessary hurdle for Medicare for
all (MFA) to jump. Better administer it more like Medicaid.
Let insurance companies handle the operations for a fee.
Federal claim payments are handled on a pass thru. Then let
the operational administration default to the MFA
supplemental plan carrier if the insured has one, else the
lowest cost carrier in the insured's state. For MFA clients
then there could be a single claims process for providers
even for patients with both MFA and MFA supplemental
policies. That lowers the hurdle for MFA to leap over the
insurance company lobby as well.]
Most of health insurance claims processing has been automated
for a long time. Still it takes a lot of worker-hours to
reconcile the errors.
Imagine how many worker hours it will take to reconcile
liabilities for the first multi-car multi-fatality pile up of
robot cars on the LA freeway. It will not matter that in
total there have been less collisions and less fatalities
when the big one hits. Computers are incapable of intuitive
judgement which leads to blunders of potentially a colossal
scale occurring that could have easily been foreseen by a
human. To err is human but it takes a computer to really
screw things up beyond all recognition. It is just a matter
of time and time is always on Murphy's (that which can go
wrong will go wrong) side. I know that myths about computers
that never make mistakes and never need to be programmed
again abound and I am sure that they will still be with us
20,000 years from now, when we are not even in any memory
banks. I spent my entire career about to be replaced by
software, but I was finally laid off because of
administrative concerns with regards to legacy managed
employees in context of the re-compete of the NG/VITA
outsourcing contract (which is far less catchy). Computers
have the potential to speed transit and reduce fatalities,
but that potential will not be permanently realized as long
as people are intent upon removing all human control and
intervention. Computers can be capable copilots under almost
all circumstances, but their owners cannot weather the
fallout from their inability to conceive a response on their
own when confronted with conditions that they were not
programmed for. Such dramatic consequences will eventually
raise a great furor, horror, deep sorrow, and extensive
liability concerns. Even if you could sue a computer it is
unlikely that they could demonstrate the means to pay.
Incarceration of a computer for criminal negligence seems a
bit ludicrous as well. The owner of the offending property
better have their insurance premiums all paid up, but what
then? Who will insure the next owner? Advocates of computer
driven cars are planning on no fault insurance being mandated
in each and every state. Good luck with that.
My wife works for Anthem although not in claims
processing. She used to work in membership which is also
automated. Software developers for health insurance mostly
use Agile methods. One facet of that is that they only expect
automation to handle roughly 90% (ideally more) of the
workload because they have learned that there will never be a
no defects computer system and they are saving expensive
labor time in development by allowing lower paid workers to
pick up a lot of the more complicated cases manually. That
reduces time spent in the iterative process of testing and
correcting defects. I am sure that you remember the problems
with the ACA's automated insurance membership market. Stuff
happens all the time in IT.
It is not that I had to work in IT for 47 years to
understand the limitations. Merely my childhood education on
the mathematical system of logic that underlies their
circuitry and programming would have been sufficient, but a
bit of empirical confirmation never hurts. Understanding
reality is unfortunately a pre-requisite, but once that is
accomplished then there are great opportunities to achieve
improved results. Computers are not the problem, but can
often be an essential part of the solution rather than a
faceless soulless panacea. Does not compute can happen
anywhere, but worse though when it happens at 75 MPH.
"They are a big
expense, and give no value-added."
You clearly buy in too free lunch economics!
Cut costs (of paying workers) to give everyone more stuff
and create more higher paying jobs!!!
By the way, Medicare employs as many people as insurers to
administer the benefits and provider payments. After all,
it's all outsourced to insurers who already do that work for
employers.
Do not assume that the 10% of insured individuals and
small groups with high sales and marketing cost represent the
costs of the 80% with very low sales and marketing costs,
handled by insurer backroom operations.
Your argument is like saying that nationalizing Apple
would cut food costs by 50% because Apple sales, marketing,
profits are 50% of Apple revenue and thus 50% of everything
is sales, marketing, profit.
Every serious study that looks at current costs in the
multipayer healthcare insurance concludes that moving to
single-payer will save 15-20% of total spending. Here is yet
another one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283267/
There is nothing about that paper that would not hold true or
even truer of a two tiered system of Medicare for all with
administrative processing collocated with the supplemental
insurer whenever there is one. Just do a work flow model and
note how many steps are cut out at each the provider and
insurer if primary and secondary coverage administrative
processing for membership, claims, and policy holder services
are collocated.
Ah, but Trump is both delusional and vengeful. He might wake
up one morning and decide that Republicans are enemies to be
destroyed. He has no interest in let alone understanding of
policy. He could take a position just out of spite. And if he
thought it would make people who weren't his enemies love him
then who knows. (Odds of him being struck by lightning are
probably comparable - low but not zero.)
Government Funds 60% of U.S. Healthcare Costs - Far Higher
than Previously Believed
"We Pay for National Health
Insurance but Don't Get It"
"Universal coverage is affordable - without a big tax
increase," continued Dr. Himmelstein. "Because taxes already
fund 60% of health care costs, a shift about the size of the
recent tax cut ($130 billion a year) from private funding to
public funding would allow us to cover all the uninsured and
improve benefits for everyone else. Insurers/HMOs and drug
companies buy-off our politicians with huge campaign
contributions and hordes of lobbyists."
Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians' Proposal for
Single-Payer Health Care Reform
During a transition period,
all public funds currently spent on health care – including
Medicare, Medicaid, and state and local health care programs
– would be redirected to the unified NHP budget. Such public
spending – together with tax subsidies for employer-paid
insurance and government expenditures for public workers'
health benefits – already accounts for 60% of total U.S.
health expenditures.28 Additional funds would be raised
through taxes, though importantly these would be fully offset
by a decrease in out-of-pocket spending and premiums.
Many employers now pay for employees' health insurance and
that employee compensation is tax-exempt.
If employers
health insurance comp were replaced by medicare for all,
employers could replace it with wages.
Employees could get health insurance from medicare instead
of from private plans. Thus instead of private health
insurance paid by employers (and partially by the government
via tax exemptions), medicare could pay it from the taxes the
government didn't use to collect.
Is Donald Trump still 'for single-payer' health care?
"Perry said Trump is "for single-payer health care."
Fifteen years ago, Trump was decidedly for a universal
healthcare system that resembled Canada's system, in which
the government pays for care for all citizens.
Recently, he's said he admires Scotland's single-payer
system and disses the Affordable Care Act as incompetently
implemented.
However, a Trump spokesman denied that the
candidate supported "socialized medicine" and suggested Trump
prefers a "free-market" solution. Other than that, though,
the Trump campaign has been silent about what his specific
health care policies are; perhaps Trump will be pressed on
this point during the Aug. 6 debate.
Given the current evidence, Perry's attack is partially
accurate, but leaves out details. We rate the statement Half
True.
Trump is actually apolitical - the only reason he right now
is Trumpeting hard right wing and neocon ideas is that he is
being feed them, and he got snookered into thinking they
would work for him. When he realize that crap is pulling his
reputation and popularity down the drain, he will be ready
for someone to offer him a lifeline.
Thank the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster for that!!!!
Everytime the centrist dems - or mainly GOPers - try to
sell out social insurance programs, the Freedom Caucus stands
in their way. As a progressive, I am deeply and profoundly
grateful!
/ snark
Reply Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 07:21 AM
My thoughts exactly. EMichael and PGL said it was the Wall
Street Democrats we had to worry about? What?
Tax reform will also crash and burn now. PGL has been all
worried whining for months without telling his readers that
there is a large business and conservative opposition to Paul
Ryan's reform.
The nature of dollar duopoly is implacably corrupt. Until we
change that system then we will have to make do with what we
got. It has largely been that way since the ink dried on the
US Constitution.
"The president...may consider changing course and working
across party lines to develop support for universal access to
Medicare." Would that this were possible; Trump doesn't care
nearly enough about the millions who would benefit to make
the slightest move in this direction.
The thing he cares about is his approval ratings and
popularity. He will soon enough recognize that supporting
issues that has support from 2/3 or more of the population is
the way to improve his popularity. If the democrats play it
right they can get a lot of their own priorities through with
his help. Remember how Bush II got a $ trillion MediCare
prescription drug benefit through a conservative congress
(and it is funded through the regular progressive tax
system). That was a democratic policy that could not have
been passed by a democratic President.
"If your
house is worth 500,000, a 3% return would mean charging
15,000 in rent per year, or 1,250 per month. Now, if you look
out at the market and find out that you could actually rent
your house out for 2,000 per month, you are making 750 in
economic profit. The price you can charge for your house,
2,000, is higher than the marginal cost to you, 1,250.
Profits!"
The idea that the difference in market value and PV rents
represents economic profits does not sit well with me, but I
can't exactly explain why. It seems more like speculative
profit. And the idea that the difference should
systematically persist, as seems to be the case in the
discussion, also does not sit well. The discussion implies,
after all, that rents, representing non-production, are
becoming increasingly large in aggregate. I know that we
subsidize the pyramid accumulation of rent streams, for no
good reason in my opinion, but if this is true it seems to
say there is another kind of hollowing out underway where
rents displace real return on investment. All this in the
context where renters, in general, cannot fund the sum of
housing, education, medical care and retirement
That calculation doesn't take into account the depreciation
of the property or the taxes and maintenance. A lot of people
who buy houses to rent them out use the rule of 100. If you
want to make good money on a rental property you have to be
able to get a rent of no less than 1% of your purchase price.
So a $100K property should rent out for $1000 per month.
Yes big time. He is considering the house an investment asset
with no cost (like a bond or stock). However, houses have all
kinds of cost and they also lose value for every year they
get older. An investment return of 3% is only "reasonable"
for basically risk free investments (government or government
guaranteed bonds) that have absolutely no cost associated
with owning them.
In a Call to The Times, Trump Blames Democrats for the
Failure of the Health Bill
https://nyti.ms/2nNPHD9
NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - MARCH 24, 2017
WASHINGTON - Just moments after the Republican plan to
repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act was declared dead,
President Trump sought to paint the defeat of his first
legislative effort as an early-term blip.
The House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, was preparing to tell the
public that the health care bill was being withdrawn - a
byproduct, Mr. Trump said, of Democratic partisanship. The
president predicted that Democrats would return to him to
make a deal in roughly a year.
"Look, we got no Democratic votes. We got none, zero," Mr.
Trump said in a telephone interview he initiated with The New
York Times.
"The good news is they now own health care. They now own
Obamacare."
Mr. Trump insisted that the Affordable Care Act would
collapse in the next year, which would then force Democrats
to come to the bargaining table for a new bill.
"The best thing that can happen is that we let the
Democrats, that we let Obamacare continue, they'll have
increases from 50 to 100 percent," he said. "And when it
explodes, they'll come to me to make a deal. And I'm open to
that."
Although enrollment in the Affordable Care Act declined
slightly in the past year, there is no sign that it is
collapsing. Its expansion of Medicaid continues to grow.
In a later phone interview with The Times, the Senate
minority leader, Chuck Schumer, ridiculed Mr. Trump's remarks
about Democrats being at fault.
"Whenever the president gets in trouble, he points fingers
of blame," Mr. Schumer said. "It's about time he stopped
doing that and started to lead. The Republicans were totally
committed to repeal from the get-go, never talked to us once.
But now that they realize that repeal can't work, if they
back off repeal, of course we'll work with them to make it
even better."
Mr. Trump said that "when they come to make a deal," he
would be open and receptive. He singled out the Tuesday Group
moderates for praise, calling them "terrific," an implicit
jab at the House Freedom Caucus, which his aides had
expressed frustration with during negotiations. ...
WASHINGTON - Donald Trump famously said that if he became
president he would win so much, Americans would get tired of
winning. But so far he's mostly losing, bigly.
Even with a wide Republican majority in the House, the
president failed to deliver on the centerpiece of his
legislative agenda - repealing the Affordable Care Act -
raising loud questions about the effectiveness of his young
presidency and whether Republicans are capable of making the
transition from an opposition party to one that governs.
"It's a catastrophic legislative failure," said Rick
Tyler, a Republican strategist who didn't support Trump
during the election. "It's the equivalent of having a cardiac
arrest. You can recover from it, but it will take a lot of
rehab."
He added: "Political experience is a hard teacher. You get
the test first and learn the lesson next."
Even former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a close Trump
ally, delivered a harsh verdict Friday. "Why would you
schedule a vote on a bill that is at 17 percent approval?" he
asked on his Twitter feed, referring to a Quinnipiac
University poll.
The tweet went viral, and in an interview Gingrich added:
"When I saw the numbers - that is everything I have opposed
in my entire career. That's how the Republicans lost the
majority."
Still, the defeat of Trump's first request of Congress
represents a further deterioration of his already shaky
credibility in Washington and among the American people.
He has cast himself as a master salesman and the "closer" who
can win over allies in the most difficult of circumstances
through some combination of his winning personality and
take-no-prisoners approach to negotiations.
But that picture of Trump is becoming about as
questionable as his unsubstantiated claims that he had huge
crowd sizes at his inauguration, his unproven accusations
that bus loads of Massachusetts voters cast illegal ballots
in New Hampshire, and his much rejected insistence that
then-President Obama put a wiretap on his phone.
The pattern, in the eyes of his harshest critics, is that
there's little evidence to back up his boasts.
He could not close this deal. Republican members of the
House of Representatives, who have voted to repeal the Obama
health law more than 50 times in the past seven years,
refused Trump's entreaties to support the Republican
replacement for the law.
The setback comes as other storm clouds are gathering over
the Trump presidency. There's the FBI investigation into
whether his campaign staff coordinated e-mail leaks designed
to influence the election, along with the Russians.
FBI director James Comey was spotted going in and out of
the West Wing on Friday, which was a reminder of the
investigation, even if the White House claimed Comey was
there for a routine meeting. ...
Speaking in the Oval Office Friday afternoon, President Trump
surveyed the wreckage of the Obamacare repeal effort and
issued a crisp, definitive verdict: I didn't do it.
The
president said he didn't blame Speaker Paul Ryan, though he
had plenty of implied criticism for the speaker. "I like
Speaker Ryan. He worked very hard," Trump said, but he added:
"I'm not going to speak badly about anybody within the
Republican Party. Certainly there's a big history. I really
think Paul worked hard." He added ruefully that the GOP could
have taken up tax-reform first, instead of Obamacare-the
reverse of Ryan's desired sequence. "Now we're going to go
for tax reform, which I've always liked," he said.
As for the House Freedom Caucus, the bloc of conservatives
from which many of the apparent "no" votes on the Republican
plan were to come, Trump said, "I'm not betrayed. They're
friends of mine. I'm disappointed because we could've had it.
So I'm disappointed. I'm a little surprised, I could tell
you."
The greatest blame for the bill's failure fell on
Democrats, Trump said.
"This really would've worked out better if we could've had
Democrat support. Remember we had no Democrat support," Trump
said. Later, he added, "But when you get no votes from the
other side, meaning the Democrats, it's really a difficult
situation."
He said Democrats should come up with their own bill. "I
think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because
they own Obamacare," he said, referring to the House and
Senate Democratic leaders. "They 100 percent own it."
Trump was very clear about who was not to blame: himself.
"I worked as a team player," the president of the United
States said, demoting himself to bit-player status. He wanted
to do tax reform first, after all, and it was still early.
"I've been in office, what, 64 days? I've never said repeal
and replace Obamacare within 64 days. I have a long time. I
want to have a great health-care bill and plan and we will."
Strictly speaking, it is true that Trump didn't promise to
repeal Obamacare on day 64 of his administration. What he
told voters, over and over during the campaign, was that he'd
do it immediately. On some occasions he or top allies even
promised to do it on day 1. Now he and his allies are
planning to drop the bill for the foreseeable future.
It is surely not wrong that there is lots of blame to go
around. Congressional Republicans had years to devise a plan,
and couldn't come up with one that would win a majority in
the House, despite a 44-seat advantage. The House bill was an
unpopular one, disliked by conservatives and moderates in
that chamber; almost certainly dead on arrival in the Senate;
and deeply unpopular with voters. Even before the vote was
canceled, unnamed White House officials were telling
reporters that the plan was to pin the blame on Ryan. ...
... Defeat on the floor dealt Trump a major blow early in
his presidency, but its implications were far more serious
for the Republican Party as a whole. Handed unified control
of the federal government for only the third time since World
War II, the modern GOP was unable to overcome its internecine
fights to enact a key part of its policy agenda. The
president now wants to move on to a comprehensive overhaul of
the tax code, but insiders on Capitol Hill have long believed
that project will be an even heavier lift than health care.
As the prospect of a loss became more real on Friday, the
frustrations of GOP lawmakers loyal to the leadership began
to boil over. "I've been in this job eight years, and I'm
wracking my brain to think of one thing our party has done
that's been something positive, that's been something other
than stopping something else from happening," Representative
Tom Rooney of Florida said in an interview. "We need to start
having victories as a party. And if we can't, then it's hard
to justify why we should be back here."
Nothing has exemplified the party's governing challenge
quite like health care. For years, Republican leaders
resisted pressure from Democrats and rank-and-file lawmakers
to coalesce around a detailed legislative alternative to
Obamacare. That failure didn't prevent them from attaining
power, but it forced them to start nearly from scratch after
Trump's surprising victory in November. At Ryan's urging, the
party had compiled a plan as part of the speaker's "A Better
Way" campaign agenda. Translating that into legislation,
however, proved a much stiffer challenge; committee leaders
needed to navigate a razor's edge to satisfy conservatives
demanding a full repeal of Obamacare and satisfy moderates
who preferred to keep in place its more popular consumer
protections and Medicaid expansion. They were further limited
by the procedural rules of the Senate, which circumscribed
how far Republicans could go while still avoiding a
Democratic filibuster. ...
It would appear that the 'Freedom Caucus', of
about 30 GOPsters in the House, was barely
enough to stop the AHCA because it 'wasn't
conservative enough', but the moderate
Tuesday Group of about 50 surely was,
because it was too 'conservative'.
But you need better free lunch economics to beat the free
lunch economics of conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party,
Freedom caucus, and Trump.
You need free lunch economics
that work and deliver something for nothing. The failure
Friday was free lunch economics hitting reality. Getting
government and insurance companies out of the lives of Trump
and Republican voters did not make these voters richer,
healthier, and freer.
Bernie has his own free lunch economics which will
likewise turn out to be ashes in the mouths of voters who
might get him into the White House, he wants to cut spending
based on "not paying workers will not make those workers
worse off". Exactly the same theory Reagan to Trump use.
Gutting costly regulations that require paying workers to
comply will not result in workers being worse off. Or
property owners.
Bernie campaigned on eliminating fossil fuels in a way
that his voters will be able to keep burning fossil fuels to
drive to his rallies and to heat their homes.
New Health Care Plan: Open Source Drugs, Immigrant
Doctors, and a Public Option
Now that the Republican health care plan has been sent to
the dust bin of history, it's worth thinking about how
Obamacare can be improved. While the Affordable Care Act was
a huge step forward in extending insurance coverage, many of
the complaints against the program are justified. The co-pays
and deductibles can mean the plans are of little use to
middle income people with relatively low bills.
This is a great time to put forward ideas for reducing
these costs and making other changes in the health care
system. Obviously this congress and president are not
interested in reforms that help low and middle income
families, but the rest of us can start pushing these ideas
now, with the expectation that the politicians will
eventually come around.
There are two obvious directions to go to get costs down
for low and middle income families. One is to increase taxes
on the wealthy. The other is to reduce the cost of health
care. The latter is likely the more promising option,
especially since we have such a vast amount of waste in our
system. The three obvious routes are lower prices for
prescription drugs and medical equipment, reducing the pay of
doctors, and savings on administrative costs from having
Medicare offer an insurance plan in the exchanges.
Taking these in turn, the largest single source of savings
would be reducing what we pay for prescription drugs. We will
spend over $440 billion this year for drugs that would likely
sell for less than $80 billion in a free market without
patent monopolies and other forms of protection. If we paid
as much as people in other wealthy countries for our drugs,
we would save close to $200 billion a year. We spend another
$50 billion a year on medical equipment which would likely
cost around $15 billion in a free market.
If the government negotiated prices for drugs and medical
equipment its savings could easily exceed $100 billion a year
(see "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" * ). It
could use some of these savings to finance open-source
research for new drugs and medical equipment.
We already fund a huge amount of research, so this is not
some radical departure from current practice. The government
spends more than $32 billion on research conducted by the
National Institutes of Health. It also picks up 50 percent of
the industry's research costs on orphan drugs through the
Orphan Drug Tax Credit. Orphan drugs are a rapidly growing
share of all drug approvals, as the industry increasingly
takes advantage of this tax credit.
The big change would not be that the government was
funding research, but rather the research results and patents
would be in the public domain, rather than be used by Pfizer
and other drug companies to get patent monopolies. As a
result, the next great breakthrough drug will sell as a
generic for a few hundred dollars rather than hundreds of
thousands of dollars. And MRI scans would cost little more
than X-rays.
The second big potential source of savings would come from
reducing the protectionist barriers which largely exclude
foreign-trained physicians. Under current law, a foreign
doctor is prohibited from practicing in the United States
unless they complete a U.S. residency program. This keeps
hundreds of thousands of well-qualified from physicians from
practicing in the United States. As a result, our doctors
earn on average more than $250,000 a year, roughly twice the
average pay in other wealthy countries. (There are similar
protectionist restrictions which inflate the pay of
dentists.)
If we removed this barrier and allowed qualified foreign
doctors to practice in the United States, we would likely get
their pay down to levels comparable to that of doctors in
countries like Canada and Germany. This could save us close
to $100 billion a year on our health care bill, at least half
of which would be savings to the government.
There is a concern that we would attract more doctors from
developing countries. We could easily offset this brain drain
by paying these countries enough so that they can train two
or three doctors for every one that comes to the United
States, thereby ensuring they gain from this arrangement as
well. It is worth noting that these countries receive zero
compensation now for the doctors they pay to train, but who
then practice in the United States.
The third big source of saving would be having Medicare
offer an insurance plan in the exchanges. This would ensure
both that everyone had at least one good option regardless of
where they lived and also that the private insurers in the
system would face real competition. In 2010, the
Congressional Budget Office projected that a public option
would save the government $23 billion a year by 2020 and $29
billion by 2023.
The total savings to the government from these three
changes easily exceed $150 billion a year, in addition to
large savings that individuals outside the exchanges would
see in their health care expenses. This is far more than
enough to make the deductibles zero for each of the roughly
10 million people now in the exchanges. That would make
Obamacare considerably more attractive.
Of course if the plans in the exchanges became more
generous more people would opt to take advantage of them and
we would see people leaving employer-provided plans. That is
a problem that we can deal with at the time it happens. (We
would need to have a portion of workers' current payments for
employer provided plans go to the government to cover the
cost of additional enrollees in the exchanges.) But the way
forward in improving Obamacare is to use the market to make
our health care system more efficient and reduce the
ridiculous rents that now go to the wealthy as a result of
waste in the system.
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of
Patents and Copyrights
One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in
policy debates is that, as a result of technology, we are
seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living
to the people who own the technology. While the
redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the
problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns"
the technology. The people who write the laws determine who
owns the technology.
Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders
monopolies on technology or creative work for their duration.
If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers
to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we
may want to consider is shortening and weakening these
monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite
direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of
measures have been put into law that make these protections
longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who
work to people who own the technology should not be
surprising - that was the purpose of the policy.
If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced
economic dividends in the form of more innovation and more
creative output, then this upward redistribution might be
justified. But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been
any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward
redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to
be associated with slower growth.
Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking
for a minute about what the world might look like if we had
alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the
items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free
market just like paper cups and shovels.
The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The
breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other
diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred
dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer
to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends
and family. Almost every drug would be well within an
affordable price range for a middle-class family, and
covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed
by governments and aid agencies.
The same would be the case with various medical tests and
treatments. Doctors would not have to struggle with a
decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which
might be the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other
health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable
technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most
cutting edge scans would be reasonably priced.
Health care is not the only area that would be transformed
by a free market in technology and creative work. Imagine
that all the textbooks needed by college students could be
downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the
price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of new books,
recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.
People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be
compensated, but there is little reason to believe that the
current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best
way to support their work. It's not surprising that the
people who benefit from the current system are reluctant to
have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic
for public debate, but those who are serious about inequality
have no choice. These forms of property claims have been
important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.
The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last
four decades to increase the strength and duration of patent
and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting
from increased protection will be more than offset by an
increased incentive for innovation and creative work. Patent
and copyright protection should be understood as being like
very large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the
price of protected items by several multiples of the free
market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several
hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting
economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if
we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.
The justification for granting these monopoly protections
is that the increased innovation and creative work that is
produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic
costs from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is
remarkably little evidence to support this assumption. While
the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices
is apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little
evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more rapid
pace of innovation or more and better creative work....
Medicare for all is a great idea but still well out of
political reach for a while. On the other hand, cheaper drugs
is a goal even trumpers could support with the right sales
pitch.
I generally love most of what Dean Baker does. But his
weaknesses are on display in this piece. Just enough insights
to sound convincing, but not enough to be the real McCoy. Yes
we pay our medical doctors a lot more than France. However,
ours first come out of undergraduate training having paid
over $200K for that, then add another $300K for medical
school. So that is a cool $500K in debt that their French
counterparts don't have to deal with. Next (and before they
can se any patients are internships (3 years) where they are
not paid enough to begin paying down the student debt,
followed by another 2-5 years of specialty training again
with a compensation that cover living but not paying down the
debt. Finally after becoming specialists (and those who don't
are not paid $250K per year), they can begin paying down that
student debt which in the meantime has grown substantially
(with its private market interest rates).
If you were to put all those foreigners with their free
education in direct competition with the domestic crop there
would be no US born doctors. But that would be the least of
the problems. American medical schools are for the most part
outstanding and even the least of those graduating are quite
good. That cannot be said for many of the other places in the
world where we get most of our foreign trained doctors. There
is a very good reason we demand that foreigners go through a
US residency program before they can practice medicine.
Regardless of what their (real or fake) papers say about
their education, they have to perform up to US standards to
pass the US residency programs and be licensed – and that is
a good thing.
What Comes Next for Obamacare? The Case for Medicare for
All
By ROBERT H. FRANK
Republicans are in a bind. They've been promising to
repeal Obamacare for seven years, and having won control of
the White House and Congress, they had to try to deliver. But
while their bitter denunciations of the Affordable Care Act
may have depressed its approval numbers, they didn't make
replacing it any easier.
On the contrary, the repeal-and-replace bill designed by
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan drew withering criticism from the
left and the right. Liberals condemned its use of reductions
in health coverage for the poor to pay for large tax cuts for
the wealthy, while conservatives bemoaned its retention of
many subsidies adopted under Obamacare.
In the end, the repeal effort's biggest hurdle may have
been loss aversion, one of the most robust findings in
behavioral science. As numerous studies have shown, the pain
of losing something you already have is much greater than the
pleasure of having gained it in the first place. And the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Mr.
Ryan's American Health Care Act (A.H.C.A.) would have caused
more than 14 million people to lose coverage in the first
year alone, with total losses rising to 24 million over the
next decade. Many Republicans in Congress were nervous about
the political firestorm already provoked by the mere prospect
of such losses.
Loss aversion actually threatened the repeal effort on two
fronts: voters' fear of losing their coverage, and lawmakers'
fear of losing their seats. Like the first fear, the second
appeared well grounded. Republican voters wouldn't have been
the only ones losing coverage, of course, but early studies
suggested that losses would have been concentrated among
people who voted for President Trump. The Congressional
Budget Office estimated, for example, that the A.H.C.A. would
have caused premiums to rise more than sevenfold in 2026 for
64-year-olds making $26,500.
Now that Republicans have withdrawn Mr. Ryan's bill from
consideration, attention shifts to what comes next. In an
earlier column, I suggested that Mr. Trump has the political
leverage, which President Obama did not, to jettison the
traditional Republican approach in favor of a form of the
single-payer health care that most other countries use.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program, an
advocacy group, "Single-payer national health insurance, also
known as 'Medicare for all,' is a system in which a single
public or quasi-public agency organizes health care
financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in
private hands." Christopher Ruddy, a friend and adviser of
the president, recently urged him to consider this option.
Many Republicans who want to diminish government's role in
health care view the single-payer approach with disdain. But
Mr. Trump often seems to take pleasure in being
unpredictable, and since he will offend people no matter
which way he turns, he may want to consider why liberals and
conservatives in many other countries have embraced the
single-payer approach.
Part of the appeal of Medicare for all is that
single-payer systems reduce financial incentives that
generate waste and abuse. Mr. Ryan insisted that by
relegating health care to private insurers, competition would
lead to lower prices and higher quality. Economic theory
tells us that this is a reasonable expectation when certain
conditions are met. A crucial one is that buyers must be able
to compare the quality of offerings of different sellers. In
practice, however, people have little knowledge of the
treatment options for the various maladies they might suffer,
and policy language describing insurance coverage is
notoriously complex and technical. Consumers simply cannot
make informed quality comparisons in this industry.
In contrast, they can easily compare the prices charged by
competing insurance companies. This asymmetry induces
companies to compete by highlighting the lower prices they're
able to offer if they cut costs by degrading the quality of
their offerings. For example, it's common for insurance
companies to deny payment for procedures that their policies
seem to cover. If policy holders complain loudly enough, they
may eventually get reimbursed, but the money companies save
by not paying others confers a decisive competitive advantage
over rivals that don't employ this tactic. Such haggling is
uncommon under single-payer systems like Medicare (though it
is sometimes employed by private insurers that supplement
Medicare).
Consider, too, the mutually offsetting expenditures on
competitive advertising and other promotional efforts of
private insurers, which can exceed 15 percent of total
revenue. Single-payer plans like Medicare spend nothing on
competitive advertising (although here, also, we see such
expenditures by supplemental insurers).
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative
costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of total operating
expenditures, less than one-sixth of the rate estimated for
the private insurance industry. This difference does not mean
that private insurers are evil. It's a simple consequence of
a difference in the relevant economic incentives.
American health care outlays per capita in 2015 were more
than twice the average of those in the 35 advanced countries
that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. Yet despite that spending difference, the system
in the United States delivers significantly less favorable
outcomes on measures like longevity and the incidence of
chronic illness....
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Health Data
Total health care spending per person, 2015 *
United States ( 9451)
OCED average ( 3814)
France ( 4407)
Total health care spending as a share of GDP, 2015
United States ( 16.9)
OCED average ( 9.0)
France ( 11.0)
Pharmaceutical expenditure per person, 2014 *
United States ( 1112)
OECD average ( 538)
France ( 656)
Practising physicians per 1,000 population, 2014
United States ( 2.6)
OECD average ( 3.3)
France ( 3.3)
Practising nurses per 1,000 population, 2014
United States ( 11.2)
OECD average ( 8.9)
France ( 9.6)
Physician consultations per person, 2014
United States ( 4.0)
OECD average ( 6.8)
France ( 6.3)
Medical graduates per 100,000 population, 2014
United States ( 7.3)
OECD average ( 11.4)
France ( 10.0)
* Data are expressed in US dollars adjusted for purchasing
power parities (PPPs), which provide a means of comparing
spending between countries on a common base. PPPs are the
rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a
given "basket" of goods and services in different countries.
Peter K. -> anne...
, -1
As Bernie Sanders says play offense, not just defense. Then
the voters will respect you.
It would be funny if Trump
goes for round two health care reform and wins bigly with
Democrats' help.
Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new
détente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian – and
Chinese – advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.
By Gilbert Doctorow
As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven
charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat,
the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to
cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10,
2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)
Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations
ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the
Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed.
For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump
supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow,
the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable.
On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan
fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of
pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.
We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the
international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit
of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of
years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.
These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland,
the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in
the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with
subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered
imaginations of the West.
Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that
together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the
Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War
system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.
In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours
harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now
inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the
global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the
regional level of the Greater Middle East.
The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and
geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey,
Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is
heralded on daily television programming.
Mideast Interests
Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in
Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad
regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly,
Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to
support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal
was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a
significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II.
(Photo from RT)
Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony
there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the
Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest,
but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term.
Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the
European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led
post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration
to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general
population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer
Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for
trade with Russia is immense.
This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in
Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of
this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open
Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations -
operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump
administration has dropped U.S. support for him.
It would be naïve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated
demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply
giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored
"non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic
governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.
Not Your Grandfather's Cold War
But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War
days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical
rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an
ideological rivalry between – on one side – free market capitalism and parliamentary
democracy and – on the other – planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist
Party rule.
President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in
1972.
Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of détente was put in place, which
embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing
human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no
New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are
obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the
more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a
full-blown ideological conflict.
The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global
governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because
there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include:
globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus
interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of
liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of
forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally
has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations
generally favoring the second options.
On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist
terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding
25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western
political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that
he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S.
solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting
ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.
However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks – while under
fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia – we may be left with something akin to the re-set that
Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as
détente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and
Russian interests were deemed to coincide.
The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less
of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral
contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its
intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.
Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push
Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more
polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but
it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.
The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in
improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has
become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely
that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide
the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big
deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a
world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate
skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other
key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have
limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from
Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful
that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.
As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling
administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world.
If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well
have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional
players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.
Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would
still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could
begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If
and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a
triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book,
Does Russia Have a Future?
was published in August 2015.
Andrew Nichols
,
March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I
presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any
threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little
crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily
basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k
up!
Kiza
,
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe,
all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school
emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at
a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked
Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to
finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst
attacking Soviet Union.
Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers
from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the
World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the
US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the
profit.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am
KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money,
and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment
for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill,
but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American
21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr
Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in
humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.
My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder
they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's
ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and
that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed
military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying
down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't
going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole
idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to
inflict pain.
This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump
gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The
sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that
Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had
it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the
rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now
ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in
time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going
to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate
take care Joe
Kiza
,
March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am
I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the
root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project.
It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its
people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to
discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised
how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great
comment as usual.
Bob Van Noy
,
March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am
"Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian
countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is
important to understand that the Russian vision is a future
multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two
superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited
resources." Gilbert Doctorow
Again. "The real area of contention is
in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this
level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there
is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which
include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign
policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order
established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other
forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect
for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow
To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would
clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces
and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very
controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the
liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than
negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression
Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is
the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.
backwardsevolution
,
March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Brad Owen – that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump
needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking
(one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not
yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the
whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a
particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with
the "strategic" thinkers.
I see Trump as wanting to create free
(but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries'
business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely
neglected for the last 20 – 30 years.
I think people totally underestimate Trump.
This is really a war between those who favor
globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a
nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the
world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture,
borders, fair and open trade with other countries.
Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great
orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more
than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according
to who is paying them the most money on any given day.
I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his
competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next.
Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his
competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others
to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.
Arseniy Urazov
,
March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in
case you missed it
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/14/trumps-quiet-outreach-to-russia/
And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very
close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the
Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making
great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even
cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member
btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the
media is trying to show us
Brad Owen
,
March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am
I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being
the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the
peace and guiding development for the entire World we three.
This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile
intelligence community the moment he died; recovered
fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy.
Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World
LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail
lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties
the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's
time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European
maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska
towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST
European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the
Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of
the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and
move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and
Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these
childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive
Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are
championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision
of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program.
Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our
Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and
counter-productive.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm
It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with
demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American
leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is
liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast
food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get
displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must
pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we
are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?
All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President
Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is
worried ..
Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include
journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate
story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch
hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link
to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you
may wish to read her own words.
If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all
in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of
values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy
era of the lowest of times in America.
Kiza
,
March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm
I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms
Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises
the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates
does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows
out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US
Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same
point for a while now – the Democrats are really working to
benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they
accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself
from the mindless bunch.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm
KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an
endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like
libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch
talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned
in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only
adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm
all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of
the NWO.
You are on too something though, when you mention to how
Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting
disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole
fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving
has brought us all to this place. It would be great if
Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for
wishful thinking.
I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your
enemies closer.
"... I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you. ..."
"... I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA ..."
"... Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then. ..."
"... having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right. ..."
"... Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats. ..."
"... The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State. ..."
This should be no real surprise. Hillary and her faction were neo-Republicans. Their liberal
interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.
They kept control of the party. It is not Democratic in the sense of opposing war or McCarthyism
or corporate abuses or Wall Street or trade agreements. It is bought and paid for by the people
who were the Republicans all along.
This is the end state of triangulating courtesy of Bill Clinton. We have two Republican parties,
one even crazier than the other.
Bob In Portland , March 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm
I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO
(Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties,
if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your
right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in
front of you.
I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA
Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering
around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent
a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers
on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then.
After JFK's removal, the Deep State wanted better control of both parties. Nixon wasn't supposed
to be the problem he was for them, so Watergate. But having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep
State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was
to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right.
Perhaps Bill earned his bones with Asa Hutchinson
in the 80s by ignoring Mena. Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate
Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various
intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats.
The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally
to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one
thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 9:14 pm
Interesting speculations. For new readers just getting acquainted with the Deep State, consider
the scholarly work by professor Peter Dale Scott. Here are three interviews about his books.
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
– he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Japan.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
Front ASAP).
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
all Jewish.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
connection.
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
Jews.
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
Your move.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic
reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently –
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
***
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
at:
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
words "
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
– he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
funny money."
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
Trump
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
contradictory commentary.
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
here.
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
heretics.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
"... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
"... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the
privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and
other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support
for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria
to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen.
Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp"
of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who
described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein:A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous
administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley.
She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's
pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported
in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA,
retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because
it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot
of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin
and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because,
at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical
for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president.
There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military
industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately
the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous
narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this.
If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's
nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology,
these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the
United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and
the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally
normal in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers.
And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put
them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's
not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump,
and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And,
Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta
Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he
thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch
was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It
was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But
since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's
the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media.
And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again,
we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to
have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be
seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading
this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And
I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media
to plant false info.
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
"... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
"... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the
privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and
other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support
for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria
to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen.
Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp"
of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who
described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein:A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous
administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley.
She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's
pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported
in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA,
retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because
it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot
of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin
and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because,
at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical
for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president.
There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military
industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately
the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous
narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this.
If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's
nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology,
these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the
United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and
the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally
normal in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers.
And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put
them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's
not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump,
and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And,
Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta
Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he
thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch
was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It
was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But
since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's
the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media.
And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again,
we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to
have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be
seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading
this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And
I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media
to plant false info.
"... In the same way, neoliberals are no different. They aren't bad people – they just see their policies as right and just because those policies are working well for them and the people in their class, and I don't think they really understand why it doesn't work for others – maybe, like Adam Smith, they think that is the "natural state" .. ..."
"... Read the first sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments – it makes an assumption which is the foundation of all of Adam Smith. He asserted that all men are moral. Morality in economics is the invisible hand creating order like gravity in astronomy. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's assumption is false or at least not true enough to form a sound foundation for useful economic theory. ..."
"... But "morality" means different things to different people. Smith only saw the morality of his own class. For example, I am sure a wealthy man would consider it very moral to accumulate as much money as he could so that he would be seen by his peers as a good and worthy man who cares for his future generations and the well being of his class – he doesn't see this accumulation as amoral – whilst a poor man may think that kind of accumulation is amoral because he thinks that money could be better used provide for those without the basic needs to survive ..."
"... "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." ..."
"... Another I remember from Smith was something like, "The law exists to protect those who have much from those who have little." Sounds about right. ..."
"... One of Steve Keen's favourite analogies is astronomy. Neoclassical economics is like Ptolemy's epicycles; assume the Earth is at the centre, and that the planets orbit in circles and simply by adding little circles-epicycles-you can accurately describe the observed motion of the planets. The right epicycles in the right places can describe any motion. But they can't explain anything, they add nothing to understanding, they subtract from it, because they are false but give the illusion of knowledge. Drop the assumptions and you can begin to get somewhere. ..."
"... Steve Keen seems to have latched onto this in the last year or so, pointing out that all production is driven by energy. And the energy comes ultimately from the sun. Either it is turned into production via feeding workers, or by fueling machinery (by burning hydrocarbons extracted from plant and animal remains). ..."
"... I have a question about a similar thing. Simon Kuznetz is credited as someone who has invented modern concept of GDP and he revolutionized the field of economics with statistical method (econometrics). However, Kuznets , in the same report in which he presented modern concept of GDP to US congress, wrote following(from wikipedia): ..."
"... "The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification. ..."
"... All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above. Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what." ..."
"... "So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most of the economists nowadays?"@Vedant ..."
"... That is your explanation right there. Large abstract numbers such as GDP obscure social issues such as "the personal distribution of income." and the effort that goes into creating that income. Large abstract numbers obscure the moral dimension that must be a part of all economic discussion and are obscured by statistics and sciencism. As the genius of Mark Twain put it, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Beware the credentialed classes! ..."
"... Interesting. There is a great book by John Dupré called 'Human Nature and the Limits of Science (2001)", which tackles this subject in a general way: the facts that taking a mechanistic model as a paradigm for diverse areas of science is problematic and leads to myopia. ..."
"... He describes it as a form of 'scientific imperialism', stretching the use of concepts from one area of science to other areas and leading to bad results (because there are, you know, relevant differences). As a prime example, he mentions economics. (When reading EConned;s chapter of the science ( 'science') of economics, I was struck by the similar argument.) ..."
"... Soddy was a scientist. He should have written as a scientist with definitions, logic and rigour, but he wrote like a philosopher, full of waffle and unsubstantiated assertions like other economists. It is unscientific to apply universal laws discovered in physics and chemistry to economics without proving by observations that those laws also apply to economics. ..."
"... I get irritated by radical free-marketeers who when presented with a social problem tend to dogmatically assert that "The free market wills it," as if that ended all discussion. It is as if the free market was their God who must always be obeyed. Unlike Abraham, we do not need to obey if we feel that the answer is unjust. ..."
"... Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ..."
"... The moralistic explanations for the disintegration of the (Western) Roman Empire were long ago discarded by all serious analysis of late antiquity. More practical explanations, especially the loss of the North African bread basket to the Vandals, are presented in the scholarly work these days. ..."
"... That book of Gibbon's is an incredible achievement. If it is not read by historians today, it is their loss. Its moral explanations, out of fashion today, are actually quite compelling. They become more so when read with de Tocqueville's views of the moral foundations of American township democracy and their transmission into the behavior, and assumptions, of New Englanders, whose views formed the basis of the federal republican constitution. ..."
"... The loss of the breadbasket was problematical, too. And it may be that no civilization, however young and virile, could withstand the migrations forever, as they withstood or absorbed them, with a few exceptions, for eight hundred years. But the progressive losses to the migratory tribes may have been a symptom of the real, "moral," cause of the decline. ..."
"... From 536-539AD the entire planet suffered a staggering holocaust. Krakatoa blew up - ejecting so much dust that it triggered a 'nuclear winter' that lasted through those years. ..."
"... It was this period that ended agriculture in North Africa. ( Algeria-Tunisia ) The drought blew all of the top soil into the Med. It was an irreversible tragedy. ..."
"... Economics is not science, simply because economics does not take facts seriously enough to modify flawed theories. ..."
"... In college I couldn't help but notice the similarities between modern economic theory and the control theory taught in engineering. Not such a great fit though, society is not a mechanical governor. ..."
Yves here. This post takes what I see as an inconsistent, indeed, inaccurate stance
on Adam Smith, since it depicts him as advocating laissez faire and also not being concerned about
"emotions, sentiment, human relations and community." Smith was fiercely opposed to monopolies as
well as businessmen colluding to lower the wages paid to workers. He also saw The Theory of Moral
Sentiments as his most important work and wanted it inscribed on his gravestone.
Jacob Viner addressed the laissez-faire attribution to Adam Smith in 1928 ..Here is a list
extracted from Wealth Of Nations:
the Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that 'defence, however, is of much
more importance than opulence' (WN464); Sterling marks on plate and stamps on linen and woollen
cloth (WN138–9); enforcement of contracts by a system of justice (WN720); wages to be paid
in money, not goods; regulations of paper money in banking (WN437); obligations to build party
walls to prevent the spread of fire (WN324); rights of farmers to send farm produce to the
best market (except 'only in the most urgent necessity') (WN539); 'Premiums and other encouragements
to advance the linen and woollen industries' (TMS185); 'Police', or preservation of the 'cleanliness
of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances';
ensuring the 'cheapness or plenty [of provisions]' (LJ6; 331); patrols by town guards and fire
fighters to watch for hazardous accidents (LJ331–2); erecting and maintaining certain public
works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours)
(WN723); coinage and the mint (WN478; 1724); post office (WN724); regulation of institutions,
such as company structures (joint- stock companies, co-partneries, regulated companies and
so on) (WN731–58); temporary monopolies, including copyright and patents, of fixed duration
(WN754); education of youth ('village schools', curriculum design and so on) (WN758–89); education
of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788); encouragement of 'the frequency and gaiety
of publick diversions'(WN796); the prevention of 'leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive
disease' from spreading among the population (WN787–88); encouragement of martial exercises
(WN786); registration of mortgages for land, houses and boats over two tons (WN861, 863); government
restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor 'stupidity' (WN356–7);
laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes (WN324); natural liberty may be
breached if individuals 'endanger the security of the whole society' (WN324); limiting 'free
exportation of corn' only 'in cases of the most urgent necessity' ('dearth' turning into 'famine')
(WN539); and moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue (WN879).
"Viner concluded, unsurprisingly, that 'Adam Smith was not a doctrinaire advocate of laissez-faire'.
By Douglass Carmichael, perviously a Professor at University of California at Santa Cruz and
a Washington DC based consultant, which clients including Hewlett-Packard, World Bank, Bell laboratories,
The White House and the State Department. For the last ten years he has focused on the broad social
science issues relevant to rethinking humanity's relationship to nature. Cross posted from
the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
With Adam Smith, and hints before in Ricardo and others, economics took the path of treating the
economy as a natural object that should not be interfered with by the state. This fit the Newtonian
ethos of the age: science was great, science was mathematics; science was true, right and good.
But along the way the discussion in, for example, Montaigne and Machiavelli - about the powers
of imagination, myth, emotions, sentiment, human relations and community - was abandoned by the economists.
(Adam Smith had written his Theory of Moral Sentiments 20 years earlier and sort of left
it behind, though the Wealth of Nations is still concerned with human well-being.) Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in 1776, the same year as Smith's
Wealth , but hardly read today by most economists.
In philosophy and the arts (romanticism among others) there was great engagement in these issues
economics was trying to avoid. But that philosophy and art criticism have not been widely read for
many years.
The effect of ignoring the human side of lives was to undermine the social perspective of the
"political," by merging it with the individually focused "interest." So, instead of exploring the
inner structure of interest (or later utility or preference), or community feeling and the impact
of culture, these were assumed to be irrelevant to the mechanics of the market. Politics, having
to do with interest groups and power arrangements, is more vague and harder to model than economic
activity.
Those who wanted economics to be a science were motivated by the perception that "being scientific"
was appreciated by the society of the time, and was the path to rock-solid truth. But the move towards
economics as a science also happened to align with a view of the landed and the wealthy that the
economy was working for them, so don't touch it. We get the equation, embracing science = conservative.
This is still with us because of the implication that the market is made by god or nature rather
than being socially constructed. Since economics is the attempt at a description of the economy,
it was more or less locked in to the naturalist approach, which ignores things like class and ownership
and treated capital as part of economic flow rather than as a possession that was useable for social
and political power.
Even now, economics still continues as if it were part of the age of Descartes and avoids most
social, historical and philosophical thought about the nature of man and society. Names like Shaftesbury
and Puffendorf, very much read in their time, are far less known now than Hobbes, Descartes, Ricardo,
Mill and Keynes. Karl Polanyi is much less well known than Hayek. We do not learn of the social history
such as the complex interplay in Viennese society among those who were classmates and colleagues
such as Hayek, Gombrich, Popper and Drucker. The impact of Viennese culture is not known to many
economists.
The result is an economics that supports an economy that is out of control because the feedback
loops through society and its impact of the quality of life - and resentment - are not recognized
in a dehumanized economics, and so can't have a feedback correcting effect.
The solution, however, is not to look for simplicity, but to embrace a kind of complexity that
honors nature, humans, politics, and the way they are dealt with in philosophy, arts, investigative
reporting, anthropology and history. Because the way forward cannot be a simple projection of the
past. We are in more danger than that.
Anthony Pagden, in Why the Enlightenment is Still Important , writes that before the
enlightenment, late feudalism and the Renaissance, "The scholastics had made their version of the
natural law the basis for a universal moral and political code that demanded that all human beings
be regarded in the same way, no matter what their culture or their beliefs. It also demanded that
human beings respect each other because they share a common urge to 'come together,' and it required
them to offer to each other, even to total strangers, help in times of need, to recognize 'that amity
among men is part of the natural law.' Finally, while Hobbes and Grotius had accepted the existence
of only one natural right - the right to self-preservation - the scholastics had allowed for a wide
range of them." -
Pagen also writes, "The Enlightenment, and in particular that portion with which I am concerned,
was in part, as we shall now see, an attempt to recover something of this vision of a unified and
essentially benign humanity, of a potentially cosmopolitan world, without also being obliged to accept
the theologians' claim that this could only make sense as part of the larger plan of a well-meaning,
if deeply inscrutable, deity."
But as Pagen shows, that effort was overcome by market, technical and financial interests.
The reason this is so important is that the simple and ethical view in Smith (and many other classical
economists if we were to read them) that it was wrong to let the poor starve because of manipulated
grain prices, was replaced by a more mechanical view of society that denied human intelligence except
as calculators of self interest. This is a return to the Hobbesian world leading to a destructive
society: climate, inequality, corruption. Today, the poor are hemmed in by so many regulations and
procedures (real estate, education, police) that people are now starved. Not having no food, but
having bad food, which along with all the new forms of privation add up to a seriously starved life,
is not perceived by a blinded society to be suffering. Economics in its current form - most economics
papers and college courses - do not touch the third rail of class, or such pain.
Interesting. I've been reading (thanks to an intro from NC) Mark Blyth's "Austerity" and, thus
far, seems to imply, if not outright state, that Adam Smith was quite suspicious of government
intervention in the economy. The "can't live with it, can't live without it, don't want to pay
for it" perspective. The bullet points you've listed above seem to refute that notion.
Adam Smith tried to make a moral science out of what his class wanted to hear. If he had actually
gone into those factories of his time, he might have had a different opinion of what labour was
and how there was no "natural state" for wages, but only what was imposed on people who couldn't
fight back. If he had gotten out of his ivory tower for a while, he might have had a different
opinion of what those owners of stock were doing. He also might have had different views on trade
if he could have seen what was happening to the labourers in the textile industries in France.
And I could go on. But instead he created a fantasy that has been the basis for all economic thinking
since.
In the same way, neoliberals are no different. They aren't bad people – they just see their
policies as right and just because those policies are working well for them and the people in
their class, and I don't think they really understand why it doesn't work for others – maybe,
like Adam Smith, they think that is the "natural state" ..
Sorry, but there needs to be a Copernican Revolution in Economics just as there was in science.
We have to realize that maybe Adam Smith was wrong – and I know that will be hard – just as it
was hard for people to realize that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.
Since I am retired, maybe I will go back to school, hold my nose and cover my lying eyes long
enough to finish that Economics degree, so that I can get good access to all the other windows
in Economics. I can't really believe I am the only person thinking this way – there must be some
bright people out there who have come to similar conclusions and I would dearly love to know who
they are.
Read the first sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments – it makes an assumption which
is the foundation of all of Adam Smith. He asserted that all men are moral. Morality in economics
is the invisible hand creating order like gravity in astronomy. Unfortunately, Adam Smith's assumption
is false or at least not true enough to form a sound foundation for useful economic theory.
But "morality" means different things to different people. Smith only saw the morality
of his own class. For example, I am sure a wealthy man would consider it very moral to accumulate
as much money as he could so that he would be seen by his peers as a good and worthy man who cares
for his future generations and the well being of his class – he doesn't see this accumulation
as amoral – whilst a poor man may think that kind of accumulation is amoral because he thinks
that money could be better used provide for those without the basic needs to survive
I've read a fair amount of Wealth of Nations although far from all of it and my take was that
Smith was describing the economic system of his time as it was , not necessarily as it
should or must be. Smith gets a bad rap from the left due to many people over the last 200+ years
hearing what they wanted to hear from him to justify their own actions rather than what he actually
said.
I'm cherry picking a bit here since I don't have the time to go through several hundred pages,
but I think Smith might actually agree with you about the plight of labor and he was well aware
of what the ownership class was up to –
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but
the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
there needs to be a Copernican Revolution in Economics
One of Steve Keen's favourite analogies is astronomy. Neoclassical economics is like Ptolemy's
epicycles; assume the Earth is at the centre, and that the planets orbit in circles and
simply by adding little circles-epicycles-you can accurately describe the observed motion of the
planets. The right epicycles in the right places can describe any motion. But they can't
explain anything, they add nothing to understanding, they subtract from it, because they
are false but give the illusion of knowledge. Drop the assumptions and you can begin to get somewhere.
And that is exactly what Marx did, but then got himself sidetracked by trying to find (or create)
support for his labor theory of value.
Actually most of what he writes in Capital basically refutes said theory, instead hinting at
energy being the core source of value (how much food/fuel is needed to produce one unit, basically).
Steve Keen seems to have latched onto this in the last year or so, pointing out that all
production is driven by energy. And the energy comes ultimately from the sun. Either it is turned
into production via feeding workers, or by fueling machinery (by burning hydrocarbons extracted
from plant and animal remains).
Since words have somewhat flexible boundaries, it's hard to tell from what perspective this
response is looking at the history of science. Characterizing cybernetics as mechanistic would
require an unusually broad definition of "mechanistic". Even a superficial reading of Norbert
Wiener, Warren McCulloch, W. Ross Ashby, or any of the other early contributors to the discipline
will make one aware that they were explicitly trying to address the limitations of simplistic
mechanistic thinking.
In the related discipline, General Systems Theory, von Bertalanffy expressly argued that we
should take our cues from the organic living world to understand complex systems. With the introduction
of Second Order Cybernetics by Heinz von Foerster, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson and others,
the role of a sentient observer in describing the system in which he/she is embedded becomes the
focus of attention. Bateson was an original participant with many of the people mentioned above
in the Macy conferences where cybernetics was first introduced. The bulk of his work was a direct
attack on the mechanistic view of the natural world.
Of course, many writers treat cybernetics, General Systems Theory, and their related disciplines
as pseudoscientific. But those are typically people who are firmly committed to mechanistic explanations.
I have a question about a similar thing. Simon Kuznetz is credited as someone who has invented
modern concept of GDP and he revolutionized the field of economics with statistical method (econometrics).
However, Kuznets , in the same report in which he presented modern concept of GDP to US congress,
wrote following(from wikipedia):-
"The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization
becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative
measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision
and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject
to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are
the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often
contingent upon oversimplification.
All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just
as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare.
But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate
below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured
unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate
the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the
earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement
of national income as defined above.
Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns,
and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and
for what."
So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator
himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most
of the economists nowadays?
"So , my question is why economists keep treating GDP as some scared metric when its creator
himself deems it not reliable? Why all qualifications about GDP by Kuznetz is ignored by most
of the economists nowadays?"@Vedant
" Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income
is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is,
the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income."
That is your explanation right there. Large abstract numbers such as GDP obscure social
issues such as "the personal distribution of income." and the effort that goes into creating that
income. Large abstract numbers obscure the moral dimension that must be a part of all economic
discussion and are obscured by statistics and sciencism. As the genius of Mark Twain put it, "There
are lies, damned lies and statistics." Beware the credentialed classes!
Interesting. There is a great book by John Dupré called 'Human Nature and the Limits of Science
(2001)", which tackles this subject in a general way: the facts that taking a mechanistic model
as a paradigm for diverse areas of science is problematic and leads to myopia.
He describes it
as a form of 'scientific imperialism', stretching the use of concepts from one area of science
to other areas and leading to bad results (because there are, you know, relevant differences).
As a prime example, he mentions economics. (When reading EConned;s chapter of the science ( 'science')
of economics, I was struck by the similar argument.)
Science does not imply only mechanistic models, which may be appropriate for physics, but not
economics. Science is a method of obtaining sound knowledge by iterative interaction between facts
and theory.
Just because equilibrium is shitty mechanistic model to try and stamp onto economics doesn't
mean that all scientific modeling of economics futile. Soddy just about derived MMT from the conservation
of energy in 1921.
Soddy was a scientist. He should have written as a scientist with definitions, logic and rigour,
but he wrote like a philosopher, full of waffle and unsubstantiated assertions like other economists.
It is unscientific to apply universal laws discovered in physics and chemistry to economics without
proving by observations that those laws also apply to economics.
Soddy needed to have developed a scientific methodology for economics first, before stating
his opinions which are scientifically unproven like most economic propositions.
I get irritated by radical free-marketeers who when presented with a social problem tend to
dogmatically assert that "The free market wills it," as if that ended all discussion. It is as
if the free market was their God who must always be obeyed. Unlike Abraham, we do not need to
obey if we feel that the answer is unjust.
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published in 1776, the same year
as Smith's Wealth, but hardly read today by most economists.
Other than as a reflection of the sentiments of the time Gibbon was writing in, historians
don't spend much time reading it either. The moralistic explanations for the disintegration of
the (Western) Roman Empire were long ago discarded by all serious analysis of late antiquity.
More practical explanations, especially the loss of the North African bread basket to the Vandals,
are presented in the scholarly work these days.
That book of Gibbon's is an incredible achievement. If it is not read by historians today,
it is their loss. Its moral explanations, out of fashion today, are actually quite compelling.
They become more so when read with de Tocqueville's views of the moral foundations of American
township democracy and their transmission into the behavior, and assumptions, of New Englanders,
whose views formed the basis of the federal republican constitution.
The loss of the breadbasket was problematical, too. And it may be that no civilization, however
young and virile, could withstand the migrations forever, as they withstood or absorbed them,
with a few exceptions, for eight hundred years. But the progressive losses to the migratory tribes
may have been a symptom of the real, "moral," cause of the decline.
After all, the Romans did not always have that breadbasket; indeed, they had to conquer it
to get it, along with the rest of the mighty and ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and
beyond, using the strengths derived from the mores of their martial republic. The story of the
Punic Wars is a morality play in history, as much as anything else. But the main problem was the
dilution of the Roman republican mores into a provincial stew.
And after that nice detached remark, about which historians can surely natter on in the abstract,
I'll toss in this completely anti-historicist piece of nonsense: I think it's actually much the
same problem the Americans are having today, as the mores of the founders have dissolved into
the idea that the nation is about national government, centralized administration, world leadership,
global domination through military might, and imperialist capitalism. That is not a national ethic
that leads to lasting nobility of purpose and moral strength-as George Washington and Ike Eisenhower
both pointed out.
Dendrochronology ( tree ring dating & organic history ) has established a wholly new rationale
for the termination of the Roman Empire the re-boot of the Chinese and Japanese cultures and
the death of a slew of Meso-American cultures.
From 536-539AD the entire planet suffered a staggering holocaust. Krakatoa blew up - ejecting so much dust that it triggered a 'nuclear winter' that lasted through
those years.
The Orientals actually heard the blasts recognized that they emminated from the Indonesian
islands. ( Well, at least to the south. ) The erruption and the weather was duly recorded by Court
scribes.
Roman accounts assert that 90% of the population of Constantinople died or fled. ( mostly died
) The Emperor and his wife were at the dockside ready to flee - when she talked him back off the
boat. Her reasoning was sound: it's Hell everywhere. He won't have any authority once he leaves
his imperial guard.
It was this period that ended agriculture in North Africa. ( Algeria-Tunisia ) The drought
blew all of the top soil into the Med. It was an irreversible tragedy.
This super drought triggered the events in Beowulf - and the exodus of the Petrans from Petra.
They marched off to Mecca and Medina both locations long known to have mountain springs with
deep water. The entire Arabian population congregated there.
This was the founding population amongst which Mohammed was raised many years later.
The true reason that Islam swept through Araby and North Africa was that both lands were still
largely de-populated. The die-off was so staggering that one can't wrap ones mind around it.
Period art is so bleak that modern historians discounted it until the tree ring record established
that this trauma happened on a global scale.
Or throw them out! I remember the very first thing I was taught in Economics 101 about supply
and demand and how they would balance at an equilibrium price. It didn't take much thinking to
realize that there is no equilibrium price and that an equilibrium price was exactly the last
thing suppliers or demanders wanted, and that the price of a good depended on who had the most
power to set the price. Yet, we had to accept the "supply and demand theory" as coming directly
from God. It's as if we were taught in Chemistry that the only acceptable theory of bonding possible
was the hydrogen-oxygen bond and even though we could see with our own eyes that hydrogen also
bonds to carbon, we should throw that out because it is an aberration from "acceptable theory" ..
Yes, coming from God; Platonic, like a Form. Economics is written in Forms, like "homo economicus"
and "the efficient market." But we live in the Cave, where the markets that humans actually make
are sad imitations of the Forms in the textbooks.
There's a lot good in the post, I think; noting the important philosophical underpinnings and
challenges to Economics, and particularly in making it a moral, and therefore political and "social"
science. But it's great to see where people's use of "incantatory names from the past" is called
out by the curator. It's a pet peeve.
Economics is the last "science" to hold onto the notion of equilibrium. The rest has moved on to complex systems/chaos theory, first demonstrated in meteorology.
Trying to apply complex systems to economics have been the goal of Steve Keen's work for several
decades now.
In college I couldn't help but notice the similarities between modern economic theory and the
control theory taught in engineering. Not such a great fit though, society is not a mechanical
governor.
Ha. That's the same thing that got economists so excited. Things is, an engineering student
attempting to model a simple system with two moving parts cares a great deal about whether the
moving parts are connected by a spring, or ball screw, or shock absorber, or lever, or even invisible
stuff like a temperature gradient when coming up with the system math model. Economists seem to
think wtf is the difference?
Next, if the math gets a bit unwieldy as the number of moving parts increase, which it does
in a hurry, they decide to simplify the math. Next, assume they have perfect sensors for everything and system lag can assumed to be zero
for talking purposes, and in research papers too. Next, hysteresis effects due to bent parts, leaky valves and stretched springs are assumed
not to exist. Congress has the "Highway Bill" thingy to address that.
Next, the guy with the control knob will do the "right thing". Or better yet, a "market" is
doing the control knob. There could be "intermediaries", but these are modeled as zero loss pieces
of golden wire and gold plated connectors.
Finally, money comes from batteries and there is no such thing in the real world like "shorts",
"open circuits", or "semiconductors" with their quantum tunneling properties.
Thanks for this, and especially the heads up about the author's take on Smith. This is exactly
what I'm on about. Not only are there more ways of knowing than the infamous mechanical, it itself
should've died long ago.
The author stresses economics is stuck in the age of Descartes. The history of Newton's refutation
of Descartes's mechanical philosophy is very interesting. Yes, refutation. Descartes's mechanical
philosophy is as dead as a dodo. So why does it still plague us? Obviously, because thinking of
and acting on nature as if it were all just one great big machine works at getting you paid, much
better than that wishy-washy humanism crap. /f (facetious).
I used to go on and on against reducing everything to mechanisms, and I largely blamed Newton.
I was wrong.
I've spent an hour trying to boil this down. Ain't happenin. Apologies for the length.
The background is the so-called "mechanical philosophy" – mechanical science in modern terminology.
This doctrine, originating with Galileo and his contemporaries, held that the world is a machine,
operating by mechanical principles, much like the remarkable devices that were being constructed
by skilled artisans of the day and that stimulated the scientific imagination much as computers
do today; devices with gears, levers, and other mechanical components, interacting through
direct contact with no mysterious forces relating them. The doctrine held that the entire world
is similar: it could in principle be constructed by a skilled artisan, and was in fact created
by a super-skilled artisan. The doctrine was intended to replace the resort to "occult properties"
on the part of the neoscholastics: their appeal to mysterious sympathies and antipathies, to
forms flitting through the air as the means of perception, the idea that rocks fall and steam
rises because they are moving to their natural place, and similar notions that were mocked
by the new science.
The mechanical philosophy provided the very criterion for intelligibility in the sciences.
Galileo insisted that theories are intelligible, in his words, only if we can "duplicate [their
posits] by means of appropriate artificial devices." The same conception, which became the
reigning orthodoxy, was maintained and developed by the other leading figures of the scientific
revolution: Descartes, Leibniz, Huygens, Newton, and others.
Today Descartes is remembered mainly for his philosophical reflections, but he was primarily
a working scientist and presumably thought of himself that way, as his contemporaries did.
His great achievement, he believed, was to have firmly established the mechanical philosophy,
to have shown that the world is indeed a machine, that the phenomena of nature could be accounted
for in mechanical terms in the sense of the science of the day. But he discovered phenomena
that appeared to escape the reach of mechanical science. Primary among them, for Descartes,
was the creative aspect of language use, a capacity unique to humans that cannot be duplicated
by machines and does not exist among animals, which in fact were a variety of machines, in
his conception.
As a serious and honest scientist, Descartes therefore invoked a new principle to accommodate
these non-mechanical phenomena, a kind of creative principle. In the substance philosophy of
the day, this was a new substance, res cogitans, which stood alongside of res extensa. This
dichotomy constitutes the mind-body theory in its scientific version. Then followed further
tasks: to explain how the two substances interact and to devise experimental tests to determine
whether some other creature has a mind like ours. These tasks were undertaken by Descartes
and his followers, notably Géraud de Cordemoy; and in the domain of language, by the logician-grammarians
of Port Royal and the tradition of rational and philosophical grammar that succeeded them,
not strictly Cartesian but influenced by Cartesian ideas.
All of this is normal science, and like much normal science, it was soon shown to be incorrect.
Newton demonstrated that one of the two substances does not exist: res extensa. The properties
of matter, Newton showed, escape the bounds of the mechanical philosophy. To account for them
it is necessary to resort to interaction without contact. Not surprisingly, Newton was condemned
by the great physicists of the day for invoking the despised occult properties of the neo-scholastics.
Newton largely agreed. He regarded action at a distance, in his words, as "so great an Absurdity,
that I believe no Man who has in philosophical matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can
ever fall into it." Newton however argued that these ideas, though absurd, were not "occult"
in the traditional despised sense. Nevertheless, by invoking this absurdity, we concede that
we do not understand the phenomena of the material world. To quote one standard scholarly source,
"By `understand' Newton still meant what his critics meant: `understand in mechanical terms
of contact action'."
It is commonly believed that Newton showed that the world is a machine, following mechanical
principles, and that we can therefore dismiss "the ghost in the machine," the mind, with appropriate
ridicule. The facts are the opposite: Newton exorcised the machine, leaving the ghost intact.
The mind-body problem in its scientific form did indeed vanish as unformulable, because one
of its terms, body, does not exist in any intelligible form. Newton knew this very well, and
so did his great contemporaries.
And later:
Similar conclusions are commonplace in the history of science. In the mid-twentieth century,
Alexander Koyré observed that Newton demonstrated that "a purely materialistic pattern of nature
is utterly impossible (and a purely materialistic or mechanistic physics, such as that of Lucretius
or of Descartes, is utterly impossible, too)"; his mathematical physics required the "admission
into the body of science of incomprehensible and inexplicable `facts' imposed up on us by empiricism,"
by what is observed and our conclusions from these observations.
So the wrong guy was declared the winner of Descartes vs. Newton, and we've been living with
the resultant Frankenstein's monster of an economy running rampant all this time. And the mad
"scientists" who keep it alive, who think themselves so "realistic" and "pragmatic" in fact are
atavists ignorant of the last few centuries of science. But they do get paid, whereas I (relatively)
don't.
Alexander Koyré observed that Newton demonstrated that "a purely materialistic pattern
of nature is utterly impossible (and a purely materialistic or mechanistic physics, such as
that of Lucretius or of Descartes, is utterly impossible, too)"
I think that Newton considered phenomena like gravity, magnetism, and optics to be non-material,
perhaps even spiritual, and separate from matter. Modern physicists would disagree, and would
consider gravity and electro-magnetism to be purely material phenomena. Newton didn't prove that
the world is non-mechanical; he showed that objects do not need to touch for them to have influence
on each other.
It is still quite possible that there are non-material phenomena, but those would be separate
from gravity and electro-magnetism, which Newton considered non-material.
Are all products of the brain. I don't see how the results of the interaction of electrical
impulses and chemicals are non-material. Magic is not an explanation for anything.
So Newton formulated his theories because of his belief in Alchemy and not, as I had thought,
despite it.
Discussions like this are what make this site so great.
All modern economic thought ( 1900+ ) has been corrupted by the arrogance of Taylor's Time
& Motion Studies. The essence of which is that bean counters can revolutionize economic output by statistics
and basic accounting.
AKA Taylorism.
Big Government is Taylorism as practiced.
At bottom, it arrogantly assumes that if you can count it, you can optimise it.
The fact is that 'things' are too complicated.
Taylor's principles only work in a micro environment. His work started in machine shops, and
at that level of simplicity, still applies.
Its abstractions and assumptions break down elsewhere.
MOST economic models in use today are the grandsons of Taylorism.
They are also the analytic engines that have driven the global economy to the edge of the cliff.
For my penny's worth the sentence "Today, the poor are hemmed in by so many regulations and
procedures (real estate, education, police) that people are now starved" reveals the main problem.
Too many of the most lucrative parts of every national economy have been closed off by politicians
and reserved for their friends.
DAVID BARSAMIAN: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival is Adam Smith. You've
done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated a lot of information that's
not coming out. You've often quoted him describing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind:
all for ourselves and nothing for other people."
NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research.
Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism
he despised.
People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody
reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division
of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that
division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant
as it is possible for a human being to be.
And therefore in any civilized society the government
is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its
limits.
And here is a link to Adam Smith's poignant denunciation of division of labour:
This mention of division of labor is, as Chomsky points out, left out of the index of the University
of Chicago scholarly edition! Of George Stigler's introduction Chomsky claims, "It's likely he
never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely
false."
I recommend reading the entire paragraph at the link above. Smith writes:
"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects
are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding
or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never
occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as
stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. But in every improved
and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body
of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.
"
"Economics Upside Down" or Why "Free Markets" Don't Exist
This is an instructive interview with Ha-Joon Chang, author of the new book "23
Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism." He debunks some widely accepted
beliefs, such at the existence of "free markets" or the necessity of "free
trade" for the development of capitalism.
Enjoy!
Topics: China, Corporate governance, Credit markets, Free markets and their
discontents, Globalization, The dismal science
Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 12:09 am
11 Comments " Links to this post
11 Comments:
Charles Frith says:
June 15, 2011 at 2:25 am
Bravo.
Reply
Septeus7 says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:57 am
Ha-Joon Chang is one of the best real world economists out there and I find it
sad that Asians now have to teach Americans about traditional American system
development and industrial policies but we should take any help we can get at
this point.
When will we stop with these idiotic so-called "free market" economics and start
understanding that
if we run away from our
responsibility to look out for our own economic interest politically then we
will have our lunch taken by those "free market" types pouring billions into
political influence because they obviously don't believe a word of their own
faux-economic ideology?
Reply
Another Gordon says:
June 15, 2011 at 6:22 am
An excellent book, nicely structured and easy to read.
However, he does leave out a couple of things, for example that competition does
not always lead to lower prices and/or better outcomes as the neoliberal fantasy
has it.
Competition only works when it costs less than its benefits. Yet it is often
horribly expensive and the benefits often modest at best.
Reply
Iolaus says:
June 15, 2011 at 11:02 am
Ha-Joon says "You can't have slaves." But we do have slavery, right here.
Reply
Anonymous Jones says:
June 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm
What is truly amazing is that something this obvious (that all markets are
regulated by some means, and that whether you prefer those means versus others
is almost entirely based on outcomes rather than procedures) is such a fringe
idea.
I was watching the Bobby Fischer documentary on HBO, and it struck me how easy
it must be slip into madness living in this completely insane world. There are
so many obvious fallacies you must accept to "fit into" normal society (the
existence not just of a god, but the particular consensus "God" of your
community; the belief that your community (oh, let's say America) always has
good intentions and could never (gasp) be using its might to enrich the people
running the place; the weird idea that "honor" for samurai or other military
types is selflessly serving the elite who are exploiting the rest of society).
To be thought sane, one's insanity must match others' insanity.
To investigate the world, to examine the BS that you have been told over and
over, has the potential to completely untether the psyche. Look at all the
rampant conspiracy theorists on this site. Are they really different (in kind,
not in specifics) from the "Protocols" crazies or the bilderberg lunatics or the
"end of the world" preachers? Another thing that is so amazing is that you read
history and watch documentaries and you realize these crazies are doing almost
*exactly* the same thing as someone else in another generation 50 years ago, 100
years ago, 150 years ago, 1000 years ago. Fischer himself was once in the thrall
of an "end of the world" preacher who was doing almost exactly what Harold
Camping just did and then Fischer moved onto this insane "Protocols" fixation.
I guess people are just incapable of reflecting on themselves enough to see
this. Or I guess it would make them as crazy as Fischer if they ever did.
Reply
Just Tired says:
June 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Read Eric Fromm's, The Sane Society. In the 1950's, Fromm recognized that a
whole society could be mentally ill and those who were thought to be out of the
mainstream were really the sane ones. He also raised the question to the mental
health profession as to who were the proper ones to treat given that reality. It
is almost as if the mental health takes a kind of democratic approach to the
definition of mental illness, i.e. the majority of the population was defined as
sane by definition. Fromm argued that the approach should be more objective.
Reply
Foppe says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm
subjectivity and objectivity are meaningless notions once you start 'diagnosing'
entire societies as mentally ill or diseased. What is perceived as either is
done so through consensus formation; this cannot meaningfully happen if you
exclude the majority of the population from weighing in on the basis of an
argument that they are mentally ill. (I do not find Fromm's vocabulary very
helpful in this case)
Reply
LifelongLib says:
June 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Conspiracy theories are often twisted versions of things that are really
happening. Mark of the Beast, without which you can't buy or sell? Try getting a
plane ticket or renting a hotel room without a major credit card. World ruled by
alien reptiles? Some kid joins the army to get money for college, and ends up
getting blown apart 10,000 miles from home. Sure sounds like something alien
reptiles would set up. Actual human beings wouldn't do those things to each
other, right?
Reply
Fed Up :-) says:
June 16, 2011 at 5:05 am
How have individuals been affected by the technological advances of recent
years?
Here is the answer to this question given by a philosopher-psychiatrist, Dr.
Erich Fromm:
Our contemporary Western society, in spite of its material, intellectual and
political progress, is increasingly less conducive to mental health, and tends
to undermine the inner security, happiness, reason and the capacity for love in
the individual; it tends to turn him into an automaton who pays for his human
failure with increasing mental sickness, and with despair hidden under a frantic
drive for work and so-called pleasure.
Our "increasing mental sickness" may find expression in neurotic symptoms.
These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But "let us beware,"
says Dr. Fromm, "of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms.
Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend; where there are symptoms
there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which
strive for integration and happiness are still fighting." The really hopeless
victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most
normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode
of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their
lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the
neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of
the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society.
Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental
sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a
society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be
adjusted, still cherish "the illusion of individuality," but in fact they have
been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into
something like uniformity. But "uniformity and freedom are incompatible.
Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too. . . . Man is not made to be
an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed."
Reply
Andrew P says:
June 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm
My main problem with Chang's book is that even though he destroys all these
market conceits, he doesn't properly incorporate Marxian, and other structural
critiques of capitalism. He just accepts that capitalism and market systems are
the best distributive means available, which is absurd. He ignores the
fundamentally irrational nature of capitalism, how it's at conflict with itself
and that as marx noted, "it sows the seeds of its own destruction."
For a great structural critique of modern capital everyone here at NC should
read up on John Bellamy Foster's Monopoly and finance capital. He builds on
Sweezy and Baran's earlier work on Monopoly capital, showing how production in
the "real" economy is less and less profitable, necessitating the explosion in
financial speculation and debt in order to keep resuscitating the moribund
monopoly production sector. It has aspects of Keen's Credit Accelerator argument
but goes a bit further.
This article is the first in a series. You can find the rest at the site.
Reply
MichaelPgh says:
June 16, 2011 at 4:02 am
Great post! See also Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents". The stories we
tell ourselves about how the world works versus our discoveries of how the world
actually works are a continuous source of "cognitive dissonance" (in modern
psychology), "alienation" (in Marxism), or "madness" (in Foucault). Trying to
reconcile the story with our own experience is perilous business indeed.
The documents posted by WikiLeaks suggest that the CIA had obtained
information on 14 security flaws
in Apple's iOS operating system for phones and tablets. The
leaked documents also identified at least two dozen flaws in Android, the most popular operating
system for smartphones, which was developed by Alphabet's Google division.
Notable quotes:
"... The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware, a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet. ..."
"... A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said, with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.) ..."
"... By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software updates. ..."
The
CIA developed tools to spy on Mac computers by injecting software into the chips that control
the computers' fundamental operations, according to the latest
cache of classified government
documents published on Thursday by
WikiLeaks .
Apple said in a statement Thursday evening that its preliminary assessment of the leaked information
indicated that the Mac vulnerabilities described in the disclosure were previously fixed in all Macs
launched after 2013.
However, the documents also indicated that the Central Intelligence Agency was developing a new
version of one tool last year to work with current software.
The leaked documents were the second batch recently released by WikiLeaks, which said it obtained
a hoard of information on the agency's cyberweapons programs from a former government worker or contractor.
The
first group of documents , published March 7, suggested that the CIA had found ways to hack
Apple iPhones and Android smartphones, Microsoft Windows computers, Cisco routers and Samsung smart
televisions.
Since the initial release of the CIA documents, which the agency has not confirmed are authentic,
major technology companies have been
scrambling to assess whether the security holes exploited by the CIA still exist and to patch
them if they do.
All of the surveillance tools that have been disclosed were designed to be installed on individual
phones or computers. But the effects could be much wider. Cisco Systems, for example, warned customers
this week that many of its popular routers, the backbone of computer networks, could be hacked using
the CIA's techniques.
... ... ...
The spy software described in the latest documents was designed to be injected into a Mac's firmware,
a type of software preloaded in the computer's chips. It would then act as a "listening post," broadcasting
the user's activities to the CIA whenever the machine was connected to the internet.
A similar tool called NightSkies was developed in 2009 to spy on iPhones, the documents said,
with the agency figuring out how to install it undetected before a new phone was turned on for the
first time. (Apple said that flaw affected only the iPhone 3G and was fixed in all later models.)
Although most of the tools targeted outdated versions of the Apple devices' software, the CIA's
general approach raises new security concerns for the industry, said Eric Ahlm, who studies cybersecurity
at Gartner, a research firm. By rewriting the firmware of a computer or a phone, tools
that operate at the chip level can hide their existence and avoid being wiped out by routine software
updates.
Under an agreement struck during the Obama administration, intelligence agencies were supposed
to share their knowledge of most security vulnerabilities with tech companies so they could be fixed.
The CIA documents suggest that some key vulnerabilities were kept secret for the government's
use.
The CIA declined to comment Thursday, pointing reporters to
its earlier statement about the leaks, in which it defended its use of "innovative, cutting-edge"
techniques to protect the country from foreign threats and criticized WikiLeaks for sharing information
that could help the country's enemies.
Expect some variation of this story below to come from the upcomine revelations. Trump and Nunes want to not only demonstrate
that Obama was scum, but put a major wedge between the DNC and Jews and Israel:
Firstly, there would have to be sufficient information showing Obama initiated the spying. Unless Obama has political knives
out after him, these facts won't come out until 2030.
Secondly, the media, and other powers-that-be would muddy the water. We'll never know *who* and *why* of the story.
Thirdly, if the NSA comes out with genuine evidence, then we may be able to assume there IS a conflict between the FBI, the
CIA vs the NSA. That, in itself, would be very relevant news.
Growing conflicts in any large government are not conducive to a smooth-operating empire.
Or maybe you are right and the NSA are the good guys. Maybe Snowden did what he did because the NSA itself is not happy about
what they are told to do. Snowden did not go rogue but is following orders from within NSA.
It could also be that the NSA dropped vault 7 onto WikiLeaks as well as the various Hillary leaks during the campaign.
And NYPD says Hillary knew that Wiener was sexing underage girl & did not report it to authorities. The NYPD was prevented
from pursuing charges against her.
As we detailed earlier, it appears Trump may have been right, again.
Two days after FBI director Comey shot down Trump's allegation that Trump was being wiretapped by president Obama before the election,
it appears that president Trump may have been on to something because moments ago, the House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes,
told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition
team, possibly including Trump himself, and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.
As
AP adds , Nunes said that President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part
of an "incidental collection."
Nunes told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not
appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence
collections were done legally , although in light of the dramatic change in the plotline it may be prudent to reserve judgment on
how "incidental" it was.
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved
in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.
"Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were
widely disseminated in intelligence community reports."
The information was "legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it," Nunes said, though he provided little detail
on the source.
BREAKING!!! Rep Devin Nunes (Intel Cmte Chmn): There was "Incidental collection" of
@realDonaldTrump thru IC surveillance <- BOMBSHELL
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated
that Trump's communications may have been swept up.
The House Intel Chair said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He
said that he believes the information was legally collected. Nunes said that the intelligence has nothing to do with Russia and that
the collection occurred after the presidential election.
Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and will inform the White House later today. Nunes' statement
comes after he and other congressional leaders pushed back on Trump's claims that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in
Trump Tower ahead of the election.
Nunes said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the information incidentally collected originated in Trump Tower.
The revelation comes in the wake of the committee's explosive hearing on Monday, at which FBI Director James Comey confirmed that
the bureau has been investigating Russia's election hacking since July, which includes probing possible coordination between members
of Trump's presidential campaign and Moscow.
The meeting represented the panel's first open hearing on its investigation into Russia's election meddling and also featured
testimony from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring
mostly occurred in November, December and January. He added that he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify
those source
Politico adds that Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned,
which he said came from "sources."
Nunes says he is "bothered" by this. Won't say whether or not intel community spied on Trump et. al. But says he is "concerned."
Trump wouldn't of tweeted what he did unless he knew something. He doesn't make blind bets, he only moves on things he knows
he can win. Not to mention he has shown that he can bait, watch the other side respond and deny and then present his case to show
them as the liars they are.
How all these people still let trump bait them like this is hilarious. How many times has he said something that seemed baseless
and everyone was sure would sink him, and then he is vindicated? And they still fucking fall for it.
And yes, incidental surveillance is a funny term. As in you swept all his up the same way they listen to all of us all the
time? Maybe this will piss trump off enough to end this shit. I doubt it though.
The NSA 'wiretaps' EVERYONE. All of what you say on your phone, on-line, and in any other form of electronic communications
is Hoovered up and dumped in their mass storage facilities in Utah and elsewhere. The system is set up to get it all AUTOMATICALLY.
In fact, they would have had to go to great efforts to NOT record what Trump and his associates said electronically. Or searched
for. Or visited on the web. Or even visited in person if he/she carried a cell phone with when going about.
Because it is all recorded for ALL OF US! Standard, all the time, no warrant required.
Of course, if there were FISA warrants issued, then the opposition did more than that, because no warrant is required for any
of the above. So they must have also done some non-standard dirty. Like placing recording malware on the relevant cell phones
to record conversations, take pictures, upload stored files, and even take video. Or sift through his financial records.
OK, so why should you care? I don't mean about Trump, although you should care there as well, but about your privacy. You may
not be getting the full Monte he did, by everything you do in the first paragraph now rests with the NSA.
For an answer, consider this conversation between one of the uber-wealthy and a Federal Prosecutor:
*****
"With enough data, my lawyers can always find a crime. They'll prosecute. Bury anyone under legal motions, make his life miserable.
Maybe even send him up for some felony."
"Even if he didn't do anything?"
"Of course he did something. We got 100,000 laws on the books, twice that in regs. Somewhere, sometime, by accident or intentionally,
he broke one. We get a moving x-ray of his life, all we have to do is find it."
*****
It's called the power of selective prosecution. With enough data, what used to be just an annoyance becomes an unstoppable
control technique. Someday, when the deep state wants you cooperation, they will drill down through their Utah stash for your
name. Then they will call you in for a little chat.
Not willing to spy on your best friend or wife? You may change you mind after their little chat.
So how to avoid this trap? How do you avoid becoming a data serf?
Learn to hide your data so it can't be hovered in the first place. I suggest you start with
www.privacytools.io and work your way up from there.
And do it now. Because protecting your privacy is like quitting smoking. It doesn't matter how long you have been engaged in
unclean behavior, it's never too late to start living right.
The quote above, by the way, was from Thieves Emporium by Max Hernandez. It's a primer on the ways TPTB control us in the new
world of fiat money and ubiquitous surveillance and what we can do to prevent it. I strongly recommend you at least investigate
getting a copy.
There is a simple method for Trump to "drain the swamp". Fucked if I know why he hasn't, given how much butt-hurt they are
dishing out to him.
An Executive Order giving immunity and witness protection (and even a fucking Presidential Medal of Freedom, if you ask me)
to all whistleblowers who reveal unconstitutional malfeasance within both overt and covert .gov departments. Because these are
the true patriots, and all that is stopping them shining a fucking huge spotlight on this bucket of scumfuck is persecution from
the swamp dwellers who control all the levers of power.
Maybe with a (secure) hotline/email direct to the White House, just to bypass Comey and all the other cunts installed by Obama.
Or probably better, directly to a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor who is prepared to get down and seriously
dirty with the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC. A Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as relying on the
FBI et al is concerned, Trump was fucked before he started.
A typewriter can get it done. Hear they're Hot sellers in Germany again.
What people don't understand is, that the Russian PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the Deep State & Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton Globalist was the game plan all long.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If the Deep State could of pulled off the False Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing
our Elections the Deep State could & will hack into Russia's National Elections next March. Call it pay back.
The Deep State's destabilization campaign in Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize
Russia during their upcoming g elections.
Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured those destabilization cells are in
place to ready to be activated come Russia's next election cycle.
The future meeting between the Two Super Powers will be Epic. The Diplomacy which will Prevail out of those meetings will be
a fresh breath of air to the World.
And, final Death Blows to the Pure Evil Criminal Deep State Elite Compartmentalized Hierarchy.
3) All accounts disassociated with you personally - fake names, no phone numbers, do not link to any personal accounts, make
no comments, do not message your contacts.
4) never use your own wifi.
5) never use your own bank account or credit cards, use crypto currency to pay for VPN, etc.
This setup, as I understand it, would keep you completely anon with the exception of cameras at the store you purchase laptop
at or cameras at the cafe you are using wifi. You can now leak without it being linked to you.
Not to say that this setup is immune from CIA In fact the idea is that you know that the CIA is looking, its just important
that they do not know WHO they are looking at (identity).
my Russian compatriot Vlad told me when he was a kid, every typewriter in USSR was cataloged with samples of its output. By
microscopic analysis, they could tell which typewriter was responsible for any typed document.
every computer printer made also has the same kind of ID backdoor - it will print a specific identifier (like a MAC address)
somewhere on the page - except for the old dot matrix and early inkjet. Defeat that by running it thru a low res copier a few
round trips.
East German Stasi, same deal. All typewriters registered and tracked. Such amazing depth of the deep state crap. Coming soon
to a ruined Republic near you...unless......we stop it.
"An Executive Order giving immunity and witness protection (and even a fucking Presidential Medal of Freedom, if you ask me)
to all whistleblowers who reveal unconstitutional malfeasance within both overt and covert .gov departments. Because these are
the true patriots, and all that is stopping them shining a fucking huge spotlight on this bucket of scumfuck is persecution from
the swamp dwellers who control all the levers of power.
Maybe with a (secure) hotline/email direct to the White House, just to bypass Comey and all the other cunts installed by Obama.
Or probably better, directly to a morally rock solid independent Special Prosecutor who is prepared to get down and seriously
dirty with the insidious morally bereft creatures infesting DC. A Trey Gowdy-type of bloke. Because , as far as relying on the
FBI et al is concerned, Trump was fucked before he started."
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with
meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
______________________
Members[edit]
European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
Italy
Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
Norway
Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
Serbia
Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
Others
Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
Paraguay:
United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"
They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!
Funding[edit]
In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five
governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization
could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report
requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian
World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]
Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!
"... By Scott Ferguson, an assistant professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published at Arcade ..."
"... requirement ..."
"... You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ..."
Posted on
January 5, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. The reason I prefer a jobs guarantee
(with an income guarantee at a lower income level)
is that the time an income guarantee was implemented
on an open-ended, long term basis, it produced an
unskilled underclass (see
our post on the Speenhamland system
for more
detail).
Moreover, the idea that people are
brimming with all sorts of creative things they'd do
if they had an income to allow themselves to do it
is bunk. For instance, MacArthur Foundation grant
recipients, arguably some of the very most creative
people in society, almost without exception do not
do anything productive while they have their grant
funding. And let us not kid ourselves: most people
are not creative and need structure and pressure to
get anything done.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work provides
a community. If you are extraverted and need to be
around people during the day, it's hard to create
enough opportunities for interaction on your own.
By Scott Ferguson, an assistant
professor of Film & Media Studies in the Department
of Humanities & Cultural Studies at the University
of South Florida. His current research and pedagogy
focus on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of
neoliberalism; aesthetic theory; the history of
digital animation and visual effects; and essayistic
writing across media platforms. Originally published
at
Arcade
In the wake of Donald Trump's alarming election
to the White House, historian James Livingston
published an essay in Aeon Magazine with the
somewhat provocative title, "
Fuck
Work
." The piece encapsulates the argument
spelled out in Livingston's latest book,
No
More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea
(The
University of North Carolina Press, 2016).
In both his book and the Aeon essay, Livingston
sets out to address several overlapping crises: an
alienating and now exhausted "work ethic" that
crystallized during the Protestant Reformation;
forty years of rampant underemployment, declining
wages, and widening inequality; a corresponding
surge in financial speculation and drop in
productive investment and aggregate demand; and a
post-2008 climate of cultural resentment and
political polarization, which has fueled populist
uprisings from Left to Right.
What the present catastrophe shows,
according to Livingston's diagnosis, is the ultimate
failure of the marketplace to provision and
distribute social labor. What's worse, the future of
work looks dismal. Citing the works of Silicon
Valley cyber-utopians and orthodox economists at
Oxford and M.I.T., Livingston insists that
algorithms and robotization will reduce the
workforce by half within twenty years and that this
is unstoppable, like some perverse natural process.
"The measurable trends of the past half-century, and
the plausible projections for the next half-century,
are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as
dismal science or ideological hokum," he concludes.
"They look like the data on climate change-you can
deny them if you like, but you'll sound like a moron
when you do."
Livingston's response to this
"empirical," "measurable," and apparently undeniable
doomsday scenario is to embrace the collapse of
working life without regret. "Fuck work" is
Livingston's slogan for moving beyond the demise of
work, transforming a negative condition into a
positive sublation of collective life.
In concrete terms, this means implementing
progressive taxation to capture corporate earnings,
and then redistributing this money through a "
Universal
Basic Income
," what in his book is described as
a "minimum annual income for every citizen." Such a
massive redistribution of funds would sever the
historical relationship between work and wages, in
Livingston's view, freeing un- and underemployed
persons to pursue various personal and communal
ends. Such a transformation is imminently
affordable, since there are plenty of corporate
funds to seize and redirect to those in need. The
deeper problem, as Livingston sees it, is a moral
one. We must rebuff the punishing asceticism of the
Protestant work ethic and, instead, reorganize the
soul on more free and capacious bases.
Lest we get the wrong idea, Livingston maintains
that social labor will not simply disappear in a
world organized by a tax-funded Universal Basic
Income. Rather, he envisions an increasingly
automated future, where leisure is our primary
preoccupation, social labor becomes entirely
voluntary, and ongoing consumption props up
aggregate demand. Eschewing utopian plans or
prescriptions, he wonders,
What would society and civilisation be like
if we didn't have to 'earn' a living-if leisure
was not our choice but our lot? Would we hang
out at the local Starbucks, laptops open? Or
volunteer to teach children in less-developed
places, such as Mississippi? Or smoke weed and
watch reality TV all day?
Enraged over the explosion of underpaid and
precarious service work? Disaffected by soulless
administration and info management positions?
Indignant about the history of unfree labor that
underwrites the history of the so-called "free
market"? Want more free time? Not enough work to go
around? Well, then, fuck work, declares Livingston.
Say goodbye to the old liberal-democratic goal of
full employment and bid good riddance to misery,
servitude, and precarity.
"Fuck work" has struck a chord with a
diverse crowd of readers. Since its release, the
essay has garnered more than 350,000 clicks on the
Aeon website. The Spanish publication
Contexto
y Acción
has released a translation of the
piece. And weeks later, Livingston's rallying cry
continues to resonate through social media networks.
"Fuck Work" has been enthusiastically retweeted by
everyone from Marxists and small "l" liberals to
anarchists and tech gurus.
The trouble is that Livingston's "Fuck Work"
falls prey to an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically
Liberal
social
ontology, which reifies the neoliberal order it aims
to transform. Disavowing modern humanity's reliance
on broadscale political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology predicates
social life on immediate and seemingly "free"
associations, while its critical preoccupation with
tyranny and coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so many
Universal Basic Income supporters on the
contemporary Left, Livingston doubles down on this
contracted relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance, Livingston's
triumphant negation of work only compounds
neoliberalism's two-faced retreat from collective
governance and concomitant depoliticization of
social production and distribution.
In a
previous
contribution
to Arcade, I critiqued the Liberal
conception of money upon which Marxists such as
Livingston unquestionably rely. According to this
conception, money is a private, finite and alienable
quantum of value, which must be wrested from private
coffers before it can be made to serve the public
purpose. By contrast, Modern Monetary Theory
contends that money is a boundless and fundamentally
inalienable public utility. That utility is grounded
in political governance. And government can always
afford to support meaningful social production,
regardless of its ability to capture taxes from the
rich. The result: employment is always and
everywhere a political decision, not merely a
function of private enterprise, boom and bust
cycles, and automation. There is therefore nothing
inevitable about underemployment and the misery it
induces. In no sense are we destined for a "jobless
future."
Thus upon encountering Aeon Magazine's
tagline for Livingston's piece-"What if jobs are not
the solution, but the problem?"-I immediately began
wondering otherwise.
What if we rebuffed the white
patriarchal jargon of full employment, which keeps
millions of poor, women, and minorities
underemployed and imprisoned? What if, in lieu of
this liberal-democratic ruse, we made an
all-inclusive and well-funded
federal
Job Guarantee
the basis for a renewed leftist
imaginary?
What if we stopped believing that
capitalists and automation are responsible for
determining how and when we labor together? What if
we quit imagining that so-called "leisure"
spontaneously organizes itself like the
laissez-faire markets we elsewhere decry?
What if we created a public works
system, which set a just and truly livable wage
floor for the entire economy? What if we made it
impossible for reprehensible employers like Walmart
to exploit the underprivileged, while multiplying
everyone's bargaining powers? What if we used such a
system to decrease the average work day, to demand
that everyone has healthcare, and to increase the
quality of social participation across public and
private sectors? What if economic life was no longer
grounded solely in the profit motive?
What if we cared for all of our
children, sick, and growing elderly population? What
if we halved teacher-student ratios across all grade
levels? What if we built affordable homes for
everyone? What if there was a community garden on
every block? What if we made our cities energy
efficient? What if we expanded public libraries?
What if we socialized and remunerated historically
unpaid care work? What if public art centers became
standard features of neighborhoods? What if we paid
young people to document the lives of retirees?
What if we guaranteed that
Black
lives really matter
? What if, in addition to
dismantling the prison industrial complex, we
created a rich and welcoming world where everyone,
citizen or not, has the right to participation and
care?
What if private industry's rejection of
workers freed the public to organize social labor on
capacious, diverse, and openly contested premises?
What if public works affirmed
inclusion, collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
What if we predicated social critique
on terms that are not defined by the neoliberal
ideology that we wish to circumvent?
What if we radically affirmed our
dependence on the public institutions that support
us? What if we forced government to take
responsibility for the system it already conditions?
What if we admitted that there are no
limits to how we can care for one another and that,
as a political community, we can always afford it?
Livingston's argument cannot abide such
questions. Hence the Left's reply to "fuck work"
should be clear: fuck that.
Again the seemingly endless conflation of work,
good, with being a wage slave, not so good.
Progressives would do well to focus on justice and
that does not include making victims work for
restitution. One would think Progressives would wish
to f@uck wage slavery, not perpetuate it.
Finally, humans are social animals. Work
provides a community. If you are extraverted and
need to be around people during the day, it's hard
to create enough opportunities for interaction on
your own.
Yves Smith
I solve that problem with volunteer labor at a
local laundry. I do it ONLY when my favorite worker
is there because I like her, she has a family to
support, she is overworked, she is in constant pain
from fibromyalgia, has carpal tunnel syndrome and
because of the interesting people I get to see
there.
How can I afford to do meaningful work for free?
Because I'm retired and have a guaranteed income
from Social Security and a small pension.
And let's be honest. A guaranteed job as opposed
to a guaranteed income is meant to boost wages by
withholding labor from the private sector. But who
needs wages with an adequate guaranteed income?
I'll also piggyback onto this, even though I
am not keen on basic income until I see a little
more work put into it.
Many people aren't actually contributing
anything in any given work environment in our
current system. To expect differently if we have
a guaranteed jobs program seems naive.
In the administrative structures I've worked
under (both private and non profit, often
interacting with government), many workers have
obstructionist compliance responsibilities.
Decisions are put off through nonsense data
gathering and reporting, signatures in
triplicate, etc. It's why I've become a huge
proponent of the
Garbage Can theory
of administration: most
of the work being done is actually to connect or
disconnect problems from decision making. When
it comes down to it, there are only a few actual
decision makers within an organization, with
everyone else there to CYA. That goes for any
bureaucracy, private or public.
David Graeber has detailed the "bullshit
jobs" phenomenon pretty well, and dismantles
bureaucracy in his book, and says all this
better than I. But the federal job guarantee
seems like a path to a bureaucratic hell. Of
course, an income guarantee for the disabled,
mental, physical, otherwise, is absolutely
critical.
There is no magic bullet, whether JG or
UBI. But I think the author and Yves are
absolutely correct in asserting that there
is no workable UBI under the current
political economy. It would by definition
not meet the needs its proponents claim it
could because private (and non-profit!)
employers would scream about how it was
raising labor costs and otherwise destroying
the "real" "productive" economy. A UBI after
the revolution? Perhaps. Before? Extremely
problematic.
On the other hand, a JG that emphasized
care work (including paying people to
parent) and energy efficiency would meet
screaming needs in our society and provide
many people with important new skills, many
of which would be transferable to the
private economy. But even here, the
potential pitfalls and problems are
numerous, and there would no doubt be
stumbles and scandals.
Two things:
1. Goverments can hire people without a
JG, the argument that the JG is
necessary for the goverment to find
employees is therefore not a very
convincing argument.
2. Increasing and enforcing reduced
hours an employer can demand of a worker
will strengthen the bargaining position
of all workers. But the people
advocating the JG appears to see the
reduced hours of work as a bad thing?
People get to meet people at work but
the more pleasant interaction (to me)
comes outside of work with the same
people.
How many paid days off should a
person in JG get? As many as Germans
get? Or the Japanese? Or?
When can a person in JG retire? At 60?
65? 70? When does work in JG stop being
a blessing and instead living at leisure
is the bliss? Are we all to be assumed
to live for work?
And finally: If income guarantee is
too liberal, isn't job-guarantee too
much of one of its opposites –
totalitarian?
I think a combination of both would
be best. As has been said many times
here, a lot of current jobs are complete
BS anyway and I don't really want to be
guaranteed a job just so I can take the
dirt out of Boss Keen's ditch and then
put it back in.
Then there's automation which has
already taken away a lot of jobs and
will continue to do so. That's not a bad
thing as long as people are still
getting an income.
As there likely isn't enough
productive work to go around, ideally
there would be a UBI and instead of a
job guarantee, have a minimal job
requirement
. That exact amount of
work required could be tinkered with,
but maybe it's a couple days a week, a
few months a year, or something similar.
You'd have to report to work in order to
be able to collect your UBI when your
work was no longer required.
When you're not doing required work,
you can relax and live off your UBI or
engage in some sort of non-essential
free enterprise.
I don't know what sort of fantasy land
you live in. Being an adult means doing
stuff that is not fun so that you and your
family can survive. This is the nature of
the human condition, from the
hunter-gatherer phases of existence onward.
You see to believe that you have the right
to be paid for doing stuff you enjoy. And
the sort of jobs you deem to be "bullshit
jobs" would seem like paradise to coal
miners or people who had to go backbreaking
manual work or factory workers in sweatshops
in the 19th century. Go read Dickens or Karl
Marx to get some perspective.
Was this meant to be a reply to
cocomaan's post? It seems like it's
replying to something else.
If I understand "Bullshit jobs"
aren't bullshit because they are
unpleasant to do, but because they are
to some significant degree unproductive
or even counterproductive.
Administrative bloat in acedemia is
pretty much the gold standard here from
my perspective. They are great jobs to
have and to do, just useless,
unnecessary, and often counterproductive
ones. High rise office buildings are, I
have always suspected, staffed with a
lot of these well paid administrative
types of bullshit jobs.
The Civilian Conservation Corps is, to my
mind, the single most important civilian
jobs program of the past century because it
provided millions of people meaningful work
at a time when they could not get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
The military also provides a similar
function to many people with no other way
out of a poor situation. It is likely that
one of the reasons that there was such a
huge economic post WW II economic boom is
because many people (men and women) learned
discipline and skills in the military and
industrial work places during WW II.
Problems with deadlines are the key
drivers for productivity. If there are no
problems defined with no deadline, then most
people will simply drift. Occasionally a
Faraday, Edison, or Einstein will show up
who will simply endlessly grind through
theoretical and experimental failures on
ill-defined problems to come up with
something brilliant. Even Maxwell needed
Faraday's publications of his experiments
showing electro-magnetic fields to get him
to come up with his great equations.
The assumption that work (for profit) is good
is very entrenched in culture. The argument that
people aren't motivated to work (Americans are
lazy) is disputed by the sheer amount of
'volunteerism' (unpaid labor).
Corporations are not going to give up on
marketing jobs as they get the vast benefit of
labors efforts.No one system works it will take
employee ownership to counteract the negatives
of private ownership and a ubi along with a job
guarantee and expenditures on leisure to shift
from a consumer based economy.
I always thought that people were supposed to
argue for more than they want and then settle.
Here the argument is always on the right side of
the political spectrum capitalism and private
ownership. Privatize schools and then use a
transfer of wealth through taxes and a captured
labor force to work in them?
Job guarantee all the way, as long as our bosses
aren't dicks. We've already kicked people off of
public assistance and into shitty underpaid jobs. If
having a job is so important, there should always be
a good one available. And anyone that can't or won't
work can live off a limited basic income. Makes for
a smooth and just transition too when our dirty,
dull, and dangerous industries are shut down or
automated out of existence.
Which brings us, along the way, to the need
for meaningful educational opportunities for
those who the system has heretofore failed.
Concrete case in point. My cousin is a young,
single mom in central North Carolina who works
hard but is just barely scraping by. Recently my
wife and I decided to help her out by giving her
the money she'd need to get broadband service so
that she and her teenage daughter could take
advantage of free, high quality online resources
like EdX.org (
https://edx.org
,
check it out if you haven't yet). But actually
getting her hooked up has been a challenge
because the Internet provider Duopoly dropped
their most affordable plans sometime last year
(around $15/mo) so that the cost will now be a
minimum of $40/mo before modem rental, taxes and
whatever other fees the carriers can dream up
(for the techs out there, even DSL costs $35/mo
in that service area). This in a state where
there's a law prohibiting local governments from
providing Internet services to its citizens in
competition with the Duopoly, and where a
private initiative like Google Fiber has
stumbled so badly that it actually has had a
negative impact on price competition.
Of course you might say this is a first world
problem, heck at least we have (semi) affordable
electricity nowadays. But this happens to be a
first world country, where big business pushes
paperless constantly to cut its own costs and a
semester in college is basically the price of a
recent model preowned sedan, _every semester_.
So, a guaranteed job for everyone PLUS the
resources to learns what's needed to obtain a
job that's more than another dead-end.
P.S. Anyone who has ever tried to use free
Internet services at their local library knows
that's not a viable option both because of
restrictive timeouts and bandwidth caps.
Bosses will be more likely to be dicks when
their employees are a captured labor pool. If
you don't comply with commands you'll be out of
your 'job guarantee'.
I support Yves' idea for a basic income as a
default position for disabled people. Although I'll
advocate for something a bit different if possible
for the ambulatory: instead of a monetary income,
let's provide free basic rations and solar panels,
along with a small plot of land in a rural area,
free gardening and household supplies, (including
free seeds that are appropriate for the given area).
And free classes in ecology, cooking, composting,
soil management, blacksmithing, carpentry,
appropriate technolies and any other good stuff I
happen to think of.
As for what the guest poster wrote–well he seems
like a good guy but this social justice warrior
thing is a dying fad that'll provoke a very
unpleasant counter reaction if it keeps up for much
longer. I'm positive that Trump garnered thousands
of votes in those vital Midwestern swing states
thanks to the highly visible sjw activities on
campuses, and theis backlash is only going to
increase as this goes on.
I have a son with a disability. Without a
job, he would watch movies all day.
With a job he becomes a productive part of
society. He loves it and he is dedicated. It
also gives him the opportunity to bond with
people which is hard when you don't have full
autonomy because of some aspects of your
disability.
From my personal experience, a large
percentage of people with a disabilities would
prefer a job to income guarantee.
And many would be quite happy with what most
consider shit jobs.
My mom shops at a store that hires
intellectually disabled people to do things
like shopping cart roundups and bagging
customers' groceries. These aren't the kinds
of jobs that most of us would flock to, but
that's our perspective.
I have to second this. Having worked
briefly with developmentally challenged
students, they have a much easier go of
things when they feel empowered, when they
feel like they have some control over their
lives, despite the challenges they face.
Rendering them even more helpless simply
increases frustration and exacerbates
existing problems.
Which I think should be brought into the
larger argument. It surprises me that any
Marxist worth her salt would glomp onto
this, when, it seems, the purpose is to
further alienate people from the means of
production and control over the political
economy. When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it, you have
to wonder what the underlying reasons might
be. Murray never met a poor or uneducated
person he didn't want to drive into the
ground, so I find it rather curious that he
would suddenly be all for a form of social
welfare.
And as to the boss point above, there's
nothing stopping anyone from making the jobs
program have a cooperative structure. As the
article says, these are all political
choices, not naturally occurring phenomena.
When Silicon Valley types and
Charles Murray are arguing for it,
you have to wonder what the
underlying reasons might be.
My tankie friends on Twitter think
that basic income is a trojan horse
that's going to be used to try and trick
the American public into ending Social
Security and Medicare. They're usually
right, sadly.
It seems to me as if basic income
would also be a great excuse to chip
away even further at the idea if
public education and single-payer
health care as social goods. If your
parents aren't able to shell out for
them, well, you don't need to be
healthy or literate to recieve UBI.
If there were both a UBI and
a job requirement rather than a
job guarantee, that might solve
the problem you mentioned.
If everyone were required to
work a certain amount in
essential services like housing,
food production, health care,
etc before they could collect a
UBI, that would require a
trained and healthy workforce.
As a disabed person myself I would argue
it's not jobs that disabled people are
necessarily after, it's being able to
actively participate in society in a
contributing, meaningful and productive way,
to be included in something with a purpose,
a purpose you believe in. If income is not
an issue, most people would still engage in
projects. Your son would watch movies all
day only because there is no better role to
play, we are at a transition stage where
disabled people, still considered invalids,
are being discovered to be not so invalid.
I take issue with the notion that
disabled people would be happy to do any
deadend work. We deserve more and better
than that, everyone does.
I'm a deaf person with a talent which
fintech wants and needs, which so happens to
be ensuring our tech is accessible,
inclusve, making it so much better; so
disabled people can truly participate in
society, to do all the same things tech
supposedly does to liberate while making it
truly liberating for all.
But we are also socially responsible for
finding meaningful and significant work for
the talents disabled people actually have,
as opposed to getting them to do something
stupid because it's something to do and
they're disabled and so should be satisfied
with whatever they get. We're not
vegetables, nobody is. So that goes for
non-disabled folks too.
Which brings us to the heart of this
UBI/JG discussion, either you're coming to
this from a perspective of people should
have jobs, any job, cuz they're basically
vegetables or some kind of autonomous
machination which goes through motions and
capitalism doesn't work without those
machinations so there's some kind of moral
imperative to labour or wage slavery, and
the measure or class of a person is whether
they are jobbed machinations/slaves, or
UBI/JG is secondary to the question of are
people as a whole happy and doing what
they'd rather be doing, are they truly
participating in society, as part of the
human project.
That's the reality most corporations are
facing at the moment. The meaning and nature
of "work" itself is undergoing change,
becoming "play", as capitalism shoots itself
in the foot and in the drive for profit
either necessitates socialism and
classlessness, or mass social upheaval and
less profits.
Thank you. It gets tiresome that the
default is people are lazy. People are
describing what seems to be human
nature . the desire to connect with
others and to contribute.
After reading some of these
arguments, and thinking about what I
have experienced and seen, I think there
are merits to both approaches (UBI and
JG). From experience I can't entirely
agree with Yves that people would remain
unskilled and not pursue activities that
engage with others and improve their
lives and skills. Perhaps this is
because I have always been fascinated by
and have known many Hippy communities. I
live in Eugene Oregon now, but grew up
in San Francisco. The running joke I was
told was that all the hippies left SF
and came to Eugene because there were no
jobs :-). I did see hippy groups in SF
that did pretty much nothing but play
all day. They didn't last. However, here
in Eugene I see many lasting legacies of
what they built after they "dropped
out"; many if not most of my favorite
businesses were created by these people:
the alternative groceries like Sundance
(supposedly Whole Foods was purported to
model themselves after this store-bah!)
and Kiva and Growers Market, the
Saturday and Farmers Markets, Tsunami
books. The Oregon Country Fair, the
coops. Not all were directly started by
"hippies" per se but the early hippy
groups did much to create a culture and
an environment that encourages this.
I also know a lot of people here that
work "precariously" and there are times
when work is hard to come by. But these
people do not seem to sit around, they
find other things to do, like learn
about gardening, or get skills
volunteering for Bring recycling (they
do things like find creative re-use or
"decom" houses slated for demolition and
take out useful items), or Habitat for
Humanity, or Center for Appropriate
Transport (bicycle and human powered),
or local tree planting and park cleanup.
They often find work this way, and make
connections, and get new skills. They
don't have to But they want to stay
active and involved.
This is why I think UBI is not such a
bad thing.. I know many people who would
benefit and still do many things like
I've described I also am aware that
there are more general tasks that
society needs doing and that is where
the JG might come in. But maybe Eugene
is too much of an exception?
Of course, all this is besides what
these policies may be used for by the
PTB. That's an entirely different
discussion; here I am arguing the
merits, not the agendas.
I was careful to use the word many
and not all people with disabilities.
My son has an intellectual
disability. He needs to be instructed
and the routine will not come on its own
unless it is well practiced. But as long
as someone is directing, he does great
work.
It is obvious by your post that the
menial job he would enjoy does not
correspond to what you could offer the
world!
I spent hours holding him in the
NICU, worrying about his future until
one day, instead of feeling sorry for
the both of us, I looked around and
noticed a regular guy, apathetic
looking, spending his entire day
cleaning and disinfecting the room then
the thought came to me that someone with
special needs could do the same job and
actually be happy.
Around that time, I read an article
about the problems they were now
encountering with the integration of
people with special needs in France. It
would seem that when the job became
boring, many would just stop showing up
to work Why bother when the state and
society has always been there for
support that's what happens when
individuals never get to feel true
independence.
Any action that produces a good or a
service is a form of work. Hugging is a
service. So are smiling and cleaning a
toilet.
For some reason we have huge trouble
putting monetary value on many of the
most essential services.
We are also having a very hard time
filling the jobs with individuals who
have the right skill set and
temperament.
Oy .. make the disabled do hard labor of
agriculture? Blind? Deaf around heavy machinery?
Wheelchairs on plowed land?
You are proposing this as it seems enriching,
gets them out of your community, and is
economically sound. This lifestyle choice should
apply to everyone. Let any who want do this and
you will have removed people from the labor pool
(made up unemployment number magically goes
down) less resource consumption.
Thanks Yves for pounding this issue. As a former
lazy BIG'er I am naturally wired to stare at my
navel all day. I think at the heart of it we have an
existential problem with toil. Tcherneva's succinct
take-down of BIG vs JG also set me on the
straight and narrow.
Plus she spanks Yglesias
which is always enjoyable.
My biggest quibble with JG is that "work"
often involves needless consumption. Most people
(in America) require a car and 1-2 dangerous
hours a day getting to and from "work".
Personally this is a very good reason NOT to
work.
1-2 dangerous hours a day getting
to and from "work".
The reason I get to work 2 hours before
I'm required to is because I find driving to
work is the most stressful part of my day. I
commute while the roads are quiet. The
deterioration in driving etiquette is
maddening. It is dog eat dog out there. The
fact that we are all flying around at 70 MPH
in 4,000 pounds of steel and glass is lost
on most drivers.
I think there should be an indicator
on the dashboard showing the probability
of surviving a frontal impact at your
current road speed, people might slow
down as they saw the number approach
zero
"If you are extraverted and need to be around
people during the day, it's hard to create enough
opportunities for interaction on your own."
People have all sorts of mental quirks, but to what
extent do we rig society to handle them? As a
justification for work, this one sounds expensive.
We are social creatures. That's not a quirk,
just a fact. The average work environment
already has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal, no need
for a radical redesign.
As for costs – unemployment imposes
devastating costs in sickness, addiction, crime,
etc. JG is a no-brainer. It's been tried with
great success in Argentina. It works. There's a
slogan for ya:
Work
Works
.
Well, OK, but we all vary in the level of
our sociability. Some need people around
them all the time others value their
solitude and still others are in between.
That's not a quirk, just a fact.
One that you're overstating.
The average work environment already
has people with various "quirks". Some
are chatty, some not. Not a big deal,
Actually, it is a big deal since noise
and lack of privacy are two of the biggest
problems in today's workplaces, particularly
those with "open work space" designs. I
speak from personal experience here.
I'd rather be out in the woods spending my
time growing fruit trees. I hate people–and
reading above about all the inspirational work
the government would be giving me and the people
I'd have to be around while while doing it left
me wondering about whether or not going postal
would be a good idea.
Secondly, the wishlist I saw above for
everything the government is supposed to be
doing to help people was pretty scary. Ehile the
intentions might be good, power like this given
to government never, ever turns out well for the
people. As an example, let's say Scott waved his
magic wand and suddenly Trump had all the power
and authority he needed to accomplish everything
on Scott's list today. Alright, now try to
imagine just how awful the next four years would
be. Not good!
I sympathize with the desire to just be
alone and do your own thing–I'm like that as
well–but I think you're missing an important
aspect of the argument, one which Tcherneva
makes more forcefully, which is that there
is a knock on benefit of people being more
engaged in public life: they are harder to
politically disenfranchise. I wouldn't be
surprise if one of the reasons why elites
are so gung ho about UBI is that it would
serve to further alienate people and
fragment communities, thus preventing them
from organizing anything like meaningful
resistance to state power.
Also, Ferguson kind of already addressed
this:
What if private industry's rejection
of workers freed the public to organize
social labor on capacious, diverse, and
openly contested premises?
The problem with a JG and that line
of argument, is that JG does not propose
to engage people more in public life
than an Unconditional Income, as an
Unconditional Income is by definition,
far more inclusive of all kinds of work
that people may do for others.
You may even do things that nobody in
a society approves of, with an
Unconditional Income, like trying to
prove that the world is round, not flat.
JG got nothing on enabling people to
be active citizens. It's a policy to
look backwards, or it's so inclusive
that it's basically an unconditional
income to everyone. You gotta be willed
to take a long shot sometimes
(increasingly often, looking at the
world as it is today and might
increasingly be tomorrow), to properly
empower people so they can be active
citizens.
How about we have more public housing I
would like to see boarding houses come back
but another option could be monastery type
living? There could even be separate ones
for men, women and families that way you
could select a monastery that is focused on
agriculture and you could have space away
from women.
I sometimes have incredibly vivid
dreams. One of them I hade a couple of
years ago was somewhat apocolyptic;
something had happened (unknown) and I
was in a dilapidated city of middlin'
size. The blocks of cheek-by-jowl houses
and storefronts were all boarded up. But
I entered one and found that 1) they had
been connected by knocking down walls
between them, and 2) the
Interior
Of the block was completely open. All
the buildings faced inward (no boarded
windows) and that had been transformed
into a Commons with gardens, vegetables,
corrals, parklands, small outbuildings.
Maybe something like that .
It would never happen but eminent
domain should apply to abandoned
buildings. If it's been unused for x
amount of years, it's raffled off
for public use . housing, education
etc. Heck, it could apply to
manufacturing. If a corp wants to
leave, don't let the door hitcha,
but that building is going to the
employees as a coop as competition
is as good for the goose as it is
for the gander.
I would imagine more people will
be having dreams like yours if
things keep declining and people try
to imagine what's next.
Actually I know a few artist who won the
Guggenheim Award and I beg to differ. Art is not
something that given bunch of money produces great
work. It comes with time and time spent
contemplating and thinking. Most of the artists who
won had to work to pay the bills before. Many were
teachers and many still are. There are so few fine
artists who just make art. The 1980s really pulled
the wool over non-artists eyes.
Case in point since getting the grant, not right
after of course, Cara Walker made one the best
pieces of her career. A Subtlety, or the Marvelous
Sugar Baby, an Homage to the unpaid and overworked
Artisans who have refined our Sweet tastes from the
cane fields to the Kitchens of the New World on the
Occasion of the demolition of the Domino Sugar
Refining Plant.
Job guarantee maybe, but not corvee. We can have
jobs for everyone, if we build pyramids. Forced
labor is totalitarian. But entitlement and free
lunches are destructive of society. Neo-liberalism
involves entitlement and free lunch for some people,
and for some countries (I see what you are doing to
everyone else USA, GB, Germany, Japan). Entitlement
isn't just for individuals. I love my work, as long
as it is "sort of" a free choice. Economic necessity
works for most of us, and while wage and debt
slavery aren't fun, they are both better than
chattel slavery.
In a country like the USA, the only limit on
socially useful, meaningful work for everyone is
the will and creativity to do it. Off the top of
my head I can think of more programs that could
be implemented than people to fill them.
I agree. But the problem seems to reside
in the link between the services and the
hard goods.
One is unlimited while the other is
limited so the human tendency is to use
money from the unlimited side and
consume/stock up/hoard the hard goods
creating a scarcity.
I don't see how we can solve that problem
with property rights as they are protected
now.
In my mind, land and resources would have
to be a common good why should someone get
the waterfront property or more arable land
or pools of oil just because of a birthright
or some other non sharing policy.
Going even further, why should some
groups/countries benefit from resources
while not sharing with others?
Lots of sharing problems to deal with
nationally and globally before we get it
right
For the last few decades, our system has
been based on debt to income and debt to
GDP. Those nations and individuals who
loaded up on it did ok . so we did not think
of the fair distribution of resources.
But now that debt levels are hitting what
we consider ceilings we will be changing the
rules of the game you know what happens
when someone decides to invent their own
rules in a board game midway through the
game!
All this to say that even if we guarantee
jobs the physical world of resources will
constrain us.
There needs to be a shift from work
and consumption to leisure. Leisure is
infinite . walking trails, biking
trails, parks, movies/music in the parks
(our community puts up a big screen and
a 150 or so show up with lawn chairs,
snacks and blankets), art shows,
community theatre, festivals, music,
picnic areas, chess/checkers concrete
tables .
I want to start a game library: sort
of a pub/restaurant with games. Have a
bite, beer and a game of scrabble. I
like the idea of pub nites with quiz
events. If there were public buildings,
gathering spaces would not have to make
a 'profit', public health would be the
benefit.
"What if public works affirmed inclusion,
collaboration, and difference? What if we
acknowledged that the passions of working life are
irreducible to a largely mythical Protestant work
ethic? What if questioning the meaning and value of
work become part of working life itself?
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?
"What if we radically affirmed our dependence on
the public institutions that support us? What if we
forced government to take responsibility for the
system it already conditions?
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?"
First, thanks for this article – this is a good
and interesting debate to have.
It makes me suspicious that the author's sort of
trump-card, climactic 'takedown' of UBI is a series
of questions rather than answers. Things which even
the author can't figure out the answer to,
apparently, so how can they expect UBI to have the
answers.
Think about the answers (i.e. in terms of, policy
changes to people's material lives) to the questions
posed above. What would any of those policies look
like? Who knows?
My point is, it's easy to make things (including
UBI) look dumb by comparing them to impossibly high
vague standards like "no limits to how we can care
for one another."
If the author had a better more concrete,
specific reason why UBI is bad, they would have used
that, yeah?
In my view, Unconditional Incomes answer
these questions without being wasteful of human
life, and with being unconditionally pro-labor,
as opposed to being conditionally pro labor as a
JG would be. JG only empowers labor that is
recognized immediately, by some body of people
who do not represent the valuations of all who
are part of society.
Unconditional Incomes recognize labor that
only later might generate appreciable results,
and it recognizes broad valuation of the fine
grained process where it is societally
worthwhile, as individuals perceive it. If
understood as enablement and pay for all labor
related time, unconditionally.
Pay beyond that would be representation of
how much respect you command, how much you
desire to obtain monopoly incomes, and how much
you might hate a job. But not the labor value.
That's what unconditional incomes can provide.
To the guy writing open source for a greater
benefit to many, to the hardworking construction
worker whose job involves a lot of undesirable
factors (for which he may demand additional
comensation), to the superstar/superbrand owner
who seeks to maximize customer awareness and
monetization with a blend of natural and
artificial marketing and monopolization
strategies, and to the guy who strategically
maximizes market incomes to do even greater
things for society than what he could be doing
with just writing open source.
On that note, thanks Amazon for pushing the
envelope. At least for the time being. We can
financially burden all of these market/rent
incomes to provide unconditional (labor)
incomes, to ensure that there's not too much
emphasis on just cashing in on your good (brand)
name and market position. Coca Cola is a prime
example for what such a cashing in would look
like. Customers are beasts of convenience,
unless there's breakthroughs that radically
improve on some process of delivery or
production, that somehow isn't taken notice of
by the big brand, before another active citizen
takes the opportunity to compete by help of it.
tl;dr: No to turning society into a glorified
Arnish settlement, yes to Amazon as it is today,
though with a higher tax burden, yes to
unconditional incomes, yes to political
activism, independent research, parenting work,
work for being a decent person among equal
people that may look however like you chose.
BIG was tried before with disastrous results.
When a BIG program can be proven to address its
deep and complex past failure, it may be worth a
try. I agree with Yves on when and where an IG
is appropriate until someone somewhere test
drives a better one.
Don't worry, most UBI experiments and
proposals nowadays aren't 'Income
Guarantees' but rather Unconditional
payments to all, or Tapered negative income
tax proposals (britain's RSA has a UBI
equivalent NIT proposal like that at least),
on top of which people could earn more. Only
experienceing regular taxation or a modest
clawback rate of the benefit.
UBI is commonly understood to not be a
top-up to the same point for everyone as the
speenhamland system was, which of course
destroys motivation to expose oneself to a
strenuous environment, when you can't
actually get compensated for your troubles.
Any sensible person would tell you that the
speenhamland system was an insane offer to
the people, it asked of people to work for
free, basically.
By what mechanism does UI prevent
employers from bidding down wages? As
Yves post form last year says, "Taxes
would therefore need to be increased to
offset those effects. The best tax
outcome you could expect would be a
progressive tax on income. Thus the end
result in a best-case scenario would be
tantamount to a means-tested BIG,
graduated so as to avoid any sudden
cutoff for someone who wanted to work.
Thus the result (whether achieved
directly or indirectly) is likely to
resemble Milton Friedman's negative
income tax, with the zero tax rate set
at a living wage level." Meaning the UI
just pushes free money into an otherwise
unchanged system incentivized from the
top down to soak that money back up and
out.
So pushing more money into the system
just inflates the system while
sustaining the ongoing upward
redistribution.
Thus: "The trouble is that
Livingston's "Fuck Work" falls prey to
an impoverished and, in a sense,
classically Liberal social ontology,
which reifies the neoliberal order it
aims to transform. Disavowing modern
humanity's reliance on broadscale
political governance and robust public
infrastructures, this Liberal ontology
predicates social life on immediate and
seemingly "free" associations, while its
critical preoccupation with tyranny and
coercion eschews the charge of political
interdependence and caretaking. Like so
many Universal Basic Income supporters
on the contemporary Left, Livingston
doubles down on this contracted
relationality. Far from a means to
transcend neoliberal governance,
Livingston's triumphant negation of work
only compounds neoliberalism's two-faced
retreat from collective governance and
concomitant depoliticization of social
production and distribution."
It sounds like it's is going to be a lot of work
- to abolish work.
Who's gonna do all the work involved? LOL.
If you think of sub-cultures where nobody works -
like ancient Roman nobles, Europes aristocrats,
gang-bangers, southern antebellum planters– mostly
they got into fights about nonsense and then killed
each other. That is something to consider.
The crap jobs will be the easiest to get rid
of, but then we won't have any necessary goods
and services. The Romans knew this, which is why
they had a pretty good run before collapsing.
OTOH, with so much more humanity getting
their creative juices going, we could end up
with lots and lots of art. There would be so
much art, it would probably be given away for
free!
Then there is the start your own biz path.
I've been keeping an eye on our local self serve
dog wash. The sign outside changed to "Self
Service Pet Wash". Has me wondering what's that
all about. Expanding the biz into cats,
hamsters, parrots and turtles maybe? Good to see
success in the entrepreneurial class, but then I
wonder if that's really for everyone and there
may need to be some larger organizational
structure geared towards producing some more
complex thing or service. Dunno, but that could
be food for thought as a next step for analysis
in this whole job creation subject.
If anybody actually expects to get paid
for their "art", that's when all hell will
break loose.
A self-service dog wash is interesting,
but if you let a dog wash itself it may not
do a good job. Dogs hate to get washed. I'm
not sure if this is gonna work.
Kwame Anthony Appiah talks about the end to
duels in his book on Honor. It's interesting
stuff.
One takeaway I remember is that the lower
classes actually began to clamor for an end to
the idea that murder was okay if you were in the
upper classes, since dueling was a matter of
challenging, preserving, and reifying an upper
class. The other way to look at it is that the
lower classes wanted in on the action.
It also ended when everyone was embarrassed
and fed up that their leaders were slaying each
other by night.
Great philosophical thougths are cauught. In the
Moderbator!
Even the moderbator is already working to thwart
illumination and enlightenment. That should be a
lesson of some sort. I'm not sure what though. That
wouldd mean mental work. I'll do it but it's still
kind of early. I'll do it later.
Yup. There is a big difference between work in a
Capitalist ecosystem and work in an Anarchistic
ecosystem. In the first you have to ask for a
Universal Basic Income and equality, etc. In the
second there is no need to ask for it.
So maybe "F@ck Work" is really "F@ck Capitalism"
or "F@ck Authoritarianism", but they just don't
quite get it yet.
Agreed that what the author is really saying
is f@ck capitalism. Pretending it's all about
the current fad for neoliberalism ignores the
reality that neoliberalism is simply old
fashioned laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses. The problem with left utopianism is
that human nature works against it. So the
author's "what ifs" don't carry a lot of
intellectual punch. What if we all loved each
other? Well, we don't.
Personally I'd rather just have the BIG and
the freedom. The Right may be just as paranoid
as the Left when they claim all forms of
government social engineering are totalitarian
but there is a grain of truth there. Neither
side seems to have a very firm grasp of the
human
problems that need to be solved in
order for society to work.
"neoliberalism is simply old fashioned
laissez-faire capitalism with better
excuses"
I think it has worse excuses, actually.
No excuses. There is no excuse for the
centrally managed wealth extraction in the
name of "markets" that we have been seeing
since Bill Clinton made nice with Goldman
Sachs in the 1990s.
While MMT correctly conceives of money as a
limitless resource, what it doesn't take into
account is the fact that continuing to allow vast
accumulations of the stuff at the top of the economy
inevitably translates into political power.
And I suspect that those with such power,
principally the financial industry, will work
assiduously to reinforce conventional notions of
money as finite, which in turn enhances their power
and their ability to profit from widespread misery.
That is the taproot of The Big Lie – keeping
the masses convinced of money scarcity, which
goes hand-in-hand with scare mongering on the
national "debt". The delegitimizing of the
national currency as worthless IOUs, mere
"scraps of paper".
The .01%, who have accumulated political
power through this con, will not just give it
up.
It reminds me of the (probably apocryphal)
anecdote about Queen Victoria hearing about
Darwin's Origin of Species and asking, "Is it
true?"
"I'm afraid so, your majesty."
"Well then, let's hope the commoners don't
find out!"
Great piece!!! Does anyone know of any proposals
or white papers for a State or City wide Job
Guarantee? Laboratory for democracy or something. I
know the lack of a currency printer throws a wrench
into the MMT aspects and clearly there would be
migration affects greater than on a national scale,
but I think that a state or local program would
almost necessarily have to come before a national
one, or at least would make the debate about a
national one less arduous. This is something I am
pushing with my state house rep (Raymond Dehn, who
recently threw his hat in the ring for Minneapolis's
Mayoral contest)
"What if we admitted that there are no limits to
how we can care for one another and that, as a
political community, we can always afford it?" MMT
acknowledges that the availability of natural
resources is a limit to money creation and, overall,
economic growth. I wish this essay had addressed
this issue, as I believe we are in the post-peak oil
world and still not facing how this fact -peak oil
when properly understood is an empirical fact to me-
is dismembering modern political economies.
Simultaneously, this destruction is proceeding in
accord with neoliberal domination.
And most of the time, when I see MMT, it
seems to be associated with projects and
investments that are incredibly energy and
resource intensive.
Many MMT supporters seem to work on the
assumption that the US will always have the
right to consume an inordinate share of global
energy and resources.
It seems that many attempting to
pigeonhole MMT, seem to not recognize the
role of fiscal policy to regulate and
modulate. Full employment need not correlate
to consuming " an inordinate share of global
energy and resources." IMHO, how the term
"growth" is often used with and within
"economics" seems misleading and
disingenuous.
It seems to me we have done that no work
experiment for .OH, 70 years. Its called social
security.
Maybe every single person on social security doesn't
have as many friends as they should – the book
"Bowling Alone" as well as many other publications
about the isolation of modern society address what
is a problem. But many people with jobs are
isolated, as well as not getting social interaction
on and off the job. I think if you asked the average
social security recipient, the first thing they
would want is mo' money, mo' money, MO' MONEY.
People on social security can work, volunteer,
follow a hobby or take up one. In CA old folks used
to be able to "audit" college classes, where you
could attend for free but get no credit. Alas, no
longer the case (as well as when I was young and
went to college, it was dirt cheap – how did it get
so frigging expensive?).
And to the extent old people are isolated, more
money would do a lot to allow old people to take
cruises and other activities that cost money and
give people the opportunity to mingle. I imagine
young people would do the same, especially if the
stress of wondering where there income would come
from was removed.
There were people at work who said they would
never retire because they wouldn't be able to fill
their time. I find that just sad. Somebody has to
give these people something to do because in there
whole lives they have never developed any interests?
I was very lucky to have a career that was
interesting. It was also frustrating, difficult, and
stressful, and besides the friends from work, there
were also the assh*les. It was fine for 26, but it
was time to move on. And though I thought about
getting another job, I have found that not working
is ..WONDERFUL.
I also do not work, and I enjoy it. I need to
find things to fill my days (other than NC), but
this is complicated by not having competence in
the local language. I could speed up my
citizenship process by getting a job here in
Uruguay, but I don't want to go back to a
stressful life feeling like I don't have enough
time to do interesting things. So learning
Spanish is my job now.
I think if you asked the average social
security recipient, the first thing they
would want is
mo' money, mo' money,
MO' MONEY
.
And to the extent old people are
isolated, more money would do a lot to allow
old people to take cruises and
other
activities that cost money
and give
people the opportunity to mingle
I suppose it's a much larger ambition in many
ways, but I've always thought that a more
worthwhile aim than a basic income guarantee
would be de-financialization. Private health
care and car-based communities put people in the
very precarious position of having to worry
about their cash buffer for lots of basic
survival needs. I live in a country with
government-funded health care, and even though
my income is a fraction of what I made when I
lived in the US it would be easy for me to quit
my job and live on savings for an extended
period of time, since the only real expenses I
have are food and housing, and the other
necessities like clothes or bicycle repairs can
be done on the cheap when one has lots of free
time.
Public transit connecting libraries, parks,
community colleges, and other public forums
where people can socialize are much preferable
to cruise ships!
I too have for years now enjoyed and
sometimes struggled with not having to work for
money. While my ability to engage in many
activities is currently limited by health
issues, I have previously gone back to
university and earned a degree, learned fine
woodworking, volunteered as a charity fundraiser
and done field work for the wolf reintroduction
program in Yellowstone. I have also spent a lot
of time reading, gardening, fixing up my old
house, watching movies, political activity,
fishing, motorcycling, the list could go on.
However, to be honest, I do suspect that the
years I did spend working and the earnings
therefrom did lay a foundation upon which I
could build an edifice more of my own choosing.
Make work more interesting and rewarding by
directing it toward esthetic goals. Promote the arts
and education at all ages. Put art, design, music,
theater, & crafts back into the curriculum, identify
people with special skills & talent, support them
and provide venues for learning, exhibits &
performances with low- or no- cost access to the
public. Elevate culture to the epitome of human
achievement in all walks of life and expand
involvement. Discourage commercial television
watching, especially for children.
I do wonder if there's a kind of circular
argument to this piece, or at least there is a
continuum between this job guarentee solution and
the basic income. In one sense, it is said that
people cannot be left to themselves to create
because they just won't. So the solution is some
kind of municipal creativity, an entitity which does
the creating and then forces people to work on its
projects in return for income. The more top down
'new deal'-like this is, then it looks like a JG
system. If it can be bottom up, it more closely
resembles a basic income.
There is little difference, in the real world,
between sitting on a park bench all day and sitting
in a cubicle filling out spreadsheets, because most
jobs are already busy-work. So most people are
already doing corvee labor in a totalitarian
civilization: digging holes and filling them up
again. In a typical office building, the only people
who are doing real, productive work are the janitors
and maintenance engineers.
I think it would take a long time, as in many
generations, to begin to know who we are, what we
would do and be without a Protestant work-ethic.
It's almost impossible for most to imagine life in
some other form just as it's impossible for most
to imagine a democratic process, even within just
one party. Idle time scares the beejesus out of so
many people I know. I've watched people 'retire' and
move to these beautiful Ozark mountains for
decades and do nothing but destroy them, over and
over again, out of boredom and idle guilt. I can't
remember the last time I cut down a live tree for
firewood.. since there are always mountains of
forrest being laid to waste.
But we must face the fact most work is useless,
crap, BS, and or outright destructive. MIC and
Insurance come to mind immediately. To enforce human
work for the sake of it is to perhaps destroy the
big blue marble host at – at best an highly
accelerated rate. If we keep making ourselves act
like drones our world will continue to look like
it's what we are doing / who we are. Just drive down
any street America built post 1960 looking for
something esthetically pleasing, somewhat unique,
that isn't either mass produced or designed to fall
apart in a few decades or less.
Or maybe with a jobs guarantee we should just
outlaw bulldozers, chainsaws, 18 wheelers, private
jets, dwellings/offices with more than four units,
and large farm equipment.
If we are going to force labor then give every
man and woman a shovel or a hoe with their HS
diploma – not a gun, not an office for predatory
FIRE purposes. That way we wont destroy ourselves so
quickly.
Joni sang..
You don't know what you've got
'til it's gone
. What about the people who never
knew what was there to begin with? Will some of us
live long enough to morn the passing of parking
lots?
"A job at a decent wage, set by public policy,
will eliminate at least 2/3 of poverty. we can then
work on eliminating the rest thru compassion."
Doesn't strike me as morally agreeable to reduce
the right to nature and ideas that anyone may reason
to have, to a matter of compassion.
"This is the high road that can increase
productive capacity"
Giving people an unconditional income and letting
people earn money on top, could also increase
productive capacity, and having a JG scheme in place
might as well reduce productive capacity where it
pretends to people that they're doing something
important, when they're not. Overpaying work can be
a disservice to the people and society alike. Let
individuals themselves tell others how much they
think something is worth, in respect and in monetary
terms. We just need to equip people with money (that
maintains relevance in relation to the aggregate of
all money), for that.
The high road that can increase productivity is a
commitment to enabling people as individuals,
unconditionally, to make economic expressions,
rooted in their rights to nature.
""Modern Monetary Theory contends that money is a
boundless and fundamentally inalienable public
utility. That utility is grounded in political
governance. And government can always afford to
support meaningful social production, regardless of
its ability to capture taxes from the rich. The
result: employment is always and everywhere a
political decision, not merely a function of private
enterprise, boom and bust cycles, and automation.
There is therefore nothing inevitable about
underemployment and the misery it induces. In no
sense are we destined for a "jobless future."""
Wouldn't it be interesting if it took someone
like Trump to get the fact that money is a public
utility into the public mindset.
This is a strong and powerful tool. Seems like it
could be up his alley.
But Trump WONT do that. He's very much a
super 1% elitist who thinks of people as winners
and losers. He thinks the government is like a
business that has to balance its books and "live
within its means" (means = tax receipts + fees).
Trump is NOT an MMTer. He's closer to gold
standard idiots in the GOP (whether they
actually want the gold standard to return or not
means nothing the idea that the federal budget
needs to be balanced is 100% outgrowth of the
gold standard dinosaur days so they are ALL
goldbugs at core).
I agree with many of the skeptical views above.
In the endeavor to provide equitable incomes an
underlying problem is who decides what industries or
groups get funded from the taxes collected? Is there
private capital? How do you keep certain people from
manipulating the system to assure they can collect
more wealth than someone else?
All of these might be questions may be resolved
with strict laws, but I can recall in my childhood
such laws and such cultures that assured a more
equitable system, but these too were corrupted by
people who wanted to "keep their wealth", because
"they earned it", or inherited it ("Death to the
Death Tax!").
This utopia sounds good on paper, but it appears
to me that the execution is most times corrupted by
the connected and powerful.
In any case the most difficult task in this
process will be getting enough power to take any
sizable wealth away from the "shareholders" , ie
owners, to redistribute in a society controlled via
media and laws by our lords and masters.
I think we need to remember just how modern is
the concept of "work" is that's being debated here.
In nearly the whole world a century ago (and still
in parts of it today) people didn't have "jobs",
they raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in the
community and family etc. and were in general
productively occupied most of the time. Even with
the factory system, and the beginning of paid
employment, many of the workforce were skilled
craftsmen with years of training and a high social
status. The modern idea of a "job" as an unnecessary
task carried out to gain money you don't need to buy
things you don't want would have seemed
incomprehensible. Indeed, there are parts of Africa
today where a "job" is what you get to earn enough
money to live on for a while and that's it.
The real problem then is a sense of purpose in life.
There's some evidence that work can and does provide
this, provided that work is minimally useful and
satisfying. Certainly, the psychological damage from
long-term unemployment as well as the psychological
dangers of working alone are extensively documented.
But the opposite is also true – work can make you
ill, and the line between guaranteeing work and
forcing people to work is a treacherously easy one
to cross.
It would be better to move towards thinking about
what kind of society and economy we want. After all,
much of the contemporary economy serves no useful
purpose whatever, and could be dispensed with and
the assets invested elsewhere. Without getting into
the magic wand thinking in the article, it must be
possible to identify a host of things that people
can usefully "do", whether or not these are "jobs"
in the traditional sense.
You're onto something here. Reading the post
and comments, I couldn't identify what was
bothering me, because when I think of work now
(having been out of the paid workforce a while)
I think in terms of things that make life more
livable, either in very practical ways or
through learning, enlarging my view of the
world, and I don't in the least want to see the
elimination of that kind of work. It's the other
kind of work, that expects you to feign devotion
to the manufacture or marketing of widgets, that
probably needs to be largely eliminated (I won't
say wholly, as there may be some for whom
widgets are mentally rewarding). The author
seems too certain of what needs to change and
how. I think you're right that we need to give
it more thought.
The author of this review misses much of what
James Livingston is all about. JL spends some
time discussing how to imagine a meaningful life
and he refers to Freud (!) that we need work and
love. If work is no longer available then how do
we imagine love as the basis for social
solidarity? OR, is solidarity another way to
express love? The author's concerns for wonky
policy BS takes us down the wrong path into the
scrubland of intellectual vapidity.
And btw Fred Block has devastated the
Speenhamland analogy long ago. I think not many
folks have gotten beyond Andre Gorz on these
topics.
Yeah, I'm sort of skeptical of BIG
myself, but I really don't think
Speenhamland is a good comparison at all.
Speenhamland had too many particularities
that separate it from most modern BIG
proposals IMHO.
I think we need to remember just how
modern is the concept of "work" is that's
being debated here. In nearly the whole
world a century ago (and still in parts of
it today) people didn't have "jobs", they
raised crops, tended cattle, caught fish,
practised manual crafts, played a role in
the community and family etc. and were in
general productively occupied most of the
time
Too true. If you want to see what someone's
ancestor most likely did, look at their last
name. Tanner, Cooper, Fuller, etc.
People used to have a right to land with
which they could harvest building supplies,
roofing supplies, food to feed themselves, fuel
to heat and cook, raise livestock for food and
fiber. The people have been stripped of the
rights and ability to provide for their basic
needs by force. They now have to have a job, the
majority of their labor benefits someone else,
to gain money in a system where nearly every
transaction isn't just monetized but
exploitative.
There is still the pull towards liberalism .
to develop a hierarchy of needs, and a hierarchy
of the usefullness/productiveness/profitability
of tasks. There needs to be a ubi along with the
jg. When the focus is on developing hierarchies,
the end result will be a rigid bureaucratic
structure and the use of force to ensure
compliance.
"What if we predicated social critique on terms
that are not defined by the neoliberal ideology that
we wish to circumvent?"
To do this, I propose that we give everyone,
unconditionally, an income, as expression of their
potential (and natural desire) to contribute to
society, and all the prerequisite time that goes
into that, and for the very contributions
themselves. An unconditional labor value derived
income, for all. An income that both enables all
kinds of work, and pays that labor value in the same
stroke.
From there, additional earned income becomes a
matter of how much respect you command, how well you
utilize monopolies, and how much you hate your job
and require compensation for how much you hate it.
But the labor value would be accounted for,
unconditionally.
In a world where there's superstars (and
superbrands) who command respect and natural
monopolies to make a lot of money, and people
writing open source for the greater benefit of
everyone else predominantly, it makes sense to make
a statement such as that, about labor value, and to
pay it to everyone. Mothers and fathers in active
care of their children too, could agree, I'd
imagine.
But making a list of things that you think might
be cool for society, and try to have tangible
compensations for only those, seems problematic, if
not to say, counterproductive. Rather recognize ALL
the time that people spend, to be decent people
among fellow people, to educate themselves formally
and informally, be it in the process of being an
entrepreneur in a broader sense, at times. A sense
of justice that can only be achieved by the state
deciding for its people what is purposeful, will
fall flat on its face when it comes to practicality,
unless we have artifical super intelligence. Because
you will have to literally know better than the
people, what they will appreciate to what extent.
And you don't know that. Neither do I.
There's great things in community/entertainment
space happening today, that nobody was thinking of 5
years ago. Because people still have some power to
recognize things as individuals, that others do, as
purposeful (as much as aggregate demand is
increasingly in a sorry state, as the result of a 3+
decade long trend that seems to still keep going.
Just fixing that issue would already help a lot.). I
say we should build on that, and further empower
people in that direction. Which to me means to give
money to all the people of the society, so they can
more directly at times, express what benefits
society, that is themselves. And for macro
economic/long term considerations we can always have
direct democracy.
The sorts of psychopaths that tend to be in
control of modern human societies clearly prefer
money as a tool of social control to money as any
sort of public utility that would facilitate
individual productivity and/or affirm human dignity,
whether in the context of neoliberal derangement or
not. That's the view from the long-frozen Rust Belt
and certainly nothing new in history.
It also appears that any human capacity for moral
innovation is easily constrained by our basic
feces-hurling primate OS, particularly if said
primates consider money to be something finite and
concrete.
On the real balance sheet, though, the sweet old
Earth likely can't afford a JG for a population of 7
billion, at least not under any current or
previously existing model of labor exploitation. As
all NCpeeps know, we're resource-constrained, not
dollar-constrained.
So we arrive back at the same old power
relationships, the coercion, desperation and ecocide
to which we have been accustomed, in the absence of
any disruptive® (!) moral innovation. Can anyone
suggest that modern humans have demonstrated a
capacity for moral innovation outside of prison
camps? Actual, non-hopey-changey varieties of moral
innovation? If so, is that capacity retarded only by
misperceptions regarding the nature of money?
Retarded perhaps by an exceptional propaganda
system? One might only answer that for themselves,
and likely only until the SWAT team arrives. It
seems unlikely that some rational and compassionate
bureaucracies will be established to compensate in
their stead: Congress is wholly unable to formulate
policy in the public interest for very good reasons,
none of them admirable. It seems the social economic
entities they protect require human desperation just
as much as they require currency liquidity or
juvenile male soldiers.
In the absence of representation, rule of law or
some meager rational public policy, a reproductive
strike may be a better individual approach than FW,
as not having children avoids the voluntary
provisioning of debt slaves into a corrupt and
violent system of social control. There is also the
many ecologically salubrious effects of less humans
and a potential opportunity to avoid being forced to
constantly sell one's labor at a sharp discount.
Couples I know, both having made catastrophic errors
in career choice (education, research, seriously
OMG!), are able to persist with some degree of
dignity only and precisely because they have avoided
begetting, in the very biblical sense, more debt
slaves.
The author's contention that JG is better than
BIG is persuasive; however I am not convinced that
JG is best implemented by the govt. We have had
systems like these, e.g. USSR, and it is very clear
that central planning for large masses never works.
Why not implement that JG as saying that the govt
guarantees X $/hr for up to T hrs per week for every
one, no matter where they are hired. Advantages:
– small business owners are afforded breathing space
to get their dreams off the ground,
– Walmart workers will walk off if Walmart doesn't
up its game significantly beyond $(X x 4T) per
month,
– Non profits will be able to afford to pay
volunteers more reliably,
– People who want to be alone / not work can setup
their own "self preservation" business and earn the
minimum $X/hr for T hrs.
This form of decentralized planning may help
implement JGs in a more sustainable manner than
centralized planning. It also puts a floor on
minimum income. Also, when combined with barriers on
moving jobs outside the US, it helps provide a
sharper threshold on how good automation needs to be
in order to replace labor.
X and T can be the $15 and 40 hrs that is being
implemented in big coastal cities, progressive
states. Or it could be set to just above poverty
level earnings, depending on how comfortable we are
in letting go of our Pilgrim/Protestant shackles.
Past time to kill off the Protestant Ethic.
The future has always supposed to be made up of
robots doing scut work while people get to chill
out and NOT do shit work.
The job race is why people STILL don't take
enough vacation or full vacation. It is why they
feel COMPELLED to not take days off because if
they do, their boss will hold it against them
come promotion time.
Not all jobs are worth doing and forcing
people to take them doesn't do anyone any good,
and makes people into commodities, THE biggest
problem with neoliberalism. People are NOT
commodities and work should NOT be a measure of
one's value. CEOs outrageously overvalue
themselves for doing little or nothing while
engineers and workers they mistreat do
EVERYTHING. That is neoliberalism and capitalism
in a nutshell.
Guaranteed Basic Income ends that. Set a max
income so there will be no more over-compensated
CEOs AND provide a decent income for EVERYONE,
gratis, so they are not forced to take a job
polishing the shoes of the useless eater CEOs.
I prefer the Universal Basic Income guarantee to
the Work guarantee. The Work guarantee guarantees
MAKEWORK
. "Here, have a broom
and do some sweeping with it. Somewhere."
Or, "Here's a desk and a pile of papers with
staples in them. Remove the staples."
"You! Toss this box of trash in the street and
you, walk behind him and pick it up and put it in
THIS box!"
Fuck work. In particular, fuck MAKEWORK. A job,
ANY job, just to say you have a job is CRAP.
Better: Income guarantee. Period. Gratis. If a
company wants you to do a job for them then they
will have to provide incentive enough to get you to
take the job. You don't HAVE to take a shit job
because you have a guaranteed income so employers
better offer a sweat deal like good pay and benefits
(and LESS pay and benefits for CEOs, etc the lazy
do-nothing self-entitled class).
The basic income and the job guarantee are
natural complements. In terms of the acquis that any
sovereign state must comply with (the UDHR,) you
have the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of [your]self and of
[your] family, and the right to free choice of
employment. Two different rights. That means work
should be an option.
The idea is, you're not on the treadmill, it's
the state that's on the treadmill, working
continually to fulfill your economic and social
rights. It's the state that bears duties, you have
rights. So if you want to do something and you need
structure, knock yourself out, work for the state or
some customer or boss. If you want to spend all the
time you can with your kid before the mass
extinction starves her, that's fine too.
When you ask people, Do you exist for the state,
or does the state exist for you? People are quick to
say, I don't exist for the state, that's
totalitarianism! But people seem to accept that they
exist for the economy. They accept that their life
depends on acceptable service to the labor market.
Just like I don't exist for the state, I don't exist
for the economy. The economy exists for me. That is
the revolutionary import of the ICESCR (and that's
why the US strangled Venezuela when Chavez committed
the state to it.)
Human rights is a complete, consistent and
coherent alternative to neoliberal market worship.
The idea sounds so strange because the neoliberal
episcopate uses an old trick to get people to hold
still for exploitation. In the old days, the
parasitic class invented god's will to reify an
accidental accretion of predatory institutions and
customs. Everybody nodded and said, I see, it's not
some greedy assholes, it's god's will. After a while
everybody said, Wait a minute. The parasitic class
had to think fast, so they invented the economy to
reify an accidental accretion of predatory
institutions and customs. So now you submit to that.
Suckers!
"All of humanity's problems stem from man's
inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
I am in favor of the job or income guarantee
program. We really should not and do not need to
work nearly as much as is common in U.S. (nevermind
the even more repressive slave labor in Asia). The
claim that "algorithms and robotization will reduce
the workforce by half within twenty years and that
this is unstoppable" seems like a pretty likely
scenario at this point. Why have we been working for
millenia to build this advanced civilization, if not
to relax and enjoy it and be DONE slaving away?!
I recently sold everything I had and travelled
around the US for 6 months, and it was delightful. I
was next to broke, but if I had an income guarantee
I could have had way more freedom to stop here and
there, get involved in who knows what, and enjoy
myself with very low stress.
I agree most people will not do anything
productive unless forced, but that is what we need
to finally work on: ourselves and our crippling
egos. The world is plenty advanced technologically,
we have made incredible inventions and that will
continue to happen, but people need to start working
on themselves inwardly as well or the outward world
will be destroyed.
What does being productive mean? Besides
making a profit for an oligarch. Everything is
work. Cook for yourself, not work. Cook for
someone else, work. Garden for yourself, not
work. Garden for someone else, work. Travel for
yourself, not work. Travel for someone else,
work. etc.
Has anyone run the numbers for a 4 day work
week, or 3? How about if full time work were
lowered to 30, 25 hours per week?
Automation was supposed to free up labors
time. Workers have participated in designing
automation, installing automation, testing
automation and training others for automation.
It's time labor takes the share of their labor
and if oligarchs get the permanent financial
benefit of labors efforts to automate, so does
labor.
We found [the pyramids] were not built by
slaves. They were built by well-paid skilled
labour. The problem in these early periods
was how to get labour to work at hard tasks,
if not willingly? For 10,000 years there was
a labour shortage. If people didn't want to
work hard, they could just move somewhere
else. The labour that built temples and big
ceremonial sites had to be at least
quasi-voluntary even in the Bronze Age c.
2000 BC. Otherwise, people wouldn't have
gone there.
We found that one reason why people were
willing to do building work with hard manual
labour was the beer parties. There were huge
expenditures on beer. If you're going to
have a lot of people come voluntarily to do
something like city building or constructing
their own kind of national identity of a
palace and walls, you've got to have plenty
of beer. You also need plenty of meat, with
many animals being sacrificed.
Archaeologists have found their bones and
reconstructed the diets with fair accuracy.
What they found is that the people doing
the manual labour on the pyramids, the
Mesopotamian temples and city walls and
other sites were given a good high protein
diet. There were plenty of festivals. The
way of integrating these people was by
public feasts.
Now, you can argue that labor is no longer
scarce, so the logic doesn't apply. But you
can't generalize that people won't work unless
forced; it's not true.
I see what you mean, but they built the
pyramids because they needed money to
survive, the beer and festivals is an added
bonus. Whether you call it slave labor or
working for a decent wage, the premise is
the same – your survival depends on doing
the work so you do it.
The distinction I think relates to what
waldenpond says above. People want to feel a
sense of ownership, meaning and community
around what they are doing, and then they do
it of their own volition, so it is not seen
as work. This is something quite rare in
todays labor market, but it doesn't have to
be that way.
Looks like people chose to work not just
for pay but for pay and the addition of
leisure activities (cooking, eating,
partying) and a sense of community.
I agree with this. I think of the people I
knew who had to work at two or more jobs, full
time or more, to be "allowed" to be a painter,
musician, writer, or performer, etc. It is
sapping us culturally, not to let the creative
people have time to do what they were born to
do. And I think at least a little of this lives
in all of us. There are things that we are born
to do. How much does our society let us be who
we are?
similar arguments made regarding all of the lands
in North and South America.
"they aren't using it for anything productive.
best we take it from them."
who are you to say what is productive in another
person's life? if we had a meaningful culture and
education in this debased society, each of us would
be able to make the decision about what exactly we
find most productive and worthy of our efforts, and
what isn't. since we have no public lands to hunt
and gather and fish and farm and live upon, we are
forced into this economic system. i find it odd as
heck that two people who are effectively
"unemployed" find it better for everyone else to be
chained to a money-for-work scheme. will you both be
signing up for some labor-conscription hours? will
it be compulsory for all, without ability to opt-out
except for complete physical/emotional disability
with no gaming by the rich? (my apologies if you all
do not agree, and i have misrepresented your
positions)
more rationales to make people love their chains,
please. because we know how this would work out:
rather as it does now when you sign up for
unemployment/food assistance-you MUST take the first
job for the first abuser that comes along and makes
an offer for you.
I think we should separate the wage/salary
component of work from social welfare provisioning.
Namely, universal health care and universal old age
pensions. The more you think about it in the context
of today's various pressures, the more sense it
makes.
Social welfare provisioning isn't just the
means of exchange, it's the ability to acquire
the necessities of survival of shelter, food,
heat etc. If the focus is just within the
capitalist system of private ownership and rent
seeking is not ended, the welfare is merely
passed through and ends with the oligarchs.
I have several questions, concerns with UBI. One
is if everyone is given a base salary who is to
decide what that amount should be. Will it be
indexed to inflation, what will it do to inflation,
specifically, inflation for housing, food,
healthcare.
Will a UBI be an excuse to gut all social
contracts/guarantees. Who will make those decisions.
What will happen to social services (public schools,
hospitals), and social needs (clean water, air,
sanitation/trash, police/fire protection).
Primitive human cultures traditionally "worked"
to fulfill their needs only 3-4 hours a day. The
rest was leisure, taking care of children/elderly,
and rest. I agree, that a large percentage of time
at work is wasted time due to hour artificial 9:5
business schedule. If we all perform work from home,
what will the hours be like? Will we have more time
to meet our neighbors and become more involved in
the community or will we be shut in our houses all
day not seeing anyone. Will the family unit be
stronger, since people will not have to travel
across the country for job opportunities and stay
near each other.
Who will be provided with basic education, will
that be free or for a fee, or will the idle
relatives and neighbors collaborate to provide it.
Will some neighborhoods/regions be more organized
and successful than others? Will all the "lazy
people" filter into future slums riddled with crime
and disease? Who will provide for them if there is
no longer any social services.
I'm sure someone has already posted this, but my
idea was to have a huge Federally funded
Environmental Cleanup Dept. that essentially hires
mass amounts of people to literally clean streets,
parks, waterways, sort through trash, etc. It's
needed, its relatively low skill labor, but at least
it could provide an alternative to Welfare, which is
a huge huge scam that's imprisons people in the
lowest class (cant own a car or land).
Obviously this doesn't solve the entire issue,
but it's become pretty clear that just having a huge
Welfare state will not work longterm, as Yves
mentions, the detriments are huge and real:
unskilled lower class, unmoivitated lower class
(more free time = more criminal activity), etc.
Again with the Americans are lazy myth. I
would argue criminal activity is more related to
being blocked by state violence from accessing a
thoroughly monetized society (poverty) and a
purposely bled social structure than from
boredom.
If a person has access to a share of the
resources of a society (shelter/food and
enrichment) they will not likely commit crime.
For those that want a rush, we can add some
climbing walls etc. ha!
For those that are critical of the'welfare
state'.. it isn't natural nor accidental, it's
purposeful. Stop putting in so many resources
(legal, political, financial) to create one.
What do you actually want to work
for
?
In early societies, you worked so that you and your
family and community didn't die, and could produce
the goods needed to make society function. But
that's changed, and today we work to earn the money
to pay other people to carry out these same
functions. We even work to earn the money to pay the
costs of working to earn the money to pay others. We
buy a house (which in the past would have been
constructed by the society) and have to pay to
travel to work to earn the money to pay for the
house, and then the insurance on the house, and the
business clothes, and then buy a car and insurance
on the car because the time we spend working and
traveling means we have to shop at the supermarket
instead of local shops, and then we pay a garage to
maintain the car, and we pay someone to look after
our garden because between trips to the supermarket
we don't have time ourselves, and then we pay
someone to look after our children because we work
so hard earning money to pay for childcare that we
have no time actually left for caring for our
children. And the idea is that everybody should be
guaranteed the right to do this?
In the drive towards totalitarianism, universal
basic income is the carrot that enables the
abolition of cash. India is the trial run. Although
after seeing what's transpired in India, it's
probably safe to say the ruling elite have wisely
concluded that it might be better to offer the
carrot before rolling out the stick.
There seems to be this false dilemma between the
impending "end" of work and the unlimited potential
of creative job creation. BOTH of these utopias are
apocalyptically blind to history.
In 2017 what counts as "work" - a job, wage labor
- is inseparably bound up with the consumption of
fossil fuel. A "job" consumes "x" barrels of oil per
annum. Lumps of labor are directly quantifiable in
lumps of coal.
The ecological implications of this are clearly
that the dilemma does not resolve itself into a
choice between different schemes for redistributing
some proverbial surplus. That "surplus" represents
costs that have been shifted for decades and even
centuries onto the capacity of the ambient
environment to absorb wastes and to have resources
extracted from it.
Can such an extractive economy continue
indefinitely? Not according to the laws of
thermodynamics.
A UBI might reduce the dire incentive to
"work or starve" at the same time as it
increases opportunities and incentives to
pursue the bright elusive butterfly of
"meaningful work." That would be good if it
was the only consideration. But it is not.
There is also an inconvenient truth about
the relationship between productivity and
fossil fuel consumption. In the industrial
economy, larger amounts of better work mean
more greenhouse gas emissions. Productivity
is a double-edged sword.
We have long since passed the point where
capital "diminishes labour time in the
necessary form so as to increase it in the
superfluous form; hence posits the
superfluous in growing measure as a
condition – question of life or death – for
the necessary."
Currently, world-wide carbon emissions
per year are roughly double what can be
re-absorbed by oceans and plants. This is
not to say that the re-absorption by oceans
is harmless –it leads to acidification. But
clearly more than half of the emissions are
superfluous to sustainability. Lo and
behold, carbon emission increase in virtual
lockstep with hours of work. In the U.S.,
the correlation between the two has been
about 95% over the last quarter century.
Don't even think of using the
"correlation doesn't prove causation"
gambit. We are talking about a "water is
wet" relationship. Fossil fuel is burned to
do work. Period. Not just correlation -
identity.
So the bottom line is we either need to
cut hours of work at least in half or the
remaining hours need to be
less
productive not more.
Reducing the hours of work also implies the
potential for redistributing hours of work to
create more jobs from less total work time. This
of course flies in the face of "
laws
of political economy
" that were discredited
more than a century ago but nonetheless get
repeated as gospel
ad nauseum
by
so-called "economists."
I like where this guy is trying to go, but I
think I'd put forth more of a
F-k Stupid Jobs
with Bad Pay
ethos, rather than
F-k Work
. Too oversimple too broad. Work, on some
level, is really all there is. The idea of a
collective life devoted to perpetual and unbridled
hedonism just sounds like death by holiday to me;
just as awful as working yourself into the grave.
As to Yves' notion - probably this is true.
Pressure is a fine agent for production and problem
solving; but I suspect that stagnant period might
just be a byproduct of the initial hangover. Guilt
is an engine that hums in many of us - I think most
people feel guilty if they spend an entire day doing
nothing, let alone a lifetime tossed away.
It is going to be interesting to see what happens
as the financial sector "high value" employees
continue to be replaced by passive investing and
computer programs. I suspect this process will
result in a rethinking of many of these people about
the value of work and job security.
I have been stating this also. So many tasks
are open to automation in law, healthcare
(remote offices), writing (algorithms), teaching
(one math teacher per language!), policing. I
can even imagine automated fire trucks that can
pinpoint hot spots, hook up to hydrants, open a
structure and target.
What we need is not a guaranteed minimum income,
but universal ownership of key productive assets,
like Alaska does with its Permanent Fund. These
assets could include partial citizenship ownership
of our largest corporations. All paid work would be
on top of this.
As Peter Barnes says, "With Dividends and Liberty
for All". Thus everyone would have a base income,
enough to prevent extreme poverty, but still with
plenty of incentives for jobs. Note: You'd also need
to make it illegal for these "dividends" to become
security for loan sharks.
I spent a lot of time over the holidays thinking
about the future of human work and came to this
conclusion: As we move forward, robots and other
automation will take over a lot of human work, but
in 3 areas I think humans will always have an edge.
I'll summarize these 3 essentially human endeavors
as: "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll", but each of
those is a proxy for a wider range of human
interactions.
"Sex work" (compare to "Fuck Work" from this
essay) means what it says, but is also a proxy for
human interactions such as massage, phys-therapy,
etc. Robots will encroach on this turf somewhat
(serving as tools), but for psychological reasons,
humans will always prefer to be worked over by other
humans.
Drugs is a proxy for human appreciation of
chemical substances. Machines will of course be used
to detect such substances, but no one will
appreciate them like us. The machines will need us
to tell them whether the beer is as good as the last
batch, and we must make sure to get paid for that.
Finally, rock-and-roll is a proxy for human
artistic expression as well as artistic
appreciation. Robots will never experience sick
beats the way we do, and while they may produce
some, again for psychological reasons, I think
humans will tend to value art created by other
humans above that produced by machines.
The good news is that the supply and demand
balance for these activities will scale in a stable
way as the population grows (or shrinks). So I think
the key is to make sure these types of activities
are considered "work", and renumerated accordingly
in our bright J.G. future.
Embattled Trump Reneges on Health Vow
March 21, 2017
President Trump promised health insurance for all, but – now dependent on the political
protection of House Speaker Paul Ryan – he is supporting a plan that will push millions
outside the system, writes Michael Winship.
By Michael Winship
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump still insists he's going to Make America
Great Again! Mind you, it won't be a healthy or vigorous America - in fact, it will be
coughing and wheezing to the grave, but boy, will it be great!
If you ever needed further evidence that Trump doesn't give a single good goddamn
about the people who elected him, just look at his treacherous turnabout on health care.
This Republican "repeal and replace" bill stinks on so many levels I'm tempted to say
it should be taken far out to sea and dumped into the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench
but I have too much regard for marine life, even the kind with the big googly eyes and
the really scary teeth.
Remember that Trump was the carnival barker
who declared during the campaign
, "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't
care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than
they're taken care of now." And right before his inauguration
he told
The Washington Post
, "We're going to have insurance for everybody.
There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it.
That's not going to happen with us."
Then along comes the proposed Republican bill, which over a decade, according to
the now-famous report from the Congressional Budget Office
, would see 24 million
fewer Americans with coverage, doubling the number of uninsured. Trump's own supporters
would take it on the chin for
what he tweeted
is "our wonderful new health care bill."
According to
John McCormick at
Bloomberg News
: "Counties that backed him would get less
than a third of the relief that would go to counties where Hillary Clinton won. The two
individual tax cuts contained in the Republican plan to replace Obamacare apply only
to high-earning workers and investors, roughly those with incomes of at least $200,000
for individuals and $250,000 for married couples."
And remember all that nonsense about Obamacare's "death panels," a falsehood so rotten
to the core it was declared
PolitiFact's 2009 Lie of the Year
? Well, this Republican bill actually
would
kill people. Those older would pay more than the young, it would strip Planned Parenthood
of funding and Medicaid programs would be slashed. It would eliminate money for the
Prevention and Public Health Fund
, which provides epidemiology, immunization and
health-screening programs. And there would be no mandate that employers with 50 employees
or more provide coverage.
Julia Belluz at
Vox
reports
on:"[V]ery high-quality studies on the impacts
of health insurance on mortality, which come to some pretty clear estimates. This research
suggests that we would see more than 24,000 extra deaths per year in the US if 20 million
people lost their coverage. Again, 20 million is less than the
24 million
the CBO thinks will lose insurance by 2026. So the death toll from an
Obamacare repeal and replacement could be even higher."
Ignoring the Needy
Notice that Trump has barely lifted a finger to assist those who need genuine reform
that would bring quality care to all, the kind of help he promised as a candidate. Instead,
he has directed his energies at helping Speaker Paul Ryan win over right-wing House members
by promising to make the bill even crueler to those who need health care the most.
Take a look at this statement issued by tea partier and Alabama Republican Rep. Robert
Aderholt after meeting with Trump on Friday, a statement so mind-boggling it's worth
quoting in full
:
"President Trump called me to the Oval Office this morning to discuss the American
Healthcare Act, because of his understanding that I could not support the current language
of the bill. I expressed to the president my concern around the treatment of older, poorer
Americans in states like Alabama. I reminded him that he received overwhelming support
from Alabama's voters.
"The president listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty
line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1,700 to $14,600 per year.
The president looked me in the eye and said, 'These are my people and I will not let
them down. We will fix this for them.'
"I also asked the president point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported.
He told me he supports it '1,000 percent.' After receiving the president's word that
these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes."
Can you believe it? Trump's behind the bill 1,000 percent, the President claims, but
don't worry, we'll fix it. It's hard to decide which of the two men is behaving more
hypocritically: Trump saying he won't let the people down or Aderholt claiming to believe
the President actually will keep his word. Each is endorsing a cutthroat scheme that
will bring nothing but grief to the people but hundreds of billions in tax breaks to
the wealthy and vast profits to the insurance industry.
According to
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
: "The top 400 highest-income taxpayers
- whose annual incomes average more than $300 million apiece - each would receive an
average annual tax cut of about
$7 million
, we estimate from Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) data."
Andy Slavitt, who was President Obama's acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services
told
The Washington Post
, "This is a massive tax cut for unpopular industries
and wealthy individuals. It is about cutting care for lower-income people, seniors, people
with disabilities and kids to pay for the tax cut."
This is,
in the words of Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut,
"a dumpster fire of a bill that
was written on the back of a napkin behind closed doors because Republicans know this
is a disaster." But thanks to ineptitude and an inchoate, ill-planned rush to pass the
legislation, it looks as if the current Republican bill may be on its way to failure,
if not in the House then in the Senate.
Lucky us - for now. But if the GOP and Trump White House do manage to force on us
anything short of what's really needed – single-payer, universal health care - we're
doomed to live in a nation the motto of which may no longer be "In God We Trust" but
instead, "Die young and leave a good-looking corpse."
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with
meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
______________________
Members[edit]
European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
Italy
Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
Norway
Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
Serbia
Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
Others
Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
Paraguay:
United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"
They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!
Funding[edit]
In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five
governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization
could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report
requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian
World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]
Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!
"Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. Yesterday, Jane Harmon on On
Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from
a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, and current member of the pundit class from
her position as the
First Woman
to Head the Wilson Center.
Let the word go forth from this time and place that the government works in your best interests, despite
the apparent fact that it doesn't work for most Americans and keeps delivering more and more benefits
to the oligarchy. Any attempt to explain it as deliberate policy is a fantasy, a fever dream of
rabid leftists
right wing nuts.
Funny how some are getting their undies in a twist over "foreign interference"
in our elections.
Globalists push global markets, global labor pools, global "race to the bottom" rules for white collar
crime. Yet are surprised/offended by "global elections". Especially when the US government interferes
(directly or indirectly) with every country on the face of the earth.
Maybe we should be happy that our government is for sale to the highest bidder, worldwide. After
all, global competition has done so much for US business and labor.
So we have Global Kleptocrats. In charge of the Global Banana Republic.
Watch that definite article. (What that Politico article shows is how
easy it is to write sloppy articles about the "deep state." That's because
the deep state is such a sloppy, amorphous concept. It's very sloppiness is
what makes it simultaneously (a) useful to our scribes in the political
class, who can (b) bang out stories with click-baity headlines easily, while
(c) disempowering to the rest of us (since to have power over your enemies,
you have to understand them).
And the plot thickens. Whoever said may you live in interesting times......had no idea. Can you feel the desperation from the
filthy corrupt democrats? The demonic spirits that reside in them are going berserk. The light is starting to shine on them and
their evil deeds are more transparent than ever. It's only gonna get better
Fox better rehire Napolitano before it is too late. But it is too late for the Wall Street Journal comparing Trump to 'a drunk'
clinging to 'an empty gin bottle' in scathing editorial.
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
pounding.
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
does."
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
today.
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
to pauperization.
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
Robert Parry)
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
beliefs.
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
years.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
of power.
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
famous Munich
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
basket.
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
"The decline of neoliberalism is emphatically not the decline of capitalism, so what does it
mean to say neoliberalism is past its sell-by date? Neoliberalism is not, after all, just a set
of policies that can be discontinued and replaced with something else - neoliberal capitalism has
birthed a complex global economy that isn't going to change overnight. Moreover, neoliberalism is
also an encompassing set of orienting ideas that pervades all spheres of life; its core ethos of
faith in private enterprise, ever-expanding commodification, and bootstrap individualism remains
robust" [
Jacobin
],
"The politics that prevail in America will determine whether the transition from neoliberal
capitalism to something else is a step forward or a descent into hell." Yep.
"... "There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed ..."
"... With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism, xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it. ..."
"... French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers - the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party. ..."
"... Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at any time in its 45-year history. ..."
"... Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done. Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters here. ..."
"... It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there. Yet he won. ..."
"... "Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said. "Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed. ..."
"... The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary. ..."
"... As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed voting for Hillary. ..."
"... I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by many, usually not allied, segments of population. ..."
As French Election Nears, Le Pen Targets Voters Her Party Once Repelled
By ADAM NOSSITER
MARCH 19, 2017
SANARY-SUR-MER, France - The National Front's leafleteers are no longer spat upon. Its local
candidate's headquarters sit defiantly in a fraying Muslim neighborhood. And last week, Marine
Le Pen, the party's leader, packed thousands into a steamy meeting hall nearby for a pugnacious
speech mocking "the system" and vowing victory in this spring's French presidential election.
"There's been a real evolution," Philippe Renault-Guillemet, the retired head of a small
manufacturing company, said as he handed out National Front leaflets in the market on a recent
day. "A few years ago, they would insult us. It's changed."
It has long been accepted wisdom that Ms. Le Pen and her far-right party can make it through
the first round of the presidential voting on April 23, when she and four other candidates will
be on the ballot, but that she will never capture the majority needed to win in a runoff in May.
But a visit to this southeastern National Front stronghold suggests that Ms. Le Pen may be
succeeding in broadening her appeal to the point where a victory is more plausible, even if the
odds are still stacked against her.
With a month to go, the signs are mixed. Many voters, particularly affluent ones, at markets
here and farther up the coast betray a traditional distaste for the far-right party. Yet others
once repelled by a party with a heritage rooted in France's darkest political traditions - anti-Semitism,
xenophobia and a penchant for the fist - are considering it.
"I've said several times I would do it, but I've never had the courage," Christian Pignol,
a vendor of plants and vegetables at the Bandol market, said about voting for the National Front.
"This time may be the good one."
"It's the fear of the unknown," he continued, as several fellow vendors nodded. "People would
like to try it, but they are afraid. But maybe it's the solution. We've tried everything for 30,
40 years. We'd like to try it, but we're also afraid."
French politics are particularly volatile this election season. Traditional power centers
- the governing Socialists and the center-right Republicans - are in turmoil. Ms. Le Pen's chief
rival, Emmanuel Macron, is a youthful and untested politician running at the head of a new party.
Those uncertainties - and a nagging sense that mainstream parties have failed to offer
solutions to France's economic anemia - have left the National Front better positioned than at
any time in its 45-year history.
But if it is to win nationally, the party must do much better than even the 49 percent support
it won in this conservative Var department, home to three National Front mayors, in elections
in 2015. More critically, it must turn once-hostile areas of the country in Ms. Le Pen's favor
and attract new kinds of voters - professionals and the upper and middle classes. Political analysts
are skeptical.
Frédéric Boccaletti, the party's leader in the Var, knows exactly what needs to be done.
Last week, he and his fellow National Front activists gathered for an evening planning session
in La Seyne-Sur-Mer, a working-class port town devastated by the closing of centuries-old naval
shipyards nearly 20 years ago. Mr. Boccaletti, who is running for Parliament, keeps his headquarters
here.
"I'm telling you, you've got to go to the difficult neighborhoods - it's not what you think,"
Mr. Boccaletti told them, laughing slyly. "Our work has got to be in the areas that have resisted
us most" - meaning the coast's more affluent areas.
It is not unlike the strategy that President Trump applied in the United States by campaigning
in blue-collar, Democratic strongholds in rust-belt Ohio. No one thought he stood a chance there.
Yet he won.
"Now, we've got doctors, lawyers, the liberal professions with us," Mr. Boccaletti said.
"Since the election of Marine" to the party's presidency in 2011, "it's all changed."
The backlash against neoliberal globalization creates very strange alliances indeed. That
was already visible during the last Presidential elections. When a considerable part of lower
middle class professionals (including women) voted against Hillary.
As Fred noted today (Why did so many white women vote for Donald Trump
http://for.tn/2f51y7s ) there were many Trump
supporters among white women with the college degree, for which Democrats identity politics prescribed
voting for Hillary.
I think this tendency might only became stronger in the next elections: neoliberal globalization
is now viewed as something detrimental to the country future and current economic prosperity by
many, usually not allied, segments of population.
"... [Arzheimer] found that the stronger the welfare state, the bigger the gains for far-right parties among the working class. The top third of countries - that is, the ones with the largest welfare states - saw roughly four times the rate of far-right support among the working class as the countries in the bottom third did. ..."
"... Welfare state policies are the link between economic crisis, unemployment and far right party support. Welfare cuts have increased the insecurity of the European middle classes that are being hit by the economic crisis. This matters because of the implications it has for policy. By reversing austerity, which results in welfare cuts and increases insecurity, we can limit the appeal of right-wing extremism. ..."
"... The typical model for how social democratic politics would defeat far-right reactionaries rests on the belief that "universal benefits enable a solidarity mindset" while "means-tested [benefits] enable resentment," as Ryan Cooper of The Week has argued. So one would expect that citizens living under social democratic welfare regimes would be more sympathetic to immigrants than those living under Christian democratic or liberal welfare regimes would. ..."
"... This suggests that less diverging lifestyles between the rich and the poor lead to more understanding towards (potential) immigrant welfare recipients among majority populations. Put differently, in more unequal societies the rich are more likely to consider minority groups deviant, and therefore less entitled to welfare. [Emphasis added] ..."
"... A 2014 study by Antonio Martín-Artiles, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Guglielmo Meardi, a professor at the University of Warwick, meanwhile, found that "social protection expenditure and unemployment benefits are correlated with a reduction in social inequality and the risk of poverty, ultimately contributing to the formation of attitudes favourable to immigration." ..."
Why Zack Beauchamp's piece arguing otherwise is wrong
Zack Beauchamp of Vox has written an article entitled "No
easy answers: why left-wing economics is not the answer to
right-wing populism." In this piece, he argues that "tacking
to the left on economics won't give Democrats a silver bullet
to use against the racial resentment powering Trump's success
[and] could actually wind up [making] Trump [stronger.]" Matt
Bruenig has written about the piece's odd moral implications;
I want to discuss some of the evidence Beauchamp provides,
and why I don't find it all that convincing.
There's plenty of evidence suggesting strong welfare
states can blunt the far-right
"A legion of commentators and politicians," Beauchamp
writes, "have argued that center-left parties must shift
further to the left in order to fight off right-wing
populists such as [Donald] Trump and France's Marine Le Pen."
Supporters of these leaders[, these commentators and
politicians] argue, are motivated by a sense of economic
insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a
stronger welfare state, one better equipped to address their
fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left.
Against these claims, Beauchamp contends that:
[A] lot of data suggests that countries with more robust
welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements.
Providing white voters with higher levels of economic
security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and
immigration - or, more precisely, it doesn't do it powerfully
enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it's
in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their
neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.
His main evidence for this claim consists of a study from
Kai Arzheimer, a professor at the University of Mainz,
looking at "data on working-class voters, the traditional
base of social democratic parties, between 1980 and 2002."
[Arzheimer] found that the stronger the welfare state, the
bigger the gains for far-right parties among the working
class. The top third of countries - that is, the ones with
the largest welfare states - saw roughly four times the rate
of far-right support among the working class as the countries
in the bottom third did.
There are plenty that conclude just the opposite. A 2003
study by Duane Swank of Marquette University and Hans-Georg
Betz of the University of Zurich, for example, based on an
"empirical analysis of national elections in 16 European
[countries] from 1981 to 1998" found that "the universal
welfare state directly depresse[d] the vote for radical
right-wing populist parties." Furthermore, a 2015 study by
Daphne Halikiopoulou and Tim Vlandas of the University of
Reading looking at the link between unemployment benefit
levels and far-right party success in the 2014 European
parliament elections found that across countries
"[u]nemployment benefits have a strongly negative and
statistically significant association with far-right
support." Based off of this, they write in The Huffington
Post that:
Welfare state policies are the link between economic
crisis, unemployment and far right party support. Welfare
cuts have increased the insecurity of the European middle
classes that are being hit by the economic crisis. This
matters because of the implications it has for policy. By
reversing austerity, which results in welfare cuts and
increases insecurity, we can limit the appeal of right-wing
extremism.
Anti-immigrant sentiment and the welfare state
Anti-immigrant sentiment (which Beauchamp argues is the
true driver of far-right support), has also been shown to be
ameliorated by stronger welfare states.
In his 1990 book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,
Gøsta Esping-Andersen, a professor at Pompeu Fabra University
in Spain, divided the welfare states of developed countries
into three types: liberal, Christian democratic, and social
democratic. The liberal category ("liberal" being used in the
classical, European sense) includes the US, as well as
Britain and Australia (among others)- countries that have
relatively small and highly targeted welfare states. The
Christian democratic category, on the other hand, is typified
by the welfare regimes that exist in Germany and Austria.
Falling in the middle between liberal type welfare states and
social democratic type welfare states in generosity, the
Christian democratic welfare state tends to make less use of
means-tested benefits than the liberal welfare state does,
but places more emphasis on preserving traditional family
structures through benefit design than the social democratic
welfare state tends to. Lastly, there is the social
democratic category, typified by the welfare regimes that
exist in the Nordic countries, which is the most generous and
universalistic of the three welfare regimes.
The typical model for how social democratic politics would
defeat far-right reactionaries rests on the belief that
"universal benefits enable a solidarity mindset" while
"means-tested [benefits] enable resentment," as Ryan Cooper
of The Week has argued. So one would expect that citizens
living under social democratic welfare regimes would be more
sympathetic to immigrants than those living under Christian
democratic or liberal welfare regimes would.
And indeed, a study by Jeroen Van Der Waal and Willem De
Koster of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Wim Van Oorschot
of KU Leuven finds that the "native[-born] populations of
liberal and [Christian democratic] welfare regimes are more
reluctant to entitle immigrants to welfare than those living
under social-democratic regimes." They conclude that the
reason why "the native populations in social-democratic
welfare regimes consider immigrants most entitled to welfare
[is] because of the low levels of income inequality" as
"higher levels of income inequality go hand in hand with
higher levels of welfare chauvinism." They then continue:
This suggests that less diverging lifestyles between the
rich and the poor lead to more understanding towards
(potential) immigrant welfare recipients among majority
populations. Put differently, in more unequal societies the
rich are more likely to consider minority groups deviant, and
therefore less entitled to welfare. [Emphasis added]
This point is especially significant given Beauchamp's
accurate observation that "[r]ight-wing populists typically
have gotten their best results in wealthier areas of
countries - that is, with voters who experience the least
amounts of economic insecurity."
"Our results" Van Der Waal, De Koster, and Van Oorschot
write, "indicate that strengthening policies and institutions
aimed at reducing income inequality can be utilized" to "help
in fighting" against "exclusionary sentiments".
A 2014 study by Antonio Martín-Artiles, a professor at the
Autonomous University of Barcelona, and Guglielmo Meardi, a
professor at the University of Warwick, meanwhile, found that
"social protection expenditure and unemployment benefits are
correlated with a reduction in social inequality and the risk
of poverty, ultimately contributing to the formation of
attitudes favourable to immigration."
Additionally, Markus Crepaz and Regan Damron of the
University of Georgia found in 2012 that "the more
comprehensive the welfare state is, the more tolerant
native[-born citizens] are of immigrants," while a 2009 study
by Xavier Escandell of the University of Iowa and Alin
Ceobanu of the University of Florida, looking at
"Anti-immigrant Sentiment and Welfare State Regimes in
Europe" found "mean levels of anti-immigrant sentiment" to be
"lower in those countries with high levels of public spending
in social protection programs." They therefore conclude that
"investments in social protection systems seem to have a
strong payoff when it comes to reducing prejudice towards
immigrants."
"... 'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that triggered a feud with America's closest ally' ..."
"How the U.K. spying claim traveled from an ex-CIA blogger to Trump's White House"
'Former intelligence analyst Larry Johnson, who has long attacked the U.S. intel community, is standing by his allegation that
triggered a feud with America's closest ally'
By Matthew Nussbaum...03/18/17...02:38 PM EDT
"...Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and blogger, acknowledges he was one of the sources for Fox News commentator Andrew
Napolitano's claim - later repeated by the White House..."
The Great Recession clearly gave rise to right-wing
populism
by Ryan Cooper
at's to blame for the resurgence of racist right-wing
populism? Since the election of President Trump, the American
left has been consumed with this question, with leftists
blaming the failures of neoliberal economic policy and
liberals leaning more on cultural explanations.
Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp has an entry in this debate on
the latter side. He argues that left-wing economic policy
actually causes people to be more racist, largely because
welfare states tend to disproportionately benefit poor
minorities and immigrants, and hence raise resentment among
whites. But his account of economics is jarringly incomplete
- in particular, skipping almost entirely over the financial
collapse of 2008, the ensuing plague of austerity, and the
ongoing eurozone currency crisis. And this provides by far
the strongest evidence for the leftist case.
Let's review. In 2008, the whole world was convulsed by a
financial crisis, leading to mass unemployment in the United
States and Europe. The initial response was fairly similar in
both places, featuring immense public bailouts of ailing
banks. But after that, there was a sharp divergence: America
generally tried large fiscal and monetary stimulus, while
Europe did the opposite with spending cuts and tax increases
- that is, austerity - and tight money.
Though the U.S. stimulus was inadequate, the worst was
avoided, and economic conditions improved slowly, surpassing
its pre-crisis GDP by 2011. In Europe - and especially within
the eurozone, where the common currency became a gold
standard-esque economic straitjacket - the result was
disaster. So much austerity was forced on debtor nations that
they fell into full-blown depression. Greece's economy is
worse than that of America in the 1930s - and the eurozone as
a whole only matched its pre-crisis GDP in April of last
year.
Mass unemployment is electoral poison, and about every
party that happened to be holding power during the worst of
it - generally either center-right (Fianna Fáil in Ireland,
People of Freedom in Italy) or center-left (the Socialist
Party in France, the Democrats in America) - suffered serious
setbacks in subsequent elections. Radical parties on both the
left and right gained as establishment parties were badly
discredited. New fascist parties (Golden Dawn in Greece)
sprung to prominence, and older fascist-lite ones (National
Front in France) gained strength.
But Beauchamp barely even references this history,
restricting his argument almost entirely to welfare policy.
He assembles reasonably convincing evidence and expert
testimony to the effect that welfare states increase racist
resentment in both the United States and Europe. But he does
not mention mass unemployment, austerity, or the eurozone.
These are yawning absences in an article purporting to deal
with the social effects of economic policy.
Welfare is one chapter of leftist economic policy, but the
first and most important one is full employment. That is the
major route by which leftist economic policy can deflate
right-wing nativism. Center-left parties often claim to
support full employment, but they have manifestly failed to
do so over the last eight years, and arguably long before
that. (President Obama was plumping for austerity in February
of 2010, with unemployment at 9.8 percent.) Fascists organize
best in the chaos and misery of depression, as people lose
faith in traditional solutions and root around for
scapegoats. Is it really a coincidence that the Nazi
electoral high tide came at a time of nearly 30 percent
unemployment?
Now, politics is a chaotic process. It takes a lot of
ideological spadework to convince people that austerity is
the problem, and a lot of time and effort to build a
political coalition dedicated to an anti-austerity platform.
And sometimes it doesn't work well, as Beauchamp's detailed
discussion of the U.K. Labour Party's difficulties since
losing the elections of 2015 (on a pro-austerity platform,
mind you). But savage infighting within the party is likely
just as much to blame for Labour's collapse as leader Jeremy
Corbyn's left-wing views. Sometimes political coalitions
fracture over personality and internal struggles for
dominance.
What's more, Beauchamp doesn't mention other cases where
organizing has been more successful, such as Greece or Spain,
where parties that didn't even exist before the crisis have
leaped to the front rank of politics. In Greece, the
center-left PASOK has all but ceased to exist, while the
left-wing Syriza actually won in 2015 very obviously because
of their anti-austerity platform (the fact that they later
were prevented from implementing it at economic knifepoint by
eurozone elites notwithstanding). Now, the fascists are the
only credible anti-austerity party left in that beleaguered
country.
It's perfectly plausible - obvious even - to say that
immigration or more welfare can lead to a racist backlash,
especially if you means-test benefit policy to restrict it to
disproportionately minority poor people only, as American
liberals tend to do. But it simply beggars belief to argue
that running on full employment and an end to austerity in a
time of depression is a guaranteed loser.
"... Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42] ..."
"... Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith. ..."
"... I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that. ..."
"... Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place ..."
"... Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here. ..."
"... Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal. ..."
"... A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies. ..."
"... A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack. ..."
"... This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. ..."
"... I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies. ..."
"... It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit. ..."
"... Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.) ..."
"... It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ..."
"... The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.) ..."
"... Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!) ..."
"... C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists." ..."
"... It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos. ..."
"... Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about. ..."
"... Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton. ..."
"... We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest. ..."
First, to explain our basic concepts and most important insights in plain English. Famously,
Paul Samuelson, the founder of modern macroeconomics, was asked whether economics told us anything
that was true but not obvious. It took him a couple of years, but eventually he gave an excellent
and topical example – simply the theory of comparative advantage.
Similarly, I often say that the most useful thing I did in my 6 years as Chief Economist at
DWP was to explain the lump of labour fallacy – that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the
economy, and increased immigration or more women working adds to both labour demand and labour
supply – to six successive Secretaries of State. So that's the first.
Second is to call bullshit.
O.K. I call bullshit. What Portes explained "to six successive Secretaries of State" was
a figment of the imagination of a late 18th century Lancashire magistrate, a self-styled "
friend
to the poor " who couldn't understand why poor people got so upset about having their wages cut
or losing their jobs - to the extent they would go around throwing rocks through windows, breaking
machines and burning down factories - when it was obvious to him that it was all for the best
and in the long run we would all be better off or else dead.
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
simply the return of the repressed - the obverse of "Say's Law" (which was neither Say's nor a Law)
that "supply creates its own demand," which John Maynard Keynes demolished in The General Theory
of Employment, Interest and Money and that John Kenneth Galbraith subsequently declared "
sank without trace " in the wake of Keynes's demolition of it.
I call bullshit because when Paul Samuelson resurrected the defunct fallacy claim that
Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State, he did so on the condition that governments
pursued the sorts of "Keynesian" job-creating policies that the discredited principle of "supply
creates its own demand" insisted were both unnecessary and counter-productive.
But the lump of labor argument implies that there is only so much useful remunerative work
to be done in any economic system, and that is indeed a fallacy . If proper and sound
monetary, fiscal, and pricing policies are being vigorously promulgated , we need not resign
ourselves to mass unemployment. And although technological unemployment is not to be shrugged
off lightly, its optimal solution lies in offsetting policies that create adequate job
opportunities and new skills.
[Incidentally, as Robert Schiller has noted, the promised prevention of mass unemployment by vigorous
policy intervention did not imply the preservation of wage levels. Schiller cited the following passage
from the Samuelson textbook, " a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of
technological shifts in an industry can he adapted to - lower relative wages and migration of labor
and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers."]
I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was
not even Paul Samuelson's policy-animated zombie lump-of-labour fallacy but a supply-side, anti-inflationary
retrofit cobbled together by Richard Layard and associates and touted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder
as the Third Way " new supply-side
agenda for the left. " Central to that agenda were tax cuts to promote economic growth and
"active labour market policies" to foster non-inflationary expansion of employment by making conditions
more "flexible" and lower-waged:
Part-time work and low-paid work are better than no work because they ease the transition from
unemployment to jobs.
Encourage employers to offer 'entry' jobs to the labour market by lowering the burden of tax
and social security contributions on low-paid jobs.
Adjustment will be the easier, the more labour and product markets are working properly. Barriers
to employment in relatively low productivity sectors need to be lowered if employees displaced
by the productivity gains that are an inherent feature of structural change are to find jobs elsewhere.
The labour market needs a low-wage sector in order to make low-skill jobs available.
I call bullshit because in defending the outcomes of supply-side labour policies, Portes soft-pedaled
the stated low-wage objectives of the Third Way agenda. In a
London Review of Books review, Portes admitted that "it may drive down wages for the low-skilled,
but the effect is small compared to that of other factors (technological change, the national minimum
wage and so on)." In the Third Way supply-side agenda, however, a low-wage sector was promoted as
a desirable feature - making more low-skill jobs available - not a trivial bug to be brushed aside.
In other words, in "driving down wages for the low skilled" the policy was achieving exactly what
it was intended to but Portes was "too discreet" to admit that was the stated objectives of the policy.
Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage.
He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's
most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached
their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative
advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple
the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally
the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are
the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing
returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest
on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they
wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42]
Galbraith also contends that "For most other commodities, where land or ecology places limits
on the expansion of capacity, the opposite condition – diminishing returns – is the rule. In
this situation, there can be no guarantee that an advantage of relative cost will persist once
specialization and the resultant expansion of production take place. A classic and tragic example,
studied by Erik Reinert, is transitional Mongolia, a vast grassland with a tiny population
and no industry that could compete on world markets. To the World Bank, Mongolia seemed a classic
case of comparative advantage in animal husbandry, which in Mongolia consisted of vast herds
of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats. Opening of industrial markets collapsed domestic industry,
while privatization of the herds prompted the herders to increase their size. This led, within
just a few years in the early 1990s, to overgrazing and permanent desertification of the subarctic
steppe and, with a slightly colder than normal winter, a massive famine in the herds."
Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics
lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain
someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement
that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics
was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith.
I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang
as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative
advantage.
James K Galbraith is the son of the famous New Deal economist John K Galbraith.
John K G:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
"In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot be stated in plain
language."
"I was an editor of Fortune under Henry Luce, the founder of Time, Inc., who was one of the
most ruthless editors that I have ever known, that anyone has ever known. Henry could look over
a sheet of copy and say, "This can go, and this can go, and this can go," and you would be left
with eight to ten lines which said everything that you had said in twenty lines before.
And I can still, to this day, not write a page without the feeling that Henry Luce is looking
over my shoulder and saying, "That can go." That illuminate one "problem" in our age of internet,
unlimited space to be verbose and no editors that de-obscure the writers "thoughts".
I wonder if this phenomenon – the desirability succinct communication -- was a holdover of
earlier times, when accurate communication made the difference between life and death. Settling
and developing a continent would place a high value on such purposeful human exchanges.
Today, we are awash in branding and marketing intended to maintain the current order. The language
is used to obfuscate, not clarify experience or goals.
An expert in any field that has the ability to communicate in a general , popular mode, is
of great value to society. Truth and understanding is its main function. Knowledge, or insight
that cannot be shared is more often than not just an excuse to hide methods of control and exploitation.
If citizens can't get the generalities right, the specifics will be impossible to comprehend.
Almost everything can go. I remember seeing a video of the photographer William Klein saying
a master photographer is remembered for just a handfull of images. Maybe 10 or 15, tops. Out of
probably at least 100,000 serious photos.
Of course what goes is necessary fertilizer for what doesn't go. You can't avoid it. Hahahah.
But you have to let it go anyway. Or your editor has to be williing to cut.
I've noticed lots and lots of posts here could be a lot better if the post author had said
the same thing in half as many words. Most wouldn't lose any persuasion, if they had any to begin
with. And they'd gain reader attention for the pruning.
I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that
quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who
write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just
being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know
better than to write like that.
Having saidd all that, Say was rite. If the supply of labor increases, that createes its
own demand for jobs! How is that not completely obvious.
Huffington Post review has a synopsis of the Ha-Joon Change book.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
My favorite: Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics
doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the
rich in the first place
Thanks for the tip PK & thank you fd for the link to the review. I'm going to check this fellow
out; sounds like he has some interesting things to say. One of the "things" that may apply to
the above article:
Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important
economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual
reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little
to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated
by the experts here.
Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael
Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with
Samir Amin of Senegal.
A word of warning from the UK. Denigrate experts too much and you end up like us with government
by people who really are inexpert. That is not an improvement.
Ha! I think an anti brexiter just rolled the white eye.
Strange that the awful things that the experts told us all would happen haven't and don't look
like happening since the people called bullshit on the EU mess. Britain with or without those
blokes in dresses up north will do just fine as they steer themselves out of the EU quagmire.
I'll take the people anytime anonymous – they have more common sense than the experts. Didn't
you read the article?
I remember back in the 1980s, when so-called "experts" were prattling about such nonsense as
. . .
"Computers don't make mistakes, humans make mistakes !"
Which was surely untrue as anyone with any real IT expertise back then would have explained
that 97% or more of hardware crashes generate software problems (for obvious reasons).
A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently
selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the
evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of
communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological
preconceptions and justified their intended policies.
A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the
cure of a quack.
This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember
how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying
to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. This is in chemistry, so things are
typically straightforward, no need for convoluted explanations and massaging of the data.
But people still do it because that's the culture that they've been educated in, a scientific
paper has to be high-brow, using obscure words and complicated sentences.
I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the
rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that
delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but
you have made powerful enemies.
It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit.
So in the end, we wind up with Say's Law anyway, since creating a "low wages" sector is exactly
how Say's Law functions–supply creates its own demand because declining wages means investment
spending can increase, which keeps aggregate demand where it needs to be for full employment.
This is the solution, we are told, to Keynes "sticky prices." Jim Grant makes this very argument
in his book about the "short-lived" crisis of the early 1920s. Leave workers exposed to starvation
long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis
of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and
start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.)
It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate
stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system.
High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral
life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."
The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little
problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be
exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.)
Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of
jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so
intelligent after all!)
Just finished a book called, The Death of Expertise , by a professor of national security
(oh give me a frigging break!!!!), Tom Nichols.
Biggest pile of crapola I have ever read! The author was also yearning for the days when "experts"
were blindly followed!
It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your
opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban
Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos.
The answer is that said "experts" have failed the general public miserably.
Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was
faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot
society. That"s what this was always about.
Now people wonder, why they don't trust "experts"?
Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts",
particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq
would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence
to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we
are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed
Clinton.
We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves.
We need experts who act in the public interest.
Britain Livid on Spying Claim, but Trump Isn't Apologizing. White House aides scrambled to deal with an unusual rupture after
suggesting that former President Barack Obama used a British spy agency to wiretap Donald J. Trump during the campaign.
At a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Trump made clear that he felt the White House had nothing to
retract.
WASHINGTON - President Trump provoked a rare public dispute with America's closest ally on Friday after his White House
aired an explosive and unsubstantiated claim that Britain's spy agency had secretly eavesdropped on him at the behest of President
Barack Obama during last year's campaign.
Livid British officials adamantly denied the allegation and secured promises from senior White House officials never to
repeat it. But a defiant Mr. Trump refused to back down, making clear that the White House had nothing to retract or apologize
for because his spokesman had simply repeated an assertion made by a Fox News commentator. Fox itself later disavowed the report.
...
this equally applied to those with the virulent fixation on Russia completely out of control.
== end of quote ==
Neoliberal DemoRats might pay dearly for this "poisoning of the well" trick -- McCarthyism witch hunt.
We need to remember that corruption of politician is sine qua non of neoliberalism. "Greed is good" completely replaced 10
Commandments.
But the first rule of living in a glass house that modern Internet provides (in cooperation with intelligence agencies, Google,
Microsoft and Facebook) is not to throw stones.
Russia is not Serra Leon with rockets. I am afraid that Russia might have a lot of info about corruption of major Democratic
politicians as most of them took bribes from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs (whom they essentially created) and some (old Clinton
"associates" like Summers) closely participated in "great economic rape of Russia" of 1991-2000. All neatly recorded and waiting
their hour for release.
At some point Putin's nerves might break and he can order to release this information. Then what ?
"... Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state. ..."
"... For those unsure what the exchange was about, we suggest you read the Telegraph's " Barack Obama 'approved tapping Angela Merkel's phone 3 years ago'... President Barack Obama was told about monitoring of German Chancellor in 2010 and allowed it to continue, says German newspaper ." ..."
"... And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's mention of the wiretapping story. ..."
"... Finally, as Axios adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything. " ..."
Following today's latest developments over Trump's allegations that the UK's GCHQ may or may not have helped Obama to wiretap the
Trump Tower, an allegation which the infuriated British Spy Agency called "utterly ridiculous" and
prompted it to demand an apology from the White House, a German reporter asked Trump for his current opinion on whether Obama
had indeed wiretapped Trump. The president's response: he gestured to Angela Merkel and said " on wiretapping by this past administration,
at least we have something in common."
Merkel's reaction was similarly amusing: almost as if she had heard for the first time that in 2010, and for years onward, Barack
Obama had been wiretapping her and countless other heads of state.
And incidentally, in yet another change in the official narrative, after both Sky News and the Telegraph reported earlier today
that the White House had apologized to Britain over the accusation that its spy agency had helped Obama spy on Trump, the NYT reported
that the White House has said there was no apology from either Spicer or McMaster, and that instead the Administration defended Spicer's
mention of the wiretapping story.
WH now sez there was no apology to Brits from @PressSec /McMaster;
they fielded complaints & defended Spicer's mention of wiretapping story
Finally, as
Axios
adds , after Trump and Merkel left the stage reporters again asked Sean Spicer whether he apologized for repeating an anonymously
sourced Fox News claim that British intelligence helped in wiretapping Trump Tower. His response: " I don't think we regret anything.
"
"... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
"... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
"... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
"... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace,
and prospertiy, imo, of course
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
"Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"
By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM
"In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had
used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported
President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:
Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources
have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he
didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British
intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving
candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on
this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.
This is an explosive accusation.
What's GCHQ?
GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages
in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of
the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive
collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship.
In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both
capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."
Close collaboration can lead to temptation
Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence
agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern
Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's
citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission.
She furthermore suggests that:
The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans
without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national
intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the
privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll
spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially
unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.
Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI
or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.
But don't jump to conclusions
Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent
the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is
wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate.
The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies
have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere
concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the
Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal
that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement.
The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no
appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship
for decades.
Nor is there any actual proof
Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As
he describes it on his own website:
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known
as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers,
so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions
of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services,
Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong
claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious
in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's
not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship.
It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge
of what happened.
Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders
and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because
it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America
in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised
to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata
on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications,
or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.
This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation
President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's
statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous
about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will
be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize
continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration
agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II.
The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations
about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason
to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."
*Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.
== quote ==
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality.
It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's
links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.
Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the
mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.
Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his
connections to Russia.
"... What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan war? ..."
"... The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition. ..."
"... Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable terms. ..."
"... These precepts no longer apply.... ..."
"... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion. ..."
"... When was the last time you saw a major economist...or a prominent Democrat complain about wasteful 'defense' spending? ..."
The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan
By ANDREW J. BACEVICH
BOSTON - Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever?
When it comes to wars, we Americans have a selective memory. The Afghan war, dating from October
2001, has earned the distinction of having been forgotten while still underway.
President Trump's Inaugural Address included no mention of Afghanistan. Nor did his remarks
last month at a joint session of Congress. For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies
at best as an afterthought - assuming, that is, he has thought about it all.
A similar attitude prevails on Capitol Hill. Congressional oversight has become pro forma.
Last week Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of Central Command, told Congress that the Pentagon would
probably need more troops in Afghanistan, a statement that seemed to catch politicians and reporters
by surprise - but that was old news to anyone who's been paying attention to the conflict.
And that's the problem. It doesn't seem that anyone is. At the Senate hearings on the nomination
of James Mattis as defense secretary, Afghanistan barely came up.
To be fair, Mr. Mattis did acknowledge that "our country is still at war in Afghanistan," albeit
without assessing the war's prospects. In response to a comment by Senator John McCain, the Armed
Services Committee chairman, that "we are in serious trouble in Afghanistan," Mr. Mattis merely
allowed that the Taliban had "eroded some of our successes."
That was it. No further follow up. Other members of the committee, Republican and Democratic,
focused on more pressing concerns like seeking to induce Mr. Mattis to endorse military programs
and installations in their home state.
The military brass deserves some of the blame. Soon after Mr. Mattis's hearing, Gen. John Nicholson,
the latest in a long line of American commanders to have presided over the Afghan mission, arrived
in Washington to report on its progress. While conceding that the conflict is stalemated, General
Nicholson doggedly insisted that it is a "stalemate where the equilibrium favors the government."
Carefully avoiding terms like "victory" or "win," he described his strategy as "hold-fight-disrupt."
He ventured no guess on when the war might end.
All of this flies in the face of what the conflict in Afghanistan has become, a reality made
clear in a recent report from the Defense Department's special inspector general for Afghanistan
reconstruction.
Despite appropriating over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on Afghanistan since 2001,
Afghan security forces continue to be plagued by the problem of inflated rolls, with local commanders
pocketing American-supplied funds to pay for nonexistent soldiers; according to the report, "The
number of troops fighting alongside 'ghost soldiers' is a fraction of the men required for the
fight."
Large-scale corruption persists, with Afghanistan third from the bottom in international rankings,
ahead of only Somalia and North Korea. Adjusted for inflation, American spending to reconstruct
Afghanistan now exceeds the total expended to rebuild all of Western Europe under the Marshall
Plan; yet to have any hope of surviving, the Afghan government will for the foreseeable future
remain almost completely dependent on outside support.
And things are getting worse. Although the United States has invested $70 billion in rebuilding
Afghan security forces, only 63 percent of the country's districts are under government control,
with significant territory lost to the Taliban over the past year. Though the United States has
spent $8.5 billion to battle narcotics in Afghanistan, opium production there has reached an all-time
high.
For this, over the past 15 years, nearly 2,400 American soldiers have died, and 20,000 more
have been wounded.
What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those
increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery
prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan
war?
The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons
purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior
military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition.
Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war
proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable
terms.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger.
From the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the
children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster
bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how
they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and
its allies in the form of wounded veterans and contractors. Yet, the expenditures noted on government
ledgers are necessary to apprehend, even as they are so large as to be almost incomprehensible....
"... "The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they certainly know how to get millions killed by others. ..."
"... Their money ensures that their aggressive writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State." ..."
"... What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters? ..."
"... The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. ..."
"... After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy of Benghazi have never happened. ..."
"... Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain. ..."
"... I recommend reading the latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton as President. ..."
"... I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent examples of how 'small' is good. http://journal-neo.org/2017/03/15/us-expands-defacto-syrian-invasion/ The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama. ..."
"... Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large proportion of our politicians fit the description. ..."
"... "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks." ..."
"... "the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers." ..."
"... For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist" in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21] ..."
"... Here's Andrew Bacevich's 2014 piece on the Kagans: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/duplicity-ideologues ..."
"... But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was the CIA who meddled with the US election. ..."
"... "The US military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?" ..."
"... On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars. ..."
"... It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February. Thanks to Victoria Nuland! ..."
"... Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented, " No American President can stand up to Israel " ..."
"... the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. ..."
It's not the Family Kagan, but rather as Glenn Greenwald dubbed them, The Warrior Kagan
Family with a trade mark sign as suffix.
I'll bet Victoria resigned from State, seeing her future there granting visas in Baku.
Thanks, Robert, I haven't had a Kagan fix in quite a while!
Kiza , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
As to Mr Parry, calling them the American neocon royalty, it certainly is some foul-mouth royalty,
telling another Zio servant EU to get f'ed.
Thank you Robert Parry for a great article, just like Bart I was wondering what happened to
the cookie distributing "royalty" after the Clinton fail. It is not surprising that they are now
learning to manipulate outcomes from the opposition. Their money ensures that their aggressive
writings still get published in the usual Deep State media. I particularly liked a touch of light
humor by Mr Parry: "There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how
sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife,
Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of State."
Between the Clinton liberals and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours , as
Pepé Le Pew likes to say.
Skip Edwards , March 15, 2017 at 11:28 pm
"The Warrior Kagan Family", that must have been Greenwald's big joke, I hope. Those people
give a meaning to the name chickenhawks, they would not know from which end a gun fires, but they
certainly know how to get millions killed by others.
I learned how to laugh again; and, at the expense of all those despicable Kagen's.
Joe Tedesky , March 15, 2017 at 11:49 pm
KIza there is good news inside Robert Parry's article if you look for it. One good thing is
that Hillary isn't the president, and if she were one could only imagine what her and the Kagan's
would be up to right now. The other piece of good news, is that the Kagan's are writing op-eds
and not working for the Trump Adminstration.
Now I have read somewhere where the U.S. is working with Russia, and that for the most part
for now has to be done on the low key. Of course with news being 'fake' and all of that, who's
to know?
What is troublesome is with the Kagan's screaming out, 'watch the Russians, beware of the
Russians' and with the 24/7 MSM alarm bells going off over Russia, will the Trump Adminstration
need to craft their foreign policy around the likes of these Russia Haters?
Cheney and Rumsfeld developed 'the Continuity of Government Program' and I'm wondering if that
cast of characters could seep into the mix of things? Plus don't forget the ever reliable CIA
So with all of that working against you, one could only wonder if Ghandi and Jesus could do much
better up against this evil array of villains.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 12:10 am
Here is something worth reading Tony Cartalucci explains the Deep State, and goes on to talk
about how it may be defeated. Here's a hint, the world will not be run by the New World Order.
Very good link, Joe!! The common denominator is profit and increased market share fueled
by greed ..Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of the average USA investor who fuels the
stock market looking for the best return on his/her money. I would not look for much altruistic
behavioral changes in human nature Greed is still the preferred method of operation .and firmly
in control ..
Joe, many thanks for this powerful link on the deep state, and its explanation of the multi-polar
conditions needed, and as happening, plus the link you supplied below related to what's going
on in Syria, also clear and helpful.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm
I'm glad that you all found the link to be informative. I am posting another link to a Tony
Cartalucci article that got my attention of his work a few years ago, and ever since I look forward
to reading his reporting.
This link is interesting for the fact that the original article was published March 2012 which
was somewhere in the neighborhood of six months before the deadly attack took place in Benghazi.
After finding this early warning essay by Cartalucci I have often wondered that if our MSM were
to have scooped this kind of news regarding the travels of Senator John McCain would the tragedy
of Benghazi have never happened.
Plus this article adds insight to how the Deep State operates. McCain should be the one
held for high treason, but as things are that will never happen. The more you may learn the more
you may find that Donald Trump seems to be less of a problem than we all know. Now that isn't
an endorsement of Trump, as much as it is a heads up to notice who all is behind the curtain.
Curious , March 16, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Thanks for the two links Joe. I didn't think it was possible for me to dislike McCain more
than I already did, but I was wrong. I did like Senator Pauls' comment about McCain today however.
He basically said McCain is a perfect example of why we should have term limits in the Senate,
which is so true.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 12:24 am
Oh no, I did not mean that it is bad news this is why I wrote that the Kagans are learning
to spew hate from the opposition not from the government. Like D5-5, I recommend reading the
latest blog by Moon of Alabama and enlightened comments. You will get further details on what
the Kagans' plans are – what they would have done for sure under their L'Amour Toujours, Clinton
as President.
As to Jesus, he self-sacrificed himself to show the way out of human predicament. Jesus was
fighting against such ideologues of hate and moneychangers as the Kagans, who are an exemplar
of the mad-gleaming-eye-greedy-finger types so well known in the old Europe. Just observe the
first photo to the article: she looks like she would murder just about any baby in the world to
take her sweet candy.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 am
I read that moonofalabama, b is always right on. In fact b and Robert Parry are excellent
examples of how 'small' is good.
The above article by Tony Cartalucci is along the same lines as moonofalabama.
At this stage of the game the best that I can put forward with, is we got to take one day at
a time, in order to make sense of whatever the real news is going on inside Syria. From one article
to another it's hard to tell who's fighting, or going to fight who. With the atmosphere here in
America I'm waiting for an arrest to be made if you talk favorably about Russia, or Putin. Seriously,
our MSM cable news networks are going hells bells on this Russian hacking, Russian tampering with
our democracy, Russia has a puppet in the White House, Russia _______fill in the blank. We have
gone totally nuts this time, and it looks like we are going to stay that way for awhile.
I always like to ponder the politics that would have prevailed during the time of Jesus. If
you get a grasp on that then Jesus really stands out better for what he was preaching too, and
preaching against. I'm sure Herod or Ceasar had their Kagan's around in their day, and who knows
how discreetly those ancient Kagan's could have whispered vile and nasty ideas of war and conquest
into their leaders head. When it's all about power and money it's easy to lose ones head, or so
they say. Let's all hope the Kagan's amount to be nothing more than sore losers.
Peter Loeb , March 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
WITH MCCAIN AS HELPER
A good comment Joe Tedesky.
As to Syria, we already have invaded and already plan more (see Defense Appropriation). Of
interest would be Putin's response on the ground.
(When Netanyahu went to Moskow to ask for help in getting Syria to reign in Iran, he was referred
to the sovereign government of Syria! Is the current (and future) US invasion of the sovereign
state of Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Government??
Ans: No! See UN Charter on aggression, I think it is Article 4(2) if memory serves. Besides
the current administration wants to make all its sins of commission such as drones done by the
CIA Which is to say covert and not accountable to anyone (such as DOD, White House etc.).Our
invasion will evidently be
accountable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
I am certain Moscow has a plan, a response (diplomatic or otherwise).
Donald Trump likes war and being "Commander-in-Chief". All countries involved in war are always
absolutely persuaded that their victory will be quick, easy etc.It also helps(??) the US economy
as all wars have for hundreds of years. No one will oppose more money for defense. I have already
contacted my Mass. Senators in regard to funds for the invasion of Syria as well as my Congressional
Representative. (I expect little support. All lawgivers are dependent on AIPAC support )
--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:15 am
Except for Desert Storm every war has lasted long past it's end date, and even one could argue
over Desert Storm if you add in the time of occupation or establishing no fly zones to how long
we have been there.
I'm not all that sure yet that Trump likes war. There are times he stresses peace, after he
rally's the people around a powerful military speech. Now, what I do worry about is the people
around him. NIkki Haley just recently in a NBC interview said how we should never trust Russia.
Wow, and she is our UN ambassador. So much for statesmanship and diplomacy.
As far as our CIA goes they are going to get everyone on this planet killed. It's long overdue
to crunch the CIA down to being an information gatherer and stop with the convert intrigue. If
we factor in stability and the quality of human life, then tell me about the one CIA operation
which has been a success. The CIA's interference, and trashing of foreign government sovereignty
is a disgrace, and should I add be prosecuted as a war crime in the highest order. If Trump could
shred the CIA into a thousand pieces then I say, do it Mr President.
The real problem we face while attempting to establish the Yinon Plan, is that we will finally
either partner with Russia somehow over something, or end up fighting Russia and possibly not
fight them through proxies. I don't see either Russia or the U.S. using nukes on each other at
first, but I would be praying for the poor souls in places such as Iran, Yemen, or places like
that. And while we are at it North and South Korea, and once again Japan would most likely be
countries well inside the lines of being in jeopardy.
Russia, and China, should be our natural allies, but there's nothing natural about our country's
foreign policy when world hegemony overrides man's human nature to life in peace.
John , March 16, 2017 at 4:24 pm
Joe,
The other piece of good news is that they are actually starting to walk back the Russia hacked
the election an we can prove it nonsense. Read Glenn Greenwald's latest piece at The Intercept.
At long last sir have they actually some human decency? Nah!!!
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Thanks John I will be sure to read Greenwald's article, but you know we in America need a bogey
man .so if not Russia then who?
Concerning the foul-mouthing, I was disturbed to hear such strong talk (at least to this earthy
soul) in such a delicate voice. To me a sign of psychopathy is the habit of using emotionally
loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content. Another is causing
the killing of no small amount of people with a large amount of apparent unconcern, but then again
that's a net which would drag an alarming amount of people from corridors of power. Perhaps the
majority of these have mastered the art of matching tone and content in their requirement to at
least appear Human to their subjects.
Kiza , March 16, 2017 at 6:00 am
Excellent point – how to quickly recognise psychopaths: "psychopathy is the habit of using
emotionally loaded language in tones which betray no actual connection to the content". A large
proportion of our politicians fit the description. Thank you.
Nastarana , March 16, 2017 at 10:34 am
Kiza, Please don't forget that is a "sign of psychopathy". There are other kinds of derangement
in which the unfortunate sufferers are prone to the use of inappropriate body language and verbal
tone, but are not necessarily a danger to others. As for the Kagans, I consider them to be criminals,
plain and simple.
Anon , March 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
I am waiting to see the male ballerina "foot soldiers" demanding transgender bathrooms in the
trenches.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Anon in 1919 Max Sennett was way ahead of you. You might get a kick out of watching Sennett's
movie called 'Yankee Doodle in Berlin'. It is a story about an American soldier dressed as a woman
going behind enemy lines to entice the Kaiser. Also notice the slanted propaganda of the way American
Hollywood film producers were characterizing the Germans. We are all but a product of who came
before us I'm sad to say .but hey enjoy the silent flick anyway.
Oh and with all due respect let's at least give a salute to Chelsea Manning.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:26 am
BART IN VIRGINIA!!
Are you really "Bart" as in short for "Bartholomew"!!!!
Parry, thank you for a GREAT article.
Early on you pegged them:
"Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded
U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically
in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump."
Then skillfully reminding us: "I noted two years ago in an article entitled "A Family Business
of Perpetual War": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped
launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending
so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes
quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates
the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations,
and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington
think tanks."
Your conclusion is actually overly optimistic:
"the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented
use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope
to the neocons and their agenda. It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but
they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice
but to buy into their belligerent schemes. As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted
the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade
a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats
and liberals as the foot soldiers."
Instead, the Deep State is preparing to begin getting rid of Trump on June 1st:
IF you the reader haven't read my "The Deep State Versus President Trump" it is time (on Amazon
for only $12.95 or less).
Parry, I will immediately post this EXCELLENT article on Facebook. Because my wife and I are
living "by the skin of our teeth" on social security, I can't make a donation, but I will send
in an article on why the Deep State wants Trump gone as a pro bono contribution. Hope you think
it is worthy of publication.
Dr. Bart Gruzalski, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy (ethics, public policy) and Religion
(books: "On the Buddha": "On Gandhi"; and "Why Christians and World-Peace Advocates Voted for
President Donald Trump"), Northeastern University, Boston, MA-and the only Ph.D. in philosophy
among the thousands that I and my mentor Professor Samuel Gorovitz know who voted for and supports
Trump [no, Sam was and is opposed to our POTUS].
dineesh , March 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Who is behind them rascals?
evelync , March 15, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Good question! And I don't know the answer, but I googled the question and FWIW depending on
the reliability of the writers of the articles, here's what I found:
"A Family Business
There's also a family-business aspect to these wars and confrontations, since the Kagans collectively
serve not just to start conflicts but to profit from grateful military contractors who kick back
a share of the money to the think tanks that employ the Kagans.
For instance, Robert's brother Frederick works at the American Enterprise Institute, which
has long benefited from the largesse of the Military-Industrial Complex, and his wife Kimberly
runs her own think tank called the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
According to ISW's annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations,
such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was
later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics,
Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which
provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing
of the CIA's venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to US military intelligence
in Afghanistan.
Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq
and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded US forces
in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war
in Ukraine. [See "Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War."]
"In 1983, Robert Kagan was foreign policy advisor to New York Republican Representative
Jack Kemp. From 1984–86, under the administration of Ronald Reagan, he was a speechwriter for
Secretary of State George P. Shultz and a member of the United States Department of State Policy
Planning Staff. From 1986–1988 he served in the State Department Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.[10]
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the now-defunct neoconservative think tank Project for the New
American Century with William Kristol.[3][5][11] Through the work of the PNAC, Kagan was a
strong advocate of the Iraq war.
From 1998 until August, 2010, Kagan was a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. He was appointed senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe
at the Brookings Institution in September 2010.[12][13][14][15] He is also a member of the
board of directors for the neoconservative think tank The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).[16]
During the 2008 presidential campaign he served as foreign policy advisor to John McCain,
the Republican Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2008 election.[17][18]
Since 2011, Kagan has also served on the 25-member State Department's Foreign Affairs Policy
Board under Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton[19] and John Kerry.[20]
Andrew Bacevich referred to Kagan as "the chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist"
in reviewing Kagan's book The Return of history and the end of dreams.[21]
It's not too difficult to identify the think-tanks the Kagans belong to or run. These organizations
have web sites, and the web sites usually list who the funders are. That's the information you
seek.
For example, the Institute for the Study of War is supported by the likes of General Dynamics,
CACI, Microsoft, Centerra, Capital Bank, etc.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 7:02 am
Robbie Martin has produced a three-part documentary on them rascals called "A Very Heavy Agenda."
It's well worth watching, but it's expensive the box set of the three DVDs costs $50.00. I opted
for the Vimeo version, where each part can be purchased for $6.99 or rented for $2.99. You can
watch the trailers and learn more at http://averyheavyagenda.com
.
Diana , March 16, 2017 at 8:10 am
You can find the Vimeo versions at
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/averyheavyagenda
. Watch the trailer for Part 3 and you will see that it refers to Robert Parry's "Family Kagan"
article.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:03 am
The ME warmongers are largely zionist Jews, including the Kagan/Nulands and the 2003 Iraq War
II sponsors SecDef Wolfowitz and his Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser installed
at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite war. The Kochs are of course
complicit. Any who aren't zionist Jews are after their stolen US funds to Israel, fed to stink
tanks and political bribe donations.
The war in Iraq was such a success that the US was forced out having ensured the pro-Iran government
it most feared, having built AlQaeda from a CIA proxy to a regional and then a worldwide enemy,
and having guaranteed the violent Sunni uprising now called IS. Read Bamford's Pretext for War.
Don't we need more of those wars.
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , March 16, 2017 at 9:29 am
dineesh,
This is a reply to your (lost in the undergrowth): MORE RASCALS, in fact, THE ENTIRE DEEP STATE.
dineesh's question: Who is behind those rascals.
D5-5 , March 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Take a look at Moon of Alabama on this Kagan rehash. The comments in response to the analysis
also recommended. Posted today.
Apparently, the lessons taught in Iraq have been forgotten.
Scott , March 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm
A lesson can be had only by those willing to learn. Democrats just lost over 900 seats across
state and federal offices and even that proved not to be a teachable moment.
Curious , March 15, 2017 at 7:50 pm
What a disturbing headline. I had hoped they would have been neutered after the Hillary defeat.
But Mr Parry, I think it will also be interesting to examine the 'Vault 7' disclosure with
regards to this Russia bashing. If the CIA has the ability to put out any email or documentation
without a trail as to its origin, the Kagans could be shown as the charlatans they are if it was
the CIA who meddled with the US election. It would shake their entire platform of blaming
Russia to the core. It is difficult enough as it is to tell the originator of many internal docs
leaked to the public, so the blame game is false as it is. I would welcome more release of the
CIA vault 7 if only to show how often the CIA is involved in internal US politics and "homeland"
situations. This meddling is supposedly against the law.
One could only hope.
Tannenhouser , March 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm
Not only that .A 'democrats' views are so symbiotic to a kagans shows they play for the same
team while occasionally wearing different color jersey's. Curious indeed . I share your hope.
As b says, analyst at Moon of Alabama (he's German by the way) on this topic, "The US military
will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds in coordination with Syrian government
forces. The Syrian government will also destroy al Qaeda in Idleb. The chance that Trump will
pick up on any of these neo-con plans is practically zero. But who knows?"
He also finds the Kaganista notions on a THIRD try at raising "the moderates" to get rid of
Assad "drinking the kool aid."
My question is how does this troop infusion, made problematical as Assad has not okayed it,
calling it illegal, and which includes 2500 "tip of the spear" paratroopers in Kuwait, move the
situation on, additional to (or beyond) the goal of cleaning out ISIS? To what, why? Suppose ISIS
defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic situation changes
for the sunnis) then what? Trump does an Obama and the US leaves again? Or cuts a deal with the
neocons on pipeline projects etc?
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm
I read that article. The Qatar Turkey Pipeline was one of the hoped for outcomes of the Regime
Change in Syria . This was problematic for Russia and will remain so. If the USA>NATO>EU thought
that they could bring Turkey into the fold with this pipeline it might make sense but right now
this is very unlikely.
Personally I do not think Trump and Tillerson would go for World War .Do not forget that China
is allied with Russia on this and they see Syria as very important to the completion of One Belt
One Road'. Israel's role in the region and in Syria should not be forgotten ever. They are anxious
about the Golan and Russia and they always want the USA to attack Iran. So does Saudi Arabia and
you may have noticed the Saudi Foreign Minister dropping a comment a couple days ago that this
planned action against Hezbollah and Iran is very much on the table.
There are many heads on the chopping block right now not just Assad's, enemies and allies also.
The Planners cannot control the outcome in Turkey (We played our card already), in Iraq, in Syria
or in Lebanon. WE are not liked. All the USA can do at this point is destroy, we can never win
hearts and minds in the Middle East.. Can of Worms.
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
I think the biggest worry is to hope that whoever loses can bear the cost of loss. This Syrian
war I don't think at this point is as much about ISIS as it is about land. Land for pipelines
mostly, but land for a whole host of other reasons as well. Sunni, Shia, and Kurds, are the predominant
people who are fighting for space, but so are countries like Turkey, Saudi's, and the Israeli's
in the Golan Heights. So stretching pipelines, and building new one road infrastrutures need land oh
and let's not forget the Shia Crescent and Iran. This area is so messed up I'm not that sure even
the winner will have won much more than a big headache.
Enjoyed reading both of your comments, and thought I'd make some noise to accompany your conversation.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:41 am
Joe, both the Syrian and Iraq wars now have two purposes. First is to prevent the dreaded "Shia
Crescent," and the second is to protect Israel. The latest surge in Iraq and Syria by the US forces
is to keep the perpetual wars going by creating "Sunni" zones in Iraq and Syria. When the Iraqi
Army and the Shia militias were battling the ISIS, there were no US boots on the ground. Same
thing in Syria. Consider the timing of this surge. ISIS is almost routed in Iraq and Syria and
all of a sudden Trump sends ground forces to help mop up the remnants of ISIS.
The real purpose is not to clean up ISIS but to prevent the government forces to establish
rule in Mosul. Saudi Arabia wants that part to remain Sunni. This way Iran doesn't win. The US
wants to divide Iraq in three parts, Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish, as has been her plan all along.
Similarly, in Syria, if Assad wins the whole of Syria is under his rule. By inserting herself
in the war, the US wants to set up a Sunni section on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel, to be
a thorn in Assad's side and a Kurdish side to punish Erdogan for his behavior and keep him occupied.
The wars will continue in the Middle East, the Military-Industrial Complex will continue to sell
weapons and Israel will be worry free.
What I don't understand is why is US so against the Shias. I can understand Israel's position.
Israel got her rear end kicked twice by a tiny Hezbollah force but why US. It can't be just to
please Israel or is it? So much bloodshed just for that.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:13 am
The US is involved solely to get political campaign funds from Israel stolen from US "aid".
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 10:25 am
Going back to the old communist days and Nassar the U.S. sided with Israel. That was back at
a time when we Americans were exposed to the propaganda that Israeli's were like us Americans,
and all Arabs were crazy. We were fine with Iran as long as we had the Shad there to protect our
interest. The Iran Hostage event was excellent PR to demonize Iran for over a forty year period,
and life goes on.
You and I along with many others here believe now is a great time to hit the Middle East reset
button .now how do we convince our country's leadership to do that, is the question.
John P , March 16, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Good article and I think you hit the nails on the heads MEexpert. Your final paragraph, I think
the U.S. wants a stable ally in the region and they believe Israel fills that roll, even though
I see little common interest in eithers ambitions, one for stability the other for annexations.
Perhaps the U.S. politicians hold their noses and hope.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:21 am
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline concept tried to break the "Shiite crescent" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon
and compete with the southern Russia-Turkey pipeline; otherwise they would not be seeking war
near pipelines that could more easily have coexisted.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 2:57 am
"Suppose ISIS defeated (replaced in how long by another ISIS unless the political/economic
situation changes for the sunnis) then what?"
Why such concern about the Sunnis? In Iraq only 20% population is Sunni. Yet Saddam, a Sunni,
ruled more that 60% Shias for 35 years and other Sunni rulers before that. There was no concern
for their feelings or their safety by Papa Bush in 1991 or after that when Saddam gassed the Shias
and the Kurds. Bahrain, on the other hand, at one time was 90% Shia with a Sunni ruler, thanks
to the British. The Emir of Bahrain has been systematically stripping the Shias of their citizenship
and importing Sunnis from other countries and giving them Citizenship by recruiting them into
the Bahraini Armed Forces. Even when the uprising started in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia moved in
there to put the uprising down, all US did was to send down the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs
to reassure the Emir of Bahrain and to make sure that the 5th fleet was safe.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm
@ ME Expert:
Thank you for your comments! I'm looking at the above responses, including the additional link
on Syria from Joe, which provides historical perspective also, in terms of US establishing a presence
in eastern Syria to be "a thorn in Assad's side" as you say, and continue to push for regional
control allied with Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
On your question why such concern about the Sunnis, here's my impression, which could be too
simple.
With the conquest of Iraq and Bremer's releasing the 400,000 military, a highly Shia favored
sort of revenge government program fell into place, favoring Shias and leading to problems for
Sunnis (including high unemployment) that led on to the creation of ISIS. If similar economic
and political problems are not dealt with, wiping out this iteration of ISIS could lead to another
version of it. I also have the impression the potential number of these dissatisfied, as potential
recruits, could number in many millions (not sure how many). I don't intend to take a position
favoring Sunnis, but am trying to understand the complexity of the grievances of whomever. As
part of this, my understanding is that many members of ISIS are not head-chopping maniacs but
joined as ISIS was the only available opposing force.
On your question why is the US so against the Shias, my impression is they haven't been against
the Shias in Iraq, while simultaneously (and shortsightedly) exercising no influence on fair governance
of Iraq following the 03 invasion, and this favoritism favored the Shias there and stirred Sunni
resistance. But, I'm thinking, the animosity toward Shias elsewhere is related to alignments in
the region, toward dominating the entire region, including taking down Syria and Iran. So it's
not so much animosity toward Shias per se as it is to regime change uncooperative rulers, whether
in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran, with their Shia populations (and lately of course throw in Russia).
At stake is pipelines of various sorts, and water rights, and overall in terms of globalism and
full spectrum dominance taking over the entire middle east region.
I welcome being straightened out on where I'm correct or too simplistic. Thanks again.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Meant to say INcorrect or too simplistic!
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm
The politics of divide and conquer can create strange bedfellows. There is deep routed historical
enmity between the Sunnis and Shiites to begin with. Search Twelver. The US has allies and enemies,
Bottom line, Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and Israel has a lot of political power through it's
representatives in the USA especially but also in Britain and France. The Iranians were our friends
too after the USA overthrow their Democratic Government in 1953 and installed the Shah and the
CIA set up ZAVAK to protect him. It worked until he got weak. . Iran's enmity with the USA and
Israel is well supported by facts . So is Hezbollah's enmity as is the enmity of Palestinians
living in camps in stateless exile in Lebanon and elsewhere. . We don't necessarily hate Shias.
It's policy. A fun fact to know and tell is that the Saudis pump oil from under the feet of the
Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. who have live near the Persian Gulf since they were Persians and
Zoroastrians. Also The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain courtesy of a treaty with the Sunni
Rulers of the 90% Shiite nation. Yemen in the same story. Policy is a reason why during the Bush
years the USA began referring to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. So too, When I was young
Yemen was not unified. It will never be. Houthis are being oppressed in a genocidal manner right
now with US backing because House of Saud sits on the Thrown of Damocles . That is why the King
of Saudi Arabia is on a worldwide tour shaking hands with Xi in China yesterday. etc.,,,, ad nauseum
Joe Tedesky , March 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm
I wouldn't argue with any of you who are commenting here on this thread, because I agree with
all of you. I would like to point out that when Iraq fell the Shia (Shiites) became the popular
ruling segment of Iraq, and then came General David Petraeus. The Sunni Awakening has had profound
ramifications on what we are up against now, if we should be up against anything at all since
most of what we are dealing with is U.S. inspired. The ultimate goal was to descale Iraq away
from Iranian influence, and this social engineering by the U.S. could not have been a bigger mistake
than what it's turned out to be. Now we are turning Yemen into our new Cambodia, and this will
also turn out to be an even bigger mistake unless better minds prevail inside of our White House
(if the Oval Office even has the deciding decision on this). Take a look at a map and see where
Iran is, and then see where we are positioning ourselves. My thoughts are that Iran is the final
goal, and until Iran is brought down, done of us will get a good nights sleep hoping to wake up
to a peaceful world. Also don't take that last sentence of mine to be an endorsement to attack
Iran. I am more than happy to let Iran be Iran.
If we wish to end war, then let's quit fighting them!
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I agree Iran is the real target. The Afghan and Iraq wars were less against Al-Qaeda, since
there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but more against Iran. George Bush wanted to establish bases around
Iran. In addition to these two countries, he wanted to establish one more in Turkmenistan. US
already had a base in Turkey. Turkmenistan refused to allow any US base. Turkey refused the use
of Turkish base to launch an attack on Iran. US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the
attack on Iran never came. Mind you, the largest US base in Iraq is near the Iran border.
The dismantling of the Iraqi army wasn't the only thing Paul Bremer did wrong. He gave veto
power to the minority Kurds and Sunnis. That is the reason for the non-functional Iraqi government.
Nothing gets done. The Kurds are taking advantage of this situation and with the help of US are
consolidating their territorial position. Saudi Arabia doesn't want another Shia government as
its neighbor and so keeps the sectarian war going adding to the instability of the government.
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm
I keep trying to post a link to The Saker for Feb 7 this year, and it keeps disappearing. Easy
to find, however. His analysis on what war with Iran would mean is excellent. "US vs Iran a war
of apples vs. oranges."
LJ , March 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Pence seems to be on board already as are McCain and Graham.I agree we can't can't on the Pelosi,
Feinstein, Schumer's Liberal wing of the Democrats here. Maybe the Trump's Generals will save
us? Yeah right. The House of Representatives ? Not likely . Strange days indeed .,
CitizenOne , March 15, 2017 at 9:45 pm
I was not aware of the Kagan's role and I thank you for doing the due diligence on outlining
how this family is intertwined with recent misadventures. But also it is kind of picking at Nits.
This is a smallish operation. It does not compare to the decades long operation of Cheney to privatize
the DOD, teach his corporate buddies a Halliburton how to cash in, dream of further cashing in
himself with PNAC and the Carlyle Group, gin up a war, destabilize the middle east and get a pass
from the media. Cheney and Bush ignored all of the warnings from the FBI and the CIA that Saudi
terrorists were planning an attack which would instantly make the Carlyle Group the wealthiest
private equity firm on the planet.
I agree it is all planned. Planned well in advance. The goal is to become rich by creating
a war or wars.
I realize it is aimed at a microscopic part of the picture but fails to connect the dots of
Kagan and PNAC and 9/11. Cheney's own admission that short of "A New Pearl Harbor" Americans would
not likely go along with his dreams of launching preemptive wars reveal a naked desire to become
rich along with his buddies over at the Carlyle Group which snatched up defense stocks when the
Berlin Wall fell and the USSR was disintegrating. While the rest of the World was celebrating
the possibility of future peace with Russia, The PNAC folks were buying up stock in the defense
industry and were dreaming of a war. which they created by ignoring all of the signs that 9/11
was underway. I get that they felt some future democratic branch of the government would botch
an opportunity to create a fake enemy in Iraq and would fail to launch a war.
But the facts are the whole thing was avoidable and was pushed with a mountain of lies which
the major media simply regurgitated leading us to war.
It doesn't end there. While we are now busy banning millions of people from coming to America
because they might be terrorists, the real terrorists from abroad and here at home with Islamic
ties were all known by the authorities. Yet they did nothing to stop them and instead have used
their failures as excuses to create chaos which they hope will lead to more violence.
How does a guy who went to the FBI and confessed was delusional and heard voices in his head
trying to convert him to an ISIS terrorist then be allowed to board an airplane with a gun?
How was the underpants bomber allowed on a plane when his parents called the US Consulate to
inform US officials that their son was getting on that plane with a bomb. Yet we let this person
on a plane. Why has the media never investigated this failure?
It is failure after failure with gross incompetence from federal authorities charged with our
security that has led to terrorist acts and not the failure to keep millions of people from traveling
here.
The Boston Marathon bombers were singled out to US intelligence agencies by none other than
the Russians that they were terrorists but we let them in. No investigation of that but banning
entire nations is an option we have now tried twice. What about the failure of intelligence to
flag two people who were singled out as terrorists?
There is a much bigger story here.
The US government and intelligence agencies have obviously allowed terrorist attacks to happen.
This has happened time and time again and yet the media focuses on the terrorists time and time
again while ignoring and under reporting the backstory of how we just let it happen.
It can be rationalized by a reasoned argument that we must allow some attacks to focus our
efforts on thwarting even bigger attacks like nuclear attacks but there has been no action by
the government to actually improve security so what is the point.
The meaningless act of taking ones shoes off at an airport is only not copied by forcing us
to all strip down to our underpants based on a similar event to the shoe bomber because people
would not tolerate being forced to take off all their clothes.
Now since an FAA test of airport security revealed that guns were not detected 95% of the time
we are all preparing for pat downs. Nobody is examining the reason that 95% of the time somebody
with a gun in their baggage gets through security which is supposedly equipped with machines that
can spot guns. Where is the investigation of the machines since they fail so often?
There are all sorts of similar stories which all conclude that we are faced with a rational
reason that our government needs to allow some terrorist action to happen which in turn turns
our state increasingly toward a militaristic police state.
What I have a problem with is that we are more likely to be attacked by known terrorists and
that nobody seems to be concerned with. I guess that allowing terrorist attacks provides the political
concurrence to launch trillion dollar wars against other nations all for profit and put spy cupcakes
in our refrigerators. Watch out! There's a camera just below the icing on the cupcake! Don't eat
it!
We can't just ignore home grown terrorists like the shooters in California who, while on a
watch list, were allowed to purchase weapons or the crazy guy who told FBI ISIS was inside his
head to board an airplane with a gun and do nothing to investigate these intelligence failures
and instead use them to seek Apple to grant access to all our information on smartphones and order
travel bans for millions of people while justifying turning our TVs into Big Brother.
We can't ignore the obvious windfalls of Cheney and his pals at the Carlyle group to grow rich
by allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people.
If we are going to spill blood in preparation for war, then we need to make sure we are doing
everything in our power to prevent it and especially not to seek to become rich from it. We also
need to protect our privacy.
So now it comes down to making Russia the new enemy. We have to reinvent an old enemy to justify
further reasons for keeping America strong. But we spend ten times the money on our National Defense
than the Russians do. Where does that line up with weakness? How do we just invent some myth that
there are liberators working abroad in Ukraine and Syria to justify military spending just like
we invented Vietnam? Has Vietnam attacked us recently? I think not. Is Syria a serious player
in the international terrorism game? I think not.
Here is a suggestion. Apply all that money used to create advanced defensive capability into
an industry aimed at real security.
Destabilizing the whole World to get rich is a bad idea. Getting rich by providing the means
of nonmilitary industry aimed at enhancing security is a good idea. Easy money is a crime. Earning
it the hard way is an honest living.
Time for the easy money folks to be sidelined and for the people interested in long term survival
to hold power.
Anyone in the USA who can say they are not aware of the Kagan clan no nothing and should not
be writing such a long comment. Go back to sleep.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm
That would be spelled: knows nothing
Perhaps you should wake up, learn to spell, and spend more than a lazy moment trolling me. If
you have something intelligent to say we are all waiting with baited breath.
CitizenOne , March 16, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Well I guess I have to forgive Bruce Walker for not being a very good speller.
That would be : bated breath.
My bad.
geoff , March 15, 2017 at 10:07 pm
kagans never fail to excite. a package of madness on my monitor and how the hell did they get
to screw things up. oh!! scuse me yes, hillary whatsaname!!!
Brad N , March 15, 2017 at 10:15 pm
The picture painted here is actually rather dismal when one considers the long term consequences
of having such nonsense going on. Trump as possible savior from a war with Russia is a really
hard pill to swallow. Very hard indeed, it is worth repeating. I have no confidence in his consistency
at all. As for this article, I wish I could find fault with the analysis presented here. Sadly,
I cannot.
Chris Jonsson , March 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm
War, Inc. A family owned and operated corporation.
"Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,"
I greatly appreciate Mr. Parry's reporting and insights. However, I believe that the determination
of fitness for the Presidency is determined by the voters and democracy determines who is qualified.
Sam , March 16, 2017 at 7:35 am
If only we had a democracy, Fran. But in fact elections and mass media are controlled by money,
and our Constitution has no protection of these tools of democracy from money power, because there
were no businesses then larger than plantations and small ships that would be small businesses
today. We do not have a democracy now.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be
treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy.
That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.
This quote suggests it is time to send a team of men with a strait-jacket into the New York
Times to cart this nutcase off to the loony bin. Come to think of it, maybe they should take several
strait-jackets with them and clean out the editorial staff.
Gregory Herr , March 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm
It's absolutely asinine isn't it?! I'll have to take a look, but I'll bet there wasn't a snicker
or even a raised eyebrow when Friedman (the oh-so-serious-in-the-know hushed-toned Friedman who
reveled in promoting the Iraq killing field) spittled his brain drool. He really should be referred.
At the very least, he should have been called out for his absurdity before being excused at the
next commercial break.
It's amazing how people like Kagan & Friedman can straight-face their farcical musings about
Russian "interference". It's funny too how they can go on about the integrity and reliability
of democratic processes when it is precisely the compromise of such that Wikileaks revealed. As
noted by Mr. Parry:
" by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading
Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed
the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters,
as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. In other words, the WikiLeaks'
releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails
were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news."
So much for real news in this country. And my God Mr. Kagan, Trump doesn't necessarily have
faith in the findings or motives of the "intelligence community". I wonder why.
I hope the Kagans find their karma. Oh, and that weasel Friedman too.
Bill Bodden , March 15, 2017 at 10:48 pm
Given the wars the Kagans have helped promote and the consequences of these wars, surely there
is some crime they could be charged with.
MEexpert , March 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm
We wish.
F. G. Sanford , March 15, 2017 at 11:21 pm
The desperation with which neocons are baiting for a new Cold War suggests that there is something
much bigger than "election hacking" that needs covering up. Profit motives aside, the cost-benefit
ratio looks more like a ploy to stay out of jail. Not that anyone in the "deep state" ever faces
penalties for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but it must be a nagging thought to anyone familiar
with Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg.
Institute for the Study of War, that says it all! I remember when Dennis Kucinich as Representative
from Ohio introduced a bill to create a Department of Peace. It didn't go very far.
I also did not know about Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. How many more of these Kagans can be
spawned?
Thanks for a good warning, Robert Parry. These people must dream of war at night. I hope Trump
and Tillerson are wary of them.
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:11 am
"How many more of these Kagans can be spawned?"
Yes and how many more Devos and Princes can we afford as well. Or how many Bushes, Clintons
or Trumps!
Sr. Gibbonk , March 16, 2017 at 1:10 am
Ah yes, The Project for a New American Century manifesto: primary authors Robert Kagan and
William Kristol on behalf of the neocon cabal and the European colonial Zionist project. Another
demonstration that narrow, selfish interests, greed and the thirst for power drive this world.
And all the while there are two great storms brewing on the horizon, each capable of driving our's
and the majority of this earth's species to extinction. One, perhaps the most imminent, is the
very real possibility of nuclear annihilation which is being spearheaded by the reckless ideologues
and predatory capitalist deep state demagogues in their quest for Full Spectrum Dominance of global
affairs. Even if the dire specter of nuclear holocaust is somehow avoided the global corporate
world's avaricious, boundless appetite for short term profits, especially through fossil fuel
extraction, will make the worst predictions of climate change inevitable: ecological collapse
and along with it the collapse not only of nation states but of the human capacity to reason.
How will the great nuclear powers, flailing like dinosaurs during the Permian-Triassic extinction
- also known as The Great Dying - not then Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds?
Stygg , March 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm
FWIW, dinosaurs did not yet exist by the end of the Permian.
Eric Downey , March 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
Robert Parry thank you, and please continue your hard work. Our best hope for peace lies with
Trump, Bannon, Tillerson and the Generals. It sounds crazy (and it is!) but they are well suited
because they are aligned with a good chunk of the vocal electorate. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) proposed
a bill Stop Arming Terrorists Act, and it has a companion in the Senate, sponsored by Rand Paul:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/rand-paul-joins-tulsi-gabbard-calling-congress-stop-funding-isis-al-qaeda/225868/
This is an informed electorate taking action. Parry is doing his job by informing us. Our job
is to support H.R.608 and S.532.
Gary , March 16, 2017 at 5:05 am
There are so many in Washington who deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity that it
is difficult to know where one would start. Actually, come to think of it, the Kagan family would
be a great place to start! Then of course we'd have to move on to Bill and Hillary and another
highly deserving couple Samantha Powers and hubby Cass Sustien of "cognitive infiltration" fame.
Apparently psychopaths do find each other quite attractive, though who knows how many homicidal
fantasies these particular spouses might actually harbor toward each other??
Trump has been neutralised to become a puppet of deep state. The world should expect the war
business as usual.
Geoffrey de Galles , March 16, 2017 at 7:44 am
If I were the Kagans with as loaded an agenda as they share in the worldwide assertion of American
exceptionalism, then I would consider the POTUS's Achilles heel to be Jared Kushner and his wife;
and, in a more or less gentle and subtle way, would endeavour first to establish a relationship
with them as a means of gradually bringing the pater familias around to my bellicose and imperialistic
way of thinking. Myself, I consider the Kagans (among many others) to be the true enemy of the
people. But that's my concern - viz., with trying to anticipate and out-think the enemy. So best
watch out in that direction.
fudmier , March 16, 2017 at 8:00 am
The problem here is lack of ideal structure to for the concerned to become involved with
No one has outlined the ideal America as seen from the point of everyday Americans..
these 340,000,000 millions have no idea what to be for and against because they have
no structure and no purpose .. seems to me developing that structure (culture, education,
health care, voting rights, financial security, infra structure, and the like).
Developing the structure is a first step to mounting the support Trump needs to make the right
decisions..
Trump himself lacks that structure.. Once the structure becomes a household word everyone knows
the
right decision they might agree to disagree on its implementation but the result intended is in
plain view.
Why would the Russians need to undermine democracy in the United States when the Democratic
and Republican party machines are doing such a marvellous job of it by themselves?
The title should be, "How To Turn Unemployment Into A Great Day At The Gallows."
Eric Bischoff , March 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
Aren't there laws that the Kagan family are breaking? Seems to me we should start with them
and arrest them for the lies that took the Bush regime into the Middle East wars and definitely
for the Ukraine coup. They are financing and spreading terrorism therefore the money and the financiers
behind these war think tanks are also guilty. This goes all the way to the Koch Brothers and they
should be arrested as well! Why are we, the peace crusaders, on the defensive. We need to go on
the offensive. Enough already!
As P T barnum said " Theres a sucker born every minute". The real question is ; Are the American
people going to get suckered into a war with Russia and or China? Given their past record of seriously
questioning the propaganda put out by the Kagans et all i am not too hopeful over this present
push to what will be a catastrophic war.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 2:26 pm
It's all talk. We can't beat the Taliban or the Viet Cong or the Mexican and Central American
drug Gangs on the ground if it comes to that. Russia? China? That's funny. This is to justify
perpetuation of the status quo in this nation. We the People can't be allowed to pick up our heads
and gaze at reality. We need to be preoccupied with the BS. Political Correctness has done it's
job now we have to spend a bunch of money on imaginary threats so billionaires and bankers can
get richer and we can all pretend that they matter and that this is fair and justified and Democracy
in action , We need idiotic Generals in charge and tough talking politicians too. Obfuscation,
whatever word or combination of words you like . It's fascistic crap. We the People didn't want
more war in Syria under Obama . Nothing has changed , next time it won't matter if 90% of calls
to Congressional offices are against a war. This is what Eisenhower said would happen back in
1958 though the entrenchment of the Military Industrial Financial Cyber Intelligence Complex.
exiled off mainstreet , March 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
Rather than being extolled and given mainstream platforms to exercise their baleful interests,
the Kagans should face some sort of legal accountability as professional war criminals.
Stiv , March 16, 2017 at 11:42 am
Jesus Christ. Yea yea yea. Same old same old. In searching for a sign of light after the elections,
the best I was able to do is " well at least Nuland won't be Secretary of State". But to go on
and on and on
Isn't there more important stuff going on? How about the "Hard diplomacy" Trumpistas are spouting
about?
It's been funny .in a sick way to see Trump and administration figures using the same language
as Parry and his hangers on. "McCarthyism", "Deep State" are used every other paragraph.
It's been noted a marked shift towards the Trump administration talking points in commentary
here at Consortium "news". Even the "fake news" debacle is furthered here.
And not in the right direction.
My question .When does the news start, Robert?
D5-5 , March 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm
You know it's possible you're so angry you're not really paying attention. It you think there's
been a "marked shift towards Trump administration talking points in commentary here" you're not
really reading what's here, just swiftly glancing and stamping your foot with irritation. Why
don't you provide a little news yourself instead of your same old same old bitching all the time?
So your grasp of what has "importance" is not aligned with CN and the thrust of its commentary.
I think you've made that clear on several ad nauseam occasions.
I should think that if this site was about reiterating Trump Administration talking points, we'd
have the "hard diplomacy" thing covered by now. If you are concerned about what Mr. Parry publishes,
submit articles on what you think is important. If you are concerned about the level or direction
of commentary here, contribute with something substantive.
LJ , March 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm
Well, the Trump team players even Donald himself need to defend themselves for their own reasons.
I think most commenters here are a little worried and rightly so for their own reasons, I personally
do not like the vilification of all things Russian and the obvious McCarthy like tactics that
have been going on calling for a witch hunt, a special prosecutor on the basis of unsubstantiated
allegations. Democrats aren't calling out for justice they want to geld Trump but Pense would
be even worse. Maybe it's time tobelieve in Democracy at some level.
John , March 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm
The Kagans are simply supplying a strategy to further a growing agenda ..The average USA citizen's
strategy is complacency and their agenda is simply to do nothing ..This is why the 1% rule over
the 99% ..
Tony Cartaluccu's article on The Deep State is excellent, thank you, Joe. The multipolar world
he speaks of, which Putin often refers to, is what the neocon imperialists such as the Kagans
don't want, but they're getting it, anyway. Since the days of the Iraq War, many great alternative
journalists, such as this website, have exposed and continue to expose the facts behind deep state
propaganda so these folks can't dominate as they used to. The USA doesn't look so good to a lot
of nations after the disasters created by the regime change proxy wars. Despite the badmouthing
of Putin and Russia in the US, many other countries aren't signing on to that attitude, from what
I've read. I have just read that China wants to help rebuild Syria, since Syria is an important
geographic route on their One Belt, One Road project. If the US can't recognize it can't remain
top dog forever and that it's a multipolar world, it might find itself isolated.
Dag , March 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm
The Kagans should be in prison for all the crimes they've enabled, all the lives they've destroyed.
Robert Parry & Glenn Greenwald are at the top of my short list of real-life, courageous, truth-telling
heroes but, for today, Kiza reigns supreme with her tour de force:"Between the Clinton liberals
and the Ziocons C'est une Affaire d'Amour Toujours, as Pepé Le Pew likes to say."
Massive props, Zika, for referencing Pepe, HRC, & neocons in a single sentence
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
OK, I get it about the Kagans, but I still don't trust Putin.
So then, Ted, why don't you move to Russia so that you can do an objective evaluation of the
country and under Putin? Of course, Russian is not an easy language to learn! It's just reported on Global Research that Russia has absorbed 2.5 million Ukrainian refugees
since the US 2014 coup and Europe 900,000 more, according to a Kremlin parliamentarian in February.
Thanks to Victoria Nuland!
Ted , March 16, 2017 at 4:46 pm
Hmm that's a response I would expect at TheBlaze – knee-jerk and black-and-white.
Perhaps I should learn Russian. Are you offering to teach me, comrade?
J'hon Doe II , March 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm
UK/US is the Last Empire and Trump is an 'angel-of-death'.
Nothing good can or will from his spurious administration .
The PNAC psychopaths did their part in 911.
The conquer 7 Nations in 5 years for Israel has been delayed.
The MIC has Al qeada,ISIS. ..even Muslim Brotherhood, ..all over the place, to give the MIC years and years. ..even another decade or more war pleasuring.
Trump kicked huge gift to the Military. ..before the Ides of March arrived.
The Saudi/Qatar block have invested multi millions in regime change Assad.
The trained Mercs forces, logistics, weapons. posture against Iran, and the dream of Pipelines.
Erdogan the Mad Caliph is the receiver of the Terrorists from Saudi or Libya and other, the
reciever of the pipelines.
Israel will not give back the Golan .wants Hezbollah gone from near its Safe Zone.
Far too much money which MIC wants play with. ..and as Admiral Thomas Moorer commented,
" No American President can stand up to Israel "
US boots going back into Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, going into Syria, media bleating about US needs go back to Libya and fix that mess.
Trump is where on his supposed non intervention promises?
The John McCain and Deep State media rush against Russia with lies like WMD Iraq.
Is this Deja Vu
Ted, my comment was sarcastic because you did not back up your opinion with any facts. The
situation is getting very sticky with now Canada's Foreign Minister getting into the smearfest.
Freeland just pulled out the Crimean Tatars as being victims of Russian aggression, and I, knowing
nothing about the issue, had to start digging, which began with US articles supporting brutalization
by Russia, some from 2016. Digging out further are some articles that this is not the case, Tatars
supported going with Russia as Crimeans voted. All which supports that propaganda is rife, is
there a free press anymore, and the virulent fixation on Russia is out of control. And my position
is that some politicians are willing to take us to extinction to get their way, while we have
a planet with many problems we should be addressing.
"... The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. ..."
"... "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. ..."
"... "This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. ..."
"... the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." ..."
"... Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda. ..."
"... It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes. ..."
"... As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers. ..."
Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers
in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more "regime change" wars,
reports Robert Parry.
The Kagan family, America's neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from
the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from
its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.
Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S.
military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian
witch hunt over Moscow's alleged help in electing Donald Trump.
In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American
Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as "Russia's accomplices
after the fact" by not investigating more aggressively.
Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise
Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study
of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March
15.
Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington's world of think tanks and op-ed
placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they
seem to have detected a door being forced open.
Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of
neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the
establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose "liberal interventionism" matched closely
with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and
more wars.
There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal
hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.
Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention
in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting "regime change" back on the agenda
for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan
to flex their muscles and make lots of money.
A Family Business
As I noted two years ago in an article entitled "
A Family Business of Perpetual War ": "Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife,
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a
hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress
jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.
"This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial
Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political
pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants
on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.
"Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members
of the Kagan clan, including Robert's brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and
his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War."
But things didn't quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled
through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside
Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to
Trump.
After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons
were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed
job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.
With Trump in the White House, Official Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment
was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested
Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland's fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia.
As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free
allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump's team to rig the U.S. election.
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia's
alleged "meddling" to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda's 9/11 terror attacks.
On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show, Friedman
demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: "That was a 9/11 scale
event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event." Both Pearl
Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.
So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert
themselves.
Baiting Republicans
Robert Kagan
took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep.
Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article
and its headline, "Running interference for Russia."
Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president
of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)
Kagan wrote: "It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party's
leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country's political
system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing."
Kagan then reprised Official Washington's groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims
from President Obama's outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had "hacked" Democratic emails and
released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.
Though Obama's intelligence officials
offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches
of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as
grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.
Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama's appointees, Kagan judged that "given the
significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling"
and justified "a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation."
But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power
behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.
He declared: "The most important question concerns Russia's ability to manipulate U.S. elections.
That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere
in the United States' electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election
going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.
"Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system
with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S.
elections, it can shake that system to its foundations."
A Different Reality
As alarmist as Kagan's op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack
the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed
contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election's outcome.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)
Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation
into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.
Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading
Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee's tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the
contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as
well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.
In other words, the WikiLeaks' releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S.
democratic process. The emails were not "disinformation" or "fake news." They were real news.
A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details
about Trump's tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost
no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen's tax returns was somehow a threat to
American democracy.
The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking
the White House. I agree, but doesn't it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC
abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton's nomination, about the contents of Clinton's speeches
to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing
to the Clinton Foundation?
Yet, because Obama's political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community "assess" that Russia
was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.
More Loose Talk
But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S.
democracy. He asserted as "fact" – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is "interfering
in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy's recent referendum
and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies
as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting at the Kremlin
in Moscow, Russia, on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]
There's been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the
"post-truth" era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly
repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.
But it's clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia
and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to "counter"
what is deemed "Russian propaganda."
Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking
aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:
"But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party's current leader, the president, questions
the intelligence community's findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have
opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They
have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.
"Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great
urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations.
The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.
"The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information
and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent
of the Republican Party's leadership, both in the White House and Congress.
"When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become
Russia's accomplices after the fact."
Lying with the Neocons
Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the
road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining
the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred
of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28,
2015. (UN Photo)
On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan's brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly
dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons' long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of
Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.
But the neocons have long lusted for "regime change" in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama's
arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern
Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State's "capital" of Raqqa.
In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern
Syria:
"American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners
by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because
it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet
under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army
that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.
"The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms
that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of
a secure base inside Syria. President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning
that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming
America's approach to it."
A New Scheme on Syria
In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings
to entice the U.S. military into a "regime change" project in Syria.
The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack
outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching
a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.
But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.
Putin's interference in thwarting the neocons' dream of a Syrian "regime change" war moved Putin
to the top of their enemies' list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president
Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman
deemed "the biggest prize" and a steppingstone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.
It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria "Toria" Nuland
to oversee the "regime change" in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late
January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how "to
glue" or "to midwife" a change in Ukraine's elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault
on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the
U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as "legitimate."
But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine
with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed "Russian
aggression" or a "Russian invasion."
So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family
Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a "regime change"
in Syria.
All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans
surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton,
a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.
Yet, the so-called "#Resistance" to Trump's presidency and President Obama's unprecedented
use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian "Manchurian candidate" gave new hope
to the neocons and their agenda.
It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring
Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent
schemes.
As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans
into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale
invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw
Mike Pence as "the Deep
State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence
Officials plan...
Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence
defeatable.
As
The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform
drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...
By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence
pays
As we concluded previously,
if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration
in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.
No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains
that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are
they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia
– a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.
Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian
agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more
ground troops to Syria alongside
Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian
regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this
time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more
than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
"color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"
Not so fast...
Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...
Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN
THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.
Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job...
Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in
the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.
I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that
this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...
If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn
warned against.
"Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more
than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail
President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck
Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A
scattered few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many
as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........
I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA
my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA
They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump
probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that
the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not
even in the same branch or division.
They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who
pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA
A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors,
like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their
own elected administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
"... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
"... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
"... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
"... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
"... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
"... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
"... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
"... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
"... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
"... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
"... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
"... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
"... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
"... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
"... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
"... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
"... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
"... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
"... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
"... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
"... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
"... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing
narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.
One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement
agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign.
This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even
suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate"
allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain
the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in,
and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.
It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal
and constitutional election.
The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians
did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and
elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity
undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary
record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration
with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained.
Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.
This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:
The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI
developed an interest
in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant
suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow
and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent
and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted
upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have
"any nefarious
purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.
The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also
reporting that,
"For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents
scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved
in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations,"
which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.
In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI
sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect
information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also
permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part
of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.
Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned
initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee
began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked
on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained
serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of
some bizarre sexual escapades.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and
his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid wrote to Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September,
Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused
the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted
its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly
related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal
investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the
election and this is possibly what Trump was
referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.
Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already
know that and he presumably approves of it.
Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that
there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower
"to my knowledge"
because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously
lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none
of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey
provided a view contrary to that of Clapper,
saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court."
FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very
specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It
culminated in
ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were
apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded
by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters
stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse
Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.
President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for
Hillary. President Obama
called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.
After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the
35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being
long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele
dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made
public.
Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration,
Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with
the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative
information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information
relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep
it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.
Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported
that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian
ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."
Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security
advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence
officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn
was eventually forced
to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA,
FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department
is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.
One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited
"four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence
officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.
The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused
of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak
and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any
investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.
Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its
revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia
and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed
the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S.
intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been
in contact with Trump representatives.
The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full
assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction
were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide
readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them
or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly
sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin,
a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.
The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts
to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably
some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.
The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of
the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident
have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want
Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter,
frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed
by former
consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged
in developing
a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection
and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.
If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning
Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower
server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on
national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal
intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected
on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were
changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be
disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not
be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.
The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have
been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the
new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies
while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options
when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course,
unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.
It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with
almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated
to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian
source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the
outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable
evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have
been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-à-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they
have been accused of lying.
So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe
to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple
the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.
And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous
dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might
just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies
have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a
particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has
placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
The writing on the wall for the oil industry is pretty clear: (1) high oil
prices are needed to finance recovery of the remaining dirty, hard-to-get oil, but
(2) high oil prices drive a collapse in demand as consumers respond by turning to
efficient technologies and renewable energy.
The oil industry, from multinationals like Exxon to state actors like OPEC
members, is thus trying to keep prices in a narrow band that is just high enough
to make things like fracking and shale oil profitable, but not so high as to
accelerate demand collapse. The highest-cost dirtiest oil is being abandoned, for
example
Exxon just wrote off tar sand oil holdings:
The company said Wednesday in its annual 10-K filing to the Securities and
Exchanges Commission that it has cut its estimate of recoverable reserves by a
net 3.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent (or "bboe"), to just under 20
billion, a result of low crude prices that have made some of its investments in
high-cost oil uneconomic to extract. Specifically, the company de-booked its
entire pro rata 3.5 billion barrels of reserves in a Canadian oil sands
project.
Clearly the long-term picture is a shift to highly efficient vehicles (Toyota's
133-mpg Prius just came out), electric vehicles, low-pollution fuels like natural
gas for the trucking industry, etc. – meaning that gasoline and diesel are heading
the same way as coal, slowly but surely. Smart investors should be unwinding their
oil holdings as fast as possible.
Toyota's Prius Prime isn't rated at 133 mpg on gas – it's closer to 50-60
mpg and the Prius Prime is more expensive than the conventional prius. The
primary benefit of the prius prime is that it has bigger batteries and 'plug
in' capabilities. It goes 133 miles on the electricity equivalent of 1 gallon
of gas but its batteries are so small that it can only go about 20 miles on
electricity until it switches over to gas.
Meanwhile, Toyota's Camry (a 30 mpg car) is losing its sales volume to the
Rav4 (a 24 mpg SUV). America's desire for SUVs and AWD has resulted in a pretty
constant fleet mpg average over the past two decades with gains in efficiency
offset by gains in vehicle mass and capability.
I recently talked to somebody from Toyota and he mentioned that their
production mix in North America is skewed compared to their demand. Their
production mix 45:55 passenger cars to trucks/SUV's right now, but the
demand is 40:60 and it's shifting further to the heavy side, they expect
this year to be 35:65.
This is despite heavy promotions and discounts they are doing on smaller
vehicles to try to get them off the lot. On the truck side, they sell them
as soon as they are out of the factory. Cheap oil is driving the demand for
larger vehicles and killing the hybrid/electric sales.
The basic issue is that electric motors approach 99% efficiency at
converting stored electric charge to power, while gasoline and diesel
internal combustion engines tend to operate at 15-25% efficiency when
converting gasoline or diesel to power. At current fuel & electricity
prices, costs per-mile are at least 3 times higher for fossil fueled
vehicles vs. electric vehicles.
What effect would a 10% drop in demand for gasoline and diesel have on
crude oil prices? And at those low prices, what would be the effect on
investment in exploration and production of oil? That's the downward death
spiral for the fossil fuel industry.
"The basic issue is that electric motors approach 99% efficiency at
converting stored electric charge to power,"
This is not true. Electric motor in cars works via transmission, not
directly because they rotate at higher speeds then is necessary to rotate
the wheels.
Which impose at least 20% losses.
Battery also impose 10% losses as it has internal impedance and
conversion of chemical energy into electrical and vise versa in not 100%
efficient.
Efficiency of the battery drops with age and three year battery is
even less efficient. Another 5% losses are in charging devices and
transmission.
Add to this that electrical car needs to heat cabin with 5 KW heater
or cool it with 3 KW air conditioner and outside California hybrids beat
electrical vehicle to the punch in all important technological
parameters.
That means that electrical car right now is more of a status symbol,
then a practical solution for regular folks.
Electricity is still mostly being produced by fossil fuel. If you
factor in distribution loss and the much higher energy cost for producing
batteries electric cars are less efficient. That is unless you take to
producing electrity from renewables. But the renewables are not always on
line and therefore you need to have the same amount of legacy power
stations as before. You need to find a way to store energy but we are
still very far from that and I personally don´t think we will ever return
to the days when one unit of energy yields 100 units of energy in oil.
Renewables will never provide these kinds of yields. And it isn´t at all
clear to me why one had to move one ton of iron to get somebody from A to
B. It is all in the mind .
Quite a bit of the enduring switch to larger, lower mpg vehicles seems to
be fueled by lending practices that favor big-ticket big machines. Absent
this market-distorting 'push' from car manufacturers' affiliated finance
arms .. this preference might disappear. From the user perspective there are
benefits to owning larger vehicles, but on our increasingly congested roads
there are obvious drawbacks as well.
You are – implicitly – claiming consumers naturally prefer the big
vehicles that are pushed on them by financing gimmicks. I see the almighty
consumer as being gamed on this matter.
There are definitely regional and cultural differences that you are
correct to point out, and status symbols corresponding.
I think there are generational differences, also. Young people are
much less into cars than the older crowd. Plus they prefer cities
more, where cars become more of a hassle.
With rising default rates and rising interest rates, the auto
lending sector looks set to take a bath in the next year or two.
If you are going to be stuck in trafic for hours on end, with the
kids in the back seat, would you rather be in a closterfobic combac or
a spatious SUV?
In MA I see a ton of shiny, otherwise normal looking pickups with
commercial plates. I've always assumed it was tradesmen or plowers who
could plausibly claim a tax break for these vehicles.
Peak oil consumption equals stranded resource. The race is on to pump as
much as possible before demand dries up even more and prices collapse to $10
p/b. There is so much debt leverage against oil in the ground that pumping must
be ramped to pay it off making a price collapse even more certain.
I wish we live in such a comfortable Universe as you describe. But this
is a Utopia. In reality:
1. There no peak oil consumption on the horizon world wide. Mankind
adds around one million barrels per day in consumption each year. China
and India consumption is growing and probably will continue to grow for
at least a decade. Consumption in other Africa and Asian countries is
growing too.
2. There are very few oil fields were you can profitably extract oil
at prices below $50 per barrel. And those fields are old and are closer
and closer to depletion (those fields are mainly KSA, Iraq and other Gulf
fields). Neither US shale nor Canadian oil sands belong to this category.
But with oil prices above 60 or 70 the US economy will stagnate, unless
supported by printing money. See nonsense factory post above. This is a
new Catch 22 but will pretty menacing implications.
3. Junk bonds generated by shale companies in the USA is a bubble (or
Ponzi finance in Minsky classification, if you like) that will eventually
collapse/deflate. Few bondholders will ever be paid.
"... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
"... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
"... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
"... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
"... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
George Neumayr
Posted on 3/6/2017 4:42:04 PM by RoosterRedux
It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's
gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about
the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under
investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.
Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where
did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court
warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me
by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He
would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had
heard from other sources.
Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation,
according to the BBC story:
The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source"
as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.
Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!
To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.
Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA
who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.
I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they
can go back for years and pull out the data.
Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.
We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.
Vault 7 revelations now shed some light on the possibilities of a muti-step operations to get the court order. The absurdity of
the situation is evident: acting POTUS complains about wiretapping by his predecessor who supposedly used one of intelligence agencies
(supposedly CIA) for this operation. Being now a Commander in Chief.
Ray McGovern who probably knows what he is talking about suggested that Obama might be scared of CIA Director Brennan (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGayl9uNW4A actually this
is a very interesting interview)
The following scheme looks plausible: Scapegoat Russians by hacking into DNC servers; create media hysteria about Russians; implicate
Trump in connections to Russians; get court order for wiretapping on this ground
Notable quotes:
"... Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. ..."
"... I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch ..."
"... Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision. ..."
"... in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ..."
Baker-Mazzetti's opener says it all: " Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee
report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White
House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that
day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed
visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even
as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. " Nothing could be plainer. As one who remembers well the guilt-by-association
days of McCarthyism, I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate
Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam
under his watch , as in its role in drone assassination at facilities in Pakistan, Brennan himself installed as Director
after Valiant Service as national security adviser, all despite questions of favoring waterboarding raised in confirmation hearings.
From a pool of gung-ho national-security experts on which to draw, the others still making up his First Team of advisers (include
generals, admirals, members of think tanks with partly disguised neocon credentials), Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence
charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision.
Obama is not Brennan's puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction
between the White House and Langley "after the release of the scorching report," Brennan having "irritated advisers by battling
Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year." They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release,
suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that
this is NYT, an astonishing statement: "But in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a
bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy
and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance
security and liberty ."
What they don't say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations
with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency's struggle to
balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty,
a no-contest battle.
"... The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election. ..."
"... A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions. ..."
"... The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times EDT):
7:10 p.m.
The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department
if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during
the election.
The committee set Monday as the deadline for getting the information, but the Justice Department
says it needs more time.
The committee now says it wants the information in hand before March 20 when it holds its first
public hearing on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee
might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions.
___
6:30 p.m.
The Justice Department is requesting more time to respond to a congressional inquiry into President
Donald Trump's unproven assertion that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.
The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence
Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election.
But spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says in a statement Monday that the department has asked for
more time to "review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine
what if any responsive documents may exist."
"... In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information, under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism, testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence. ..."
"... I have also met on several occasions with the staff of Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, since judges have been illegally surveilled, and asked them to inquire of FBI Director Comey and his General Counsel James Baker why their Montgomery investigation has appeared to have been "buried" for the last few years. They have done so, but as yet have not received, to the best of my knowledge, a clear response. ..."
"... Legally speaking, my cases against the intelligence agencies also encompass the illegal surveillance of President Trump and his men, as what apparently occurred shows a pattern of unconstitutional conduct that at trial would raise a strong evidentiary inference that this illegal behavior continues to occur. Our so called government, represented by dishonest Obama-loyal attorneys in the corrupted Federal Programs Branch of the Justice Department, continues to maintain that they cannot for national security reasons confirm or deny the mass surveillance against me or anyone else. ..."
The newest revelations that the Obama administration wiretapped, that is "bugged" President Trump
and all of his men, in the lead up to and after the November 8, 2016, elections are not surprising.
In this regard, for over 2 years the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
have been secretly investigating the "harvesting" of highly confidential information including financial
records of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, over 156 judges, prominent businessmen
like Donald Trump, and public activists like me.
In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward
to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information,
under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for
the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism,
testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William
Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath
and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence.
The newest revelations that the Obama administration wiretapped, that is "bugged" President Trump
and all of his men, in the lead up to and after the November 8, 2016, elections are not surprising.
In this regard, for over 2 years the highest levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
have been secretly investigating the "harvesting" of highly confidential information including financial
records of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, over 156 judges, prominent businessmen
like Donald Trump, and public activists like me.
In this regard, a whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA/CIA contractor, came forward
to FBI Director Comey with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of largely classified information,
under grants of use and derivative use immunity, which I obtained for him with the U.S Attorney for
the District of Columbia. Later, Montgomery, who suffers from a potentially fatal brain aneurism,
testified under oath, for over 2-and-a-half hours before FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William
Barnett in a secure room at the FBI's field office in Washington, D.C. The testimony was under oath
and videotaped and I have reminded the FBI recently to preserve this evidence.
I have also met on several occasions with the staff of Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary
Committee, since judges have been illegally surveilled, and asked them to inquire of FBI Director
Comey and his General Counsel James Baker why their Montgomery investigation has appeared to have
been "buried" for the last few years. They have done so, but as yet have not received, to the best
of my knowledge, a clear response.
In addition I have gone back to one of the few intellectually honest judges on the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (nearly all of the rest, save for another great, Judge Royce C.
Lamberth, are politically biased appointees of either Presidents Clinton or Obama), and asked him
to move forward to trial with the cases which I filed in 2013 against Obama and his intelligence
agencies over the mass spying on hundreds of millions of Americans.
Not coincidentally, before Edward Snowden revealed this unconstitutional conduct by the National
Security Agency (NSA), which then was run under the direction of the Director of National Intelligence
(DNI), James Clapper, Clapper lied under oath to Congress, denying that this illegal surveillance
was occurring under his watch. That he was never prosecuted for perjury at a minimum, not to mention
that it is crime to wiretap innocent Americans without "probable cause," is a testament to the reality
that official Washington is afraid of the intelligence agencies, knowing that they can dig up "dirt"
to destroy their political and personal lives. Indeed, this may help explain Chief Justice Roberts'
"inexplicable" last minute flip on the Obamacare case before SCOTUS. What, for instance, did Clapper
and the NSA/CIA have on Roberts that may have "convinced" him to rubber stamp President Barack Obama's
unconstitutional Affordable Care Act?
Judge Leon, in the course of my cases before him (see
freedomwatchusa.org for more info),
has already issued two preliminary injunction rulings ordering that the illegal mass surveillance
cease and desist. He termed this unconstitutional violation of our Fourth Amendment, "almost Orwellian,"
a reference to George Orwell's prophetic book "1984" about "Big Brother." Judge Leon's rulings then
prompted Congress to amend the Patriot Act, and call it the USA Freedom Act, which sought to leave
telephonic metadata in the hands of the telephone providers, like Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T, until
a warrant was obtained showing probable cause that a target or subjects communications with terrorists
or a crime was being committed.
It now appears that the Obama intelligence agencies, as I predicted to Judge Leon, have again
ignored and flouted the law, and at the direction of the former President Obama, and/or his men like
Clapper, illegally spied on targets or subjects like Mr. Trump and his associates, including Gen.
Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser. This is why I have pushed Judge Leon to move
my cases along to trial, and have offered to bring Montgomery forth to be interviewed by the judge
in camera in the interim, as he has a security clearance to probe Montgomery about classified information
which I cannot and have not accessed.
Legally speaking, my cases against the intelligence agencies also encompass the illegal surveillance
of President Trump and his men, as what apparently occurred shows a pattern of unconstitutional conduct
that at trial would raise a strong evidentiary inference that this illegal behavior continues to
occur. Our so called government, represented by dishonest Obama-loyal attorneys in the corrupted
Federal Programs Branch of the Justice Department, continues to maintain that they cannot for national
security reasons confirm or deny the mass surveillance against me or anyone else.
I have asked Judge Leon to enter a permanent injunction against Obama and his political hacks
at the NSA and CIA, many of whom are still there and are bent on destroying the Trump presidency
and attempting to blackmail prominent Americans, like me, who might challenge the destructive socialist/pro-Muslim
agenda of the Obama-Clinton-Soros left.
... ... ...
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest
advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. To read more
of his reports, Go
Here Now .
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, wants to "verify" that the intelligence community was using its surveillance authority "ethically." Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite ..."
"... The committee's ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff of California, also told reporters Tuesday that he was happy to look into the president's allegations – but warned that if they were proven false, accusing Obama of ordering an illegal wiretap could pose much bigger problems for Trump. ..."
"... "If a sitting U.S. president alleging that his predecessor engaged in the most unscrupulous and unlawful conduct that is also a scandal, if those allegations prove to be false," Schiff said. "And we should be able to determine in fairly short order whether this accusation was true or false." ..."
"... Nunes also questioned the official explanation for why Flynn's calls were recorded. Was it actually because of "incidental collection" – as the intelligence community has argued – "or was it something else?" he asked. ..."
"... Nunes may have a chance to grill intelligence community members about that on March 20, when he plans to hold an open hearing as part of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections. ..."
"... Schiff said Tuesday that he plans "on asking the director of the FBI directly whether there was any wiretap directed at Mr. Trump or his associates" at the hearing. ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, said Tuesday that he had seen no
evidence supporting President Trump's claim that his phones were tapped by the previous administration.
But unlike many other members of Congress, Nunes did not demand that the administration explain
the basis of Trump's accusation, saying that "we were going to look into it anyway."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, wants to "verify" that
the intelligence community was using its surveillance authority "ethically." Associated Press/J.
Scott Applewhite
"The bigger question that needs to be answered is whether or not Mr. Trump or any of his associates
were in fact targeted by any of the intelligence agencies or law enforcement authorities," Nunes
told reporters Tuesday. Over the weekend, he announced that his committee would look into Trump's
accusation delivered via Twitter that "Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the
victory."
"At this point we don't have any evidence of that," Nunes said. "But we also don't have any evidence
of many people who have been named in multiple news stories that supposedly are under some type of
investigation."
The committee's ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff of California, also told reporters Tuesday that
he was happy to look into the president's allegations – but warned that if they were proven false,
accusing Obama of ordering an illegal wiretap could pose much bigger problems for Trump.
"We accept – we will investigate this," Schiff said, referring to another Trump tweet in which
the president likened the alleged wiretap to a "Nixon/Watergate" style scandal.
"If a sitting U.S. president alleging that his predecessor engaged in the most unscrupulous and
unlawful conduct that is also a scandal, if those allegations prove to be false," Schiff said.
"And we should be able to determine in fairly short order whether this accusation was true or false."
Nunes told reporters last week that he had seen no evidence of improper contacts between the Trump
team and Russian officials. He repeated that assertion Tuesday, stressing that it was common practice
for incoming administrations to meet with diplomats.
He added that based on his understanding of the transcripts of calls between Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, there was nothing inappropriate
or suspect about the substance of the conversation.
Nunes also questioned the official explanation for why Flynn's calls were recorded. Was it actually
because of "incidental collection" – as the intelligence community has argued – "or was it something
else?" he asked.
"It's important for us to know whether or not the Department of Justice or any other agency tried
to get a warrant on anybody related to the Trump campaign -– or any other campaign for that matter,"
Nunes said, explaining that the committee wanted to "verify" that the intelligence community was
using its surveillance authorities "ethically, responsibly and by the law."
Nunes may have a chance to grill intelligence community members about that on March 20, when
he plans to hold an open hearing as part of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into
allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
The guest list for the hearing is formidable, but not entirely comprehensive: Nunes and Schiff
agreed to invite FBI Director James Comey, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, former
CIA director John Brennan, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former acting
attorney general Sally Yates, and two senior officers of CrowdStrike – the company that found proof
that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee.
Schiff said Tuesday that he plans "on asking the director of the FBI directly whether there was
any wiretap directed at Mr. Trump or his associates" at the hearing.
"... Thus, it comes as no surprise that the NSA and likely the CIA continue with their spying, this time on our "the president and his men." This is highly dangerous to our republic, and, as found by one of the few intellectually honest and courageous federal judges on the bench in two cases which I filed a few years ago against the NSA, this conduct is "almost Orwellian," that is, reminiscent of George Orwell's prophesy in his landmark book, "1984." Orwell's "Big Brother" has indeed come to pass, as Judge Leon held in ruling in my favor in these lawsuits. (For more information, see FreedomWatchUSA.org .) ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA), having previously been disclosed by Edward Snowden and my whistleblower
client Dennis Montgomery to have unconstitutionally and illegally spied on the telephonic metadata,
internet, and social media communications of hundreds of millions of American citizens - including
Supreme Court justices, hundreds of lower court judges, prominent businessmen like Trump himself,
and ordinary American activists like yours truly - is at it again!
This time, with the resignation of Trump White House National Security Adviser General Michael
Flynn last night - based on telephone NSA intercepts he allegedly had with the Russian ambassador
- it's clear that the NSA is spying on the president, his White House, and the administration in
general.
This is highly dangerous, particularly since the intelligence agencies are chock full of loyalists
to former President Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their leftist comrades.
They are also stung by President Trump's criticism of their incompetence, partisanship, and lawlessness
under the direction of former Director of National Security James Clapper, who lied to under oath
to Congress about his wholesale illegal spying, yet as a card carrying member of the Washington,
D.C., establishment got off scot free from prosecution. And, then there is former CIA Director John
Brennan, who was literally at war with President-elect Trump as the hand-picked intelligence hack
of Obama himself. Even after his resignation a day prior to the inauguration of President Trump,
many of Brennan's agents remain in place at the CIA
Thus, it comes as no surprise that the NSA and likely the CIA continue with their spying, this
time on our "the president and his men." This is highly dangerous to our republic, and, as found
by one of the few intellectually honest and courageous federal judges on the bench in two cases which
I filed a few years ago against the NSA, this conduct is "almost Orwellian," that is, reminiscent
of George Orwell's prophesy in his landmark book, "1984." Orwell's "Big Brother" has indeed come
to pass, as Judge Leon held in ruling in my favor in these lawsuits. (For more information, see
FreedomWatchUSA.org .)
My success in this litigation caused Congress to enact the USA Freedom Act, which requires the
intelligence agencies to get warrants to obtain telephonic metadata based on a showing of probable
cause that terrorism is afoot or that a crime is in the act of being committed. But it's now clear
that, as has been documented time-in and time-out in court filings and from other sources, the NSA
and likely the CIA continue to have no respect for the law.
Now the NSA and likely the CIA as well have predictably turned their sights on the President of
the United States and his White House. This is not just an outrage, it threatens to unleash tyranny
the likes of which this nation has never seen. Because if the intelligence agencies are allowed to
continue, the real likelihood of coercion and blackmail will, as is also predicted, become the norm.
And, when this happens, our democracy will have been destroyed, much less the hope of the new Trump
administration, on behalf of all of us, to "Make America Great Again."
Of course, restoring the nation to greatness may not what the hacks at the NSA, CIA, and other
intelligence agencies may have in mind. The NSA and CIA, with this spying, holds a "Sword of Damocles"
over the heads of President Trump and his administration and in many ways they are control of the
fate of the United States. If King George III had had this power in the days leading up to the American
Revolution, our Founding Fathers would never had made to Philadelphia to debate, agree on, and ultimately
sign the Declaration of Independence. They would have been picked up by the Red Coats, arrested,
imprisoned, and ultimately executed.
I will be going back to Judge Leon in our ongoing cases to hold the NSA and CIA in contempt for
continuing its apparently illegal spying which threatens all of us. If there is one jurist who might
protect We the People, Judge Leon is the one. If not, then American patriots regrettably may ultimately
decide to take matters into their own hands, as happened 1776.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public
interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. To
read more of his reports,
Go Here Now .
"... Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same. ..."
"... According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP] ..."
"... Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf. ..."
"... Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson. ..."
What we must presume has been a behind the scene conflict between politicized elements of America's rather vast intelligence infrastructure
[at least 17 discreet agencies, which doesn't take "dark op" players into account] leading up to and now following the November 8
election, has ingloriously boiled over into a public cat fight.
If not for the subject matter the scene would be reminiscent of the now semi-ancient but nonetheless still hilarious Mad Magazine
cartoon series, Spy vs. Spy it's gotten that bad.
The basic thesis, doggedly argued by the most politicized of the various intelligence agencies' nodes - John Brennan's CIA – is
that Vlad Putin's operatives were responsible for the DNC/John Podesta hack which Hillary supporters believe threw the election into
the Dem's nightmare scenario, victory by the Blond Barbarian from New York, Donald J. Trump.
Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a
gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth
with an astounding 21,000 plus employees,
there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same.
According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely
flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution,
India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see,
The Ten Biggest American
Intelligence Failures , FP]
To some observers the very idea that a government organization with the charter of the CIA would not INHERENTLY be politicized
is foolish:
"Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain
itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think
it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question
will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers." [source,
Has the CIA Been Politicized? , Mises Institute]
So much for background and generalizations, let's turn to the real matter at hand, John Brennan's performance as Obama's lap dog,
parroting [highly questionable at best] the Democrat line that Putin put Trump in the Oval Office and is therefore an illegitimate
president.
This line of attack is so common within the modern progressive/Marxist Democrat Party that it would normally have little effect
outside the I95 corridor except for the fact that this one has a very visible [and presumed by many to be beyond reproach] and public
champion, John O. Brennan and his war-toy, the Central Intelligence Agency.
We believe for a number of reasons that in his effort to discredit Mr. Trump, Brennan is acting as an intelligence operative doing
[a uniquely narcissistic] president's bidding.
Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with
desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent
attack on Brennan's turf.
An above the fold feature story in the January 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal reflects this view:
"President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would
restructure and pare back the nation's top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said advisers also are working on a plan
to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people
out into field posts around the world. The CIA declined to comment.
'The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized,' said the individual, who is close
to the Trump transition. 'They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.'"
[source, Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes,
Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul , Wall St. Journal, January 5, 2017]
Exhibit two might be a bit less speculative:
"In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence
that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the
e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director
of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.
The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John
Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.
Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American
interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security
advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked
Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson.
During the 34 minute speech [video below] Brennan rendered his bizarre - near love affair - with Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mKUpmFb4h_U
[approximately 5:40 into the speech]
"...And as part of that experience, to learn about the goodness and beauty of Islam....I came to see Islam not as it is often
misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity...[breaks into spoken Arabic]
[approximately 7:30 into the speech]
"...But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates
from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race
or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our families. To
practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve
in positions across the Middle East...as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia.
In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.
I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege [he
corrects himself] that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds ...Jerusalem, where three
great faiths come together..." [see, William Mayer,
John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists ]
The use of the Arabic term - Al Quds - for the capital of Israel, Jerusalem by such a high ranking member of any American administration
is really without precedent, leading one to view with great suspicion the allegiance of Brennan as well as raising substantial questions
about his boss.
For our fourth exhibit, we turn simply to the career of Mr. Brennan. He was recruited by the CIA straight out of college, proceeded
to then serve for 25 years as a field agent followed by a long list of high level intel type government jobs. It's our judgment that
though the CIA director really doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the box, that persona is a façade hiding a very skilled
operator who views his current attack on the incoming president as if it were a clandestine assignment in some godforsaken part of
the planet.
In short Brennan is a man on a mission, Obama's bagman.
And finally, as our fifth exhibit let's examine the logic, or lack thereof of why someone like Vlad Putin would prefer Trump over
Hillary, thus providing him with motive.
Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that Putin directed a group of Russia's best programmers to hack into the DNC's Internet
network knowing that internal email would make Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party look so bad that voters would decide
to award the election to Trump.
What on earth would motivate the wily Russian strongman to prefer Trump over Hillary, consider the facts.
1. It's
common knowledge that Hillary's bathroom server network was hacked at least 5 times by foreign intelligence agencies. Thus, her
trading access for money through the Clinton Foundation would be well known to a group of individuals eager to exploit such weaknesses.
So it follows that if Putin was clever enough to hack into the DNC which had a more secure computer network than Hillary's, he had
at the same time a literal encyclopedia of dirt on the Clintons.
This of course would make Hillary, as president an obvious target for blackmail.
Think of what a crafty ex-KGB officer could do with only 1% of the type of information which was so inelegantly stored on the
Clinton email server, let alone the whole enchilada.
It would have made Hillary literally a puppet of Vlad Putin.
2. Contrast this with Trump's promise to rebuild the military as well as America's infrastructure and take an aggressive stance
against America's foes.
Sorry, it just doesn't fly. The idea of Putin hacking Trump to victory is absurd and just the last in a very long list of excuses
why one of the worst candidates for president in modern American history lost on November 8.
"... But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline
Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike
he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better: seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the
President's steeliness. ..."
"... "Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that only
reinforced the president's instincts. ..."
"... The memo was written not long after Brennan started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story
makes no mention of his presumed role in it. Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a
campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign
advisor, one with an exclusively national security focus. ..."
"... In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed. ..."
"... There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his charging
steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right. ..."
"... There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify
himself). ..."
"... In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive one
at that. ..."
"... By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to get
Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political discourse,
at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism and has been
slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared ..."
But I'm very interested in how the stories are structured differently. With Angler 1.0, the story was very clearly about Dick
Cheney and the methods he used to manipulate Bush into following his advice. Here, the story is really about John Brennan, Obama's
Cheney, portrayed deep in thought and foregrounding Obama in the article's picture. Indeed, halfway through, the story even gives
biographical background on Brennan, the classic "son of Irish immigrants" story, along with Harold Koh's dubious endorsement of Brennan's
"moral rectitude."
But instead of telling the story of John Brennan, Obama's Cheney, the story pitches Obama as the key decision-maker–a storyline
Brennan has always been one of the most aggressive pitchmen for, including when he
confirmed information on the Anwar al-Awlaki strike he shouldn't have. In a sense, then, Brennan has done Cheney one better:
seed a story of his own power, but sell it as a sign of the President's steeliness.
The Silent Sources for the Story
I already pointed out how, after presenting
unambiguous evidence of Brennan's past on-the-record lies, the story backed off calling him on it.
But there are other ways in which this story shifts the focus away from Brennan.
A remarkable number of the sources for the story spoke on the record: Tom Donilon, Cameron Munter, Dennis Blair, Bill Daley, Jeh
Johnson, Michael Hayden, Jim Jones, Harold Koh, Eric Holder, Michael Leiter, John Rizzo, and John Bellinger. But it's not until roughly
the 3,450th word of a 6,000 word article that Brennan is first quoted–and that's to largely repeat the
pre-emptive lies of his drone speech from last month.
"The purpose of these actions is to mitigate threats to U.S. persons' lives," Mr. Brennan said in an interview. "It is the
option of last recourse. So the president, and I think all of us here, don't like the fact that people have to die. And so he
wants to make sure that we go through a rigorous checklist: The infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base,
the imminence of the threat, all of these things."
That is the only on-the-record direct quote from Brennan in the entire article, in spite of the centrality of Brennan to the story.
And I would bet several of the sources quoted anonymously in the section describing Obama's method of counting the dead (which
still ignores the women and children) are Brennan: "a top White House adviser" describing how sharp Obama was in the face of the
first civilian casualties; "a senior administration official" claiming, in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, that the
number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan were in "single digits."
Note, too, the reference to a memo his campaign national security advisors wrote him.
"Pragmatism over ideology," his campaign national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that
only reinforced the president's instincts.
The memo was written not long after Brennan
started playing a more central role among Obama's campaign advisors. But the story makes no mention of his presumed role in it.
Further, in describing Jeh Johnson to introduce a quote, the piece notes that he was "a campaign adviser" (it doesn't say Johnson
was also focused on voter protection). But it does not note that Brennan, too, was a key campaign advisor, one with an exclusively
national security focus.
In other words, in several places in this story, Brennan plays a key role that is downplayed.
The Pro-Drone Narrator
Given that fact, I'm really interested in the several places where the story adopts a pro-drone viewpoint (it does adopt a more
critical stance in the narrative voice at the end).
For example, the story claims, in the first part of the story, that the drone strikes "have eviscerated Al Qaeda" without presenting
any basis for that claim. This, in spite of the fact that al Qaeda has expanded in Yemen since we've started hitting it with drones.
Later, the article uncritically accepts the claim that the drone–regardless of the targeting that goes into using it–is a "precision
weapon" that constitutes a rejection of a "false choice between our safety and our ideals."
The care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets, and their reliance on a precision weapon,
the drone, reflect his pledge at the outset of his presidency to reject what he called the Bush administration's "false choice
between our safety and our ideals."
For fucks sake! This article describes how the White House has adopted a "guilt by association" approach to drone targeting. It
describes renamed signature strikes (though presents what is almost certainly an outdated picture of the targeting review process).
Yet it uncritically accepts this "precision" claim–which clearly reflects a source's judgment–as true.
Finally, a potentially even bigger bias is in the presentation of the al-Majala strike on December 17, 2009.
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of
cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored.
Videos of children's bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash
that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.
The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.
The story doesn't name who the target was; it says only that the strike killed him, and the NYT repeats the claim without asking
for such details.
As I have noted
, though, sources speaking immediately after the strike
explained
the target struck where "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." (The quotes here are from the source, not
the ABC report.) There was, of course, an imminent attack being planned at the time, one about which we had at least some advance
intelligence. That was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attack. I'm pretty sure the strike on a Yemeni site 10 days after he left the
country missed him, though.
These last two quotes–perhaps all three–look like comments a White House figure (and it'll surprise no one that I suspect it's
Brennan) gave on deep background, such that his exact words are used, but without quotation marks or any indication of the source.
Credible journalists would have no other reason to make such unsubstantiated claims, particularly the "precision" claim that they
disprove elsewhere in the same article.
Who Okayed Killing Mehsud's Wife?
Ultimately, the depiction of John Brennan as Obama's puppetmaster is most interesting in the telling of Baitullah Mehsud's killing.
This version conflicts in key ways from the story that Joby Warrick told in his book, starting with
the uranium
claim that provided the excuse for targeting him. And while I'm working from memory, I believe Warrick portrayed the approval
of that killing–which might kill Mehsud's wife in addition to Mehsud–as involving Panetta alone. This version says Panetta consulted
Obama–through Brennan.
Then, in August 2009, the CIA director, Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But
taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama's standard of "near certainty" of no innocents
being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly result in such deaths: he was with his wife at his in-laws' home.
"Many times," General Jones said, in similar circumstances, "at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target
had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn't."
But not this time. Mr. Obama, through Mr. Brennan, told the CIA to take the shot, and Mr. Mehsud was killed, along with his
wife and, by some reports, other family members as well, said a senior intelligence official.
I'm not surprised by (or critical of) the conflict in the stories. It seems like Warrick relied primarily on CIA sources telling
a packaged version of the strike, while this story tells another packaged version of it. (Note, curiously, Panetta is only named
in this passage and never quoted.)
But I am struck by how obviously this story–whether filtered through Brennan as a direct source for this story, or filtered through
Brennan for Panetta's consumption at the time–depends on John Brennan to narrate Obama's role. If he weren't involved somehow, the
NYT wouldn't have included the "through Mr. Brennan." And while the detail doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things–Mehsud's
wife's death will weigh no more or less against Obama's and Brennan's record than Abdulrahman al-Awlaki or the Bedouin women and
children at al-Majala–it is a testament to the degree to which this story, and so many of those cited in this article, depend on
Brennan narrating Obama's role.
Marcy has been blogging full time since 2007. She's known for her live-blogging of the Scooter Libby trial, her discovery
of the number of times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, and generally for her weedy analysis of document dumps. Marcy Wheeler
is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog,
publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the
author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Marcy has a PhD from
the University of Michigan, where she researched the "feuilleton," a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important
in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations
in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse and dog in Grand Rapids, MI.
Like you EW, I got the sense that this NYT story was the product of a number of different motivations.
There is clearly an attempt to sell the Team Obama Campaign 2012 political viewpoint of a steely-eyed leader astride his
charging steed slaying the nation's enemies left and right.
There is clearly an attempt by Father John, Blabbermouth of Brennan to sanctify his patron Saint Obama (and no less sanctify
himself).
There are a number of attempts by lesser Doubting Thomases to question the sanctity of both Saint Obama and Father John.
There is a certain amount of seemingly NYT editorial tut-tutting as well as cheerleading.
In the end, it seems to me that Team Obama Campaign 2012 narrative was the overarching theme, and a somewhat defensive
one at that.
By that I mean, the campaign narrative seemed to say that even if Obama hasn't done much of anything else, not much to
get Americans back to work, not much to keep Americans in their homes, not much to calm the waters and heal the American political
discourse, at least the American voting public can rest assured that he's personally taken charge of the nation's war on terrorism
and has been slaying the dragons wherever they've appeared.
"... These are all the product of a shared suppressing of actual wage class majority WCM " best interests". The WCM must be fragmented for elites to attach Non rational handles to them. And port them around as voting pawns in elite tussles ..."
"... Yep. That is what makes identity politics so appealing. You get all the triangulation necessary to fragment the WCM at NO COST to corporate or wealthy economic interests. Who said there was no such thing as a free lunch? ..."
"... "fragment the WCM at NO COST to corporate or wealthy economic interests." Now I understand why two parties are necessary instead of just one. ..."
"... When 'democratic' elections are required, elites can't preserve their monopoly on power unless the electorate gets split on issues besides economic ones. Therefore, identity issues. ..."
"... Exactly! Also, when stuff goes real badly the party in power at the time gets deposed and its alternate elected into office, so that there is no further political retribution by the electorate. We become vindicated and satisfied by our only plausible response. We can just flip flop back and forth between the two parties amusing ourselves endlessly while the same elite class controls everything except which political surrogates will be their front men at any given point in time. ..."
"Rational, reasoning person"s have been absent the past 8
years; anyone disagreeing with Obama was racist or wanted the
evil doers to win, and in the past year [aided by deep state
surveillance of the political opposition] anyone opposing
Clinton is for Russians taking over and anti woman.......
When
naked class interests have to be disguised
When
choices are not what they appear to be
When
outcomes rely on non rational non empirical convictions
These are all the product of a shared suppressing of
actual
wage class majority WCM " best interests". The WCM must be fragmented for elites to attach Non
rational handles to them.
And port them around as voting pawns in elite tussles
Yep. That is what makes identity politics so appealing. You
get all the triangulation necessary to fragment the WCM at NO
COST to corporate or wealthy economic interests. Who said
there was no such thing as a free lunch?
"fragment the WCM at NO COST to corporate or wealthy economic
interests." Now I understand why two parties are necessary
instead of just one.
When 'democratic' elections are required, elites can't
preserve their monopoly on power unless the electorate gets
split on issues besides economic ones. Therefore, identity
issues.
If there was just one party, unity against elites would
most likely coalesce around economic issues, which would
become the common denominator of opposition ala French
Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc., etc.
Exactly! Also, when stuff goes real badly the party in power
at the time gets deposed and its alternate elected into
office, so that there is no further political retribution by
the electorate. We become vindicated and satisfied by our
only plausible response. We can just flip flop back and forth
between the two parties amusing ourselves endlessly while the
same elite class controls everything except which political
surrogates will be their front men at any given point in
time.
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The Australian Government refuses to declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38 Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014. ..."
"... In public Turnbull said on Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a shocking international crime." ..."
"... Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident? Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the MH17 case isn't there. ..."
"... Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area, thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement. ..."
"... There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was deorbited a few months later. ..."
"... On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan. ..."
"... My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of the Ukraine when they made those passes. ..."
"... This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and Ukraine have won. ..."
"... You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise, are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends. ..."
"... This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians, the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day. They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though ..."
"... How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left swinging in the wind. ..."
"... If you asked people in Australia if it was a good idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely that with Ukraine. ..."
"... As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts. ..."
Posted on
March 11, 2017
by
Yves Smith
By
John Helmer
, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in
Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of
single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of
political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United
States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential
administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally
published at
Dances with Bears
The Australian Government
refuses
to
declare the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 a terrorist act, and
is withholding state payments of $75,000 to each of the families of the 38
Australian nationals or residents killed when the plane was shot down in
eastern Ukraine on July 14, 2014.
The Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has written to advise Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; right image, Ukraine President
Petro Poroshenko) there is insufficient evidence of what and who caused the
MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act. Because
the Attorney-General's legal opinion flatly contradicts Turnbull's public
opinions, Brandis's advice is top-secret; he refuses to answer questions about
the analysis of the MH17 incident which he and his subordinates, along with
Australian intelligence agencies and the Australian Federal Police, have been
conducting for more than two years.
In public Turnbull
said
on
Monday: "Vladimir Putin's Russia is subject to international sanctions, to
which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17
airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let's not forget that. That was a
shocking international crime."
On Wednesday Turnbull was asked to explain why, after so long, the Prime
Minister, on the advice of the Attorney-General, refuses to designate the MH17
incident as criminal terrorism according to the provisions of the Supporting
Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act. Turnbull replied through a
spokesman that he is still investigating. "The criminal investigation of MH17
is ongoing. The outcomes of this investigation could be relevant in determining
whether this incident should be declared for the purposes of the Australian
Victims of Terrorism Overseas Payment scheme."
Brandis was asked to explain the reason for the legal opinion Canberra
sources confirm he has sent to the prime ministry denying the MH17 incident was
terrorism. That he has provided the advice on AVTOP is confirmed by a source
in Turnbull's office.
AVTOP is the Canberra acronym for Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas
Payment. This is how the AVTOP scheme operates, and how eligibility is
decided,
according
to
the Australian social security ministry. It records that the last terrorism
incident for which Australians qualify for AVTOP compensation was the Westgate
shopping mall killings in Nairobi on September 21, 2013. There were 67 fatal
casualties in that incident, and more than double that number of wounded. One
Australian was killed. On October 6, 2013, two weeks after the incident, the
Australian prime minister issued a formal designation of the terrorist incident
for AVTOP compensation. That commenced on October 21, one month after the
incident, according to the statutory filing in the Australian parliament.
The prime minister then was Tony Abbott; his attorney-general was Eric
Abetz.
In March 2016 Turnbull had replaced Abbott as prime minister; the
attorney-general was Brandis. They
agreed
to
designate three bombing attacks in Brussels, at the airport and at a city train
station, as terrorist incidents for AVTOP. The date of the incidents was March
22 (pictured below). The date of the Turnbull-Landis designation was May 6 – 45
days later.
There are press
reports
that
Australians were in Brussels, and were anxious; there are no reports of
Australians being killed or wounded in the attacks.
Why were successive Australian officials so quick to designate the Nairobi
and Brussels incidents as terrorism, before the local police and courts had
time to investigate and prosecute, and why have the Australian officials spent
two years and eight months refusing to designate the Ukrainian incident?
Canberra sources believe the answer is that there is no legal basis in the
Australian Criminal Code for doing so because the evidence of terrorism in the
MH17 case isn't there.
The 2013 and 2016 designations, along with the Canberra sources, identify a
terrorist incident according to the Australian Criminal Code. Officials
working under Brandis and Turnbull must satisfy the Attorney-General and Prime
Minister that the incident comes under the Code's sub-section 100.1(1). This
says
a
terrorist act "means an action or threat of action where: (b) the action is
done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political,
religious or ideological cause; and (c) the action is done or the threat is
made with the intention of: (i) coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the
government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or of
part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or (ii) intimidating the public
or a section of the public."
For background on the debate among government officials, police and lawyers
about the impact of Australian law on the MH17 incident, read
this
.
Canberra sources explain that even if Brandis had told Turnbull there was
enough evidence to certify the MH17 shoot-down as a terrorist incident,
according to the criminal code provisions, the prime minister still has a
broad discretion in deciding whether or not to make a declaration regarding a
particular incident.
That Turnbull hasn't done so for the MH17 carnage means he doesn't want to
do so - and not only because of his attorney-general's advice. Turnbull was
also behind press leaks that as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Abbott
in August 2014, he opposed a scheme of Abbott's to send 3,000 Australian troops
to join Dutch and other NATO forces in a US-backed military operation in
eastern Ukraine. Abbott and NATO had prepared the justification for the
military operation as Russian state terrorism in downing the MH17. Turnbull
arranged for his son-in-law to reveal the cabinet papers and intelligence
reports from the time, and to record his assessment that Abbott was foolhardy.
For that story, click
here
.
Australian sources who know Turnbull don't agree in their interpretation of
what he is now saying and doing. Some sources believe that with his political
mouth Turnbull is backing the US position against Russia and protecting himself
from opposition party attacks that he is "soft" on the Kremlin. With his legal
mind Turnbull knows there is no admissible evidence and no prospect of
prosecuting terrorism in the MH17 case.
The Australians haven't realized that their decision that the MH17 is not a
terrorist act undermines this month's proceedings in The Netherlands, where the
Ukrainian government has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to
convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the
destruction of MH17. The lawyers engaged this week at The Hague haven't
realized either.
The 45-page Ukrainian claim against Moscow to the ICJ is dated January 16,
2017, and can be read
here
.
The US law firm Covington & Burling is defending the Kiev government; the
advocates for the Russian side include British and French lawyers.
Advocates for Kiev at the ICJ this week: left US lawyer Marney Cheek;
right, Olena Zerkal, Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine
According to the Ukrainian claim, the destruction of MH17 was an act of
terrorism. "When the Russian Federation delivered this deadly surface-to-air
missile system to the DPR, it knew precisely the type of organization it was
aiding The Russian government knew or should have known that their proxies
would use these powerful antiaircraft weapons in a manner consistent with their
previous pattern of disregard for civilian life."
"By the early summer of 2014, the Russian Federation was well aware that its
proxies operating on Ukrainian territory were engaged in a pattern and practice
of terrorizing civilians. Yet rather than intervening to abate those actions,
the Russian Federation's response was to substantially increase these groups'
firepower by supplying them with powerful weapons. An early result of this
decision was the attack on Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17. In July 2014, as
part of this escalation of arms supplies and other support, the Russian
Federation delivered a Buk surface-to-air missile system to DPR-associated
forces. Those illegal armed groups used the Buk system to commit a devastating
surface-to-air attack, destroying a civilian airliner transiting Ukrainian
airspace and murdering the 298 individuals on board These perpetrators
committed this terrorist attack with the direct support of the Russian
government There is no evidence that the Russian Federation has taken any
responsibility before the peoples of the world for supporting this horrific
terrorist act."
"Ukraine respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the
Russian Federation bears international responsibility, by virtue of its
sponsorship of terrorism and failure to prevent the financing of terrorism
under the Convention, for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in
Ukraine, including: a.The shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17."
The Russian presentations in open court so far can be read
here
. Ilya
Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the
Russian Foreign Ministry, testified in front of 16 judges of the court on March
7. Rogachev was followed for the Russian side by London Queens Counsel,
Samuel Wordsworth.
According to Rogachev, "it should be noted that during the summer of 2014
the Ukrainian Army's anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with
'BUK-M1' missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment's
headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its
second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was
armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT."
He went on to argue that whether the Ukrainian forces fired the BUK missile,
or whether the separatists did, there is no evidence that either force intended
to do so. "It is enough to note," said Rogachev, "that neither the DSB [Dutch
Safety Board] nor the JIT [Joint Investigation Team] appear to be concluding
that the civil airliner was shot down with malicious intent or, which is what
matters most for today, that the equipment allegedly used was provided for that
specific purpose."
The JIT, according to Turnbull's spokesman in Canberra this week, includes
Australia,Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine. The spokesman said
they "remain committed to ensuring those responsible for the downing of MH17
are held to account." On the other hand, the evidence so far produced by the
JIT hasn't satisfied the admissibility and prosecution tests of the Australian
Federal Police (AFP) officers on the JIT staff. The AFP's Commissioner Andrew
Colvin reports to the Australian Justice Minister and he, as well as the
AFP
,
are part of the portfolio of Attorney- General Brandis.
In two Australian coroners court hearings, the AFP has revealed serious
reservations about the Dutch evidence and Ukrainian claims in the MH17
investigation; for details read
this
and
this
.
Turnbull adds through his spokesman an additional qualification. "The
outcomes of this investigation could be relevant" in determining whether the
downing of MH17 was a terrorist act. In Australian law and in the Prime
Minister's judgement, could means not now – and not at the International Court.
"For the action to fall under the Montreal Convention," Rogachev testified
this week in The Hague, referring to the principal international treaty
covering compensation for aircraft incidents, "the intention must have been to
shoot down a civilian aircraft "
Wordsworth told the ICJ judges that for every act alleged in the court
papers by the Kiev regime, "there is a separate requirement of specific intent.
So far as concerns Ukraine's allegations with respect to Flight MH17, Article
2.1 (a) incorporates the offences under the Montreal Convention, which comprise
the unlawful and intentional destruction of a civilian aircraft. So far as
concerns the other allegations of Ukraine, there is a requirement of both
specific intent and purpose. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to: "(b) Any other act
intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other
person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed
conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to
intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."
Wordsworth was repeating in open court what the Australian Attorney-General
has already advised the Australian Prime Minister. Because the Australians have
decided there is no case for a terrorist act to justify compensating their own
citizens, the Ukrainians have already lost their case.
Only a bloody fool would suggest that Putin has anything to gain by shooting
down a civilian airliner. If Turnbull really believes this he should issue a
travel advisory on all Australian airlines crossing Russian airspace. Whan I
first heard of this it appeared that the rebels had shot the plane down
thinking it was some kind of Ukranian plane. The Ukranian went full court with
this to brand Russia a terrorist state, things went downhill from there. The
Ukraine bears culpability for allowing transit flights over a disturbed area,
thus they can't really press for a neutral judgement.
I'll add the usual point that the charge is all the more incredible
because none of the US' radar and satellite coverage at the time has been
brought to bear to "prove" Russian complicity. Ukraine air space 7/24/14,
unplugged?
There was one KH-11 (USA-161) (2001-044A) that provides optical
imagery in position at that time that might have had chance to image the
area. However it might no longer have been functioning as it was
deorbited a few months later.
There were also a number of commercial imaging satellites that passed
through the area that day.
On that day several radar imaging satellite / systems made passes over
the area. Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A), FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A,
2012-014A and 2013-072A), the SAR-Lupe satellites, the Hélios system and
IGS. These are operated by the US, Germany, France and Japan.
There were numerous (too many to list) SIGNIT satellites operated by a
number of countries from LEO to HEO (SBIRS).
My understanding is that the SBIRS saw the missile launch. Likely
others 'saw' something. But likely, nothing any one satellite 'saw' is
going to 'prove' anything. It would take the assembly of a number of
things that were 'seen' to provide a weighted conclusion. Also a number
of those satellites would have been looking at the Middle East instead of
the Ukraine when they made those passes.
This sounds like another sleazy compromise. Maybe the secret is
that the Russians have cold hard evidence against Nato and Ukraine on
this. Perhaps evidence that the Netherlands also compromised its
notorious caution and allowed somebody to let MH17 fly over a war
zone. So with this obfuscation about lack of intent both Russia and
Ukraine have won.
If intent cannot be proven against the Russians, it
can't be proven against the Ukrainian army either because the evidence
presented eliminated all the above top secret details. So now the
whole thing was an "accident". When, if all the evidence were
reviewed, a case for intent falls against Nato and Ukraine – they
intended to frame Russia for the incident to gain support for their
cause. And as such it does meet the definition of terrorism. At least
Turnbull refused to call it Russian terrorism.
What I want to know is why the Ukrainian air traffic control system directed
this flight over a zone of active hostilities, where the Ukrainian Air Force
had previously had a good many military aircraft shot out of the sky.
The answer to the first part of your question is that countries get paid
for over flights. The second part of your question is that all the Ukrainian
Air Force planes that had been shot down were flying much, much lower and it
was assumed the equipment being used to do it couldn't go as high as the
commercial airliners were flying.
You, know sort of like the Soviets couldn't reach the U-2.
Indeed – even if they had no reason to believe that a capability to shoot
down airliners at 30,000 feet plus (i.e., a weapon like the Buk-M1) was present
on the ground at that point, commerical airliners are sometimes required to
descend rapidly to much lower altitudes (e.g., by pressure emergencies) so it
makes no sense to rely on an assumption that hostile weapons can't reach the
usual cruising altitude. It is a fair question what the airline ops people were
thinking as well.
Agreed that this has always seemed more likely to be a reckless screwup by
the people running the BUK than a deliberate terrorist act. (Then again, I
think the host nations do make money from these flyovers.)
I agree with your conclusion that it was a total screw up. Only part of
the system was present and that cut down the ability to see the entire
picture (or better see the entire picture).
You make me think John Helmer. Yes, if Russian citizens, Putin or otherwise,
are directly responsible for supplying the Buk that allegedly shot down flight
MH17 to anyone in Ukraine or actually committed such an act, why are the
Netherlands, USA, Australia, all countries of the world, especially those of
Anglo-American persuasion, allowing their commercial aircraft to overfly
Russian and Ukrainian territory? Why? Because they don't believe the story
themselves, see Australia's stance, for instance. What a bunch of flaming
hypocrites. The dead are dead so why not makt the best of them use them as an
unprincipled excuse to achieve political ends.
This whole MH17 incident stinks to high heaven and I cannot believe how much
of our media here in Oz is uncritically accepting the official story. What is
worse is knowing that all those deaths are being used as a convenient political
football, the truth be damned. I can think of a dozen things that set of my BS
Indicator here with MH17 such as the Ukrainians absolutely refusing to release
the ground control comms to the downed airliner or that, unlike the Russians,
the US has refused to release detailed radar and radio intercepts for that day.
They did reference a nice YouTube clip of a moving truck though.
How many people know that the Ukrainians had their own BUK missiles in the
area because they were shit-scared of the Russian Air Force maybe paying them a
visit. Or that they had previously shot down an airliner – and had refused to
accept responsibility? I think that Turnbull does not want the crash labelled a
terrorist incident as when the full truth comes out (and it always does in the
end) it would open up all sorts of legal liabilities and it could be him left
swinging in the wind.
Following American policy for this area, of which Australia has no
connection, has led to all sorts of weird repercussions. Tony Abbott wanted to
send a brigade of our troops to eastern Ukraine as part of a NATO force. That
would of worked out well! If you asked people in Australia if it was a good
idea to ship uranium to a semi-failed state in the middle of a civil war that
has made indications that they would like to acquire nuclear weapons most of
them would say no way. And yet last year we signed an agreement to do precisely
that with Ukraine.
As a former combat veteran, I can attest that the "smoking gun" in the
MH17 case is the clearly identifiable circular holes in the fuselage which
could only have been caused by the cannons of a fighter aircraft and not
from shrapnel produced from an exploding missile. Shrapnel does not produce
perfectly circular and consistent holes. MH17 was most likely brought down
by the fighter jet following it in eyewitness accounts.
Agreed. This would not be an issue at all were it not for the
propaganda smoke screen the western MSM was ordered to throw up to
protect those who must never be named.
Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I remember reading that Putin was traveling back
to Russia and his flight path was changed prior to the shoot down of MH17,
which was on the same flight path, but wasn't altered. A mistake by the
Ukrainians who didn't get the word? As for the silence of the U.S., seems to go
with the territory considering who is/was at center stage in the overthrow
revolution.
Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin claims "the evidence is overwhelming" that the Obama administration spied on Donald
Trump leading up his inauguration
, RadarOnline.com has learned.
"I'm saying the public record is damning of the Obama administration. It was investigating the campaign of a presidential candidate
of an opposing party during the course of the campaign. Its use of FISA, loosening of NSA distribution requirements, husbanding
and protecting information at the behest of White House staff on the way out the door, and recent leaks of confidential and perhaps
classified information is extraordinary," Levin said in the CNN Reliable Sources newsletter.
"... FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance." ..."
"... Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones. ..."
"... Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ." ..."
"... The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House." ..."
"... Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress . ..."
"... Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. ..."
So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But
getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be true is that
the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what
authority and who was targeted.
FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which
almost always allows
the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the
court refused permission,
according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests
to conduct national security surveillance."
Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request
that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was
granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and
the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones.
Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous
on several levels." Others have characterized them as a "
non-denial denial ."
To the Obama camp's claim that the president didn't "order" surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:
"First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance. And
by statute, it is the Justice department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.
So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff 'ordered' surveillance of Trump and his associates.
The
issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether,
if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive
and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate
of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the
candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened
without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House."
And as journalist Mickey Kaus commented on Twitter, there's a reason why presidents name
trusted allies as attorney general.
As close as former attorney general Loretta Lynch was to Obama, and as supportive as she was of his political goals, it seems very
unlikely that this was some sort of rogue operation.
It's certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn't be the first president to
engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic
spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the
Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter
but also of his parents. Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA
spied on Congress
.
Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents.
After all, the notorious
IRS scandal was about exactly that.
Trump has called for a
congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted
Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation,
it will turn out that nothing improper happened – that this is a lot of smoke, but that there's no fire. But we can't know without
an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process,
those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.
Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant,
deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was – as it appears to have been
– excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as
First
Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.
Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we're dealing with something worse. Hopefully
not, but there's no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, "Democracy dies in darkness."
Let's shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.
I believe what Charles Hugh-Smith does not understand that CIA is connected to Wall Street and large financial institutions and
always was. It escaped the control of "surface state" as early as 1964. although there were some back-and-forth movement, such as Church
committee and Pike commission. CIA acts more like Praetorian Guard of Wall Street then the US presidents. As pike Pike sarcastically
noted about CIA attempt to hide its activities from American public in his reply to Corby "First of all, it's a delight to receive two
letters from you not stamped 'Secret' on every page." Accordingly, on 31 July 1975, the Pike Committee held its first hearing on the
CIA budget. Elmer B. Staats, the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (GAO), was the first witness. Staats testified
that the GAO had no idea how much money the CIA spent or whether its management of that money was effective or wasteful because his
agency had no access to CIA budgetary information. The Pike group's final report concluded that the foreign intelligence budget was
three or four times larger than Congress had been told; that money appropriated for the IC was hidden throughout the entire Federal
budget; that the total amount of funds expended on intelligence was extremely difficult Taking on the issue of secrecy, the report argued
that "taxpayers and most of Congress did not know and cannot find out how much they spend on spy activities." The committee saw this
as being in direct conflict with the Constitution, which required a regular and public accounting for all funds spent by the Federal
Government.
25 The document then addressed Colby's argument that the Soviets would benefit enormously from disclosure. The report claimed
that the Soviets probably already had a detailed account of US intelligence spending, far more than just the budget total. It concluded
that "in all likelihood, the only people who care to know and do not know these costs are the American taxpayers."
26
The Pike Committee Investigations and the CIA - Central Intelligence Agency
Notable quotes:
"... Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties? If there are no limits on CIA powers and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing. ..."
"... Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/04/erik-prince-nypd-ready-make-ar... ..."
"... "They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said. ..."
"... McAfee says the cia was handed unlimited money by Obama to hack for him and the nsa, cia and fbi need total restructuring: "The CIA Just Got Nuked!" The Legendary John McAfee on 'Vault 7' Revelation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRBKpeMHT5E ..."
"... Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America. This has been in the works for decades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4 ..."
"... President Kennedy warns us as well, which probably cost him his life... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YafZkjiMpjU ..."
"... Now the CIA (rogue parts) has their balls in a vice, squeeze them. Trump should tweet "I find the things released in Vault 7 disturbing and we are investigating all aspects" ..."
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle - it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the
nation.
When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests ?
The CIA and its political enablers claim the agency's essentially unlimited powers, partially revealed by Wikileak's Vault 7 , pose
no threat to America's interests, since they are intended to "defend" American interests.
This is the rationale presented by neocon CIA allies in both political parties: the CIA can't possibly threaten America's interests
because the CIA defines America's interests.
This is the wormhole down which civil liberties and democracy have drained. It is an extraordinarily defining moment in American
history when the director of the FBI publicly declares that there is no such thing as "absolute privacy" in the U.S.
In effect, privacy is now contingent on the level of interest the Security State has in the private conversation/data. If we read
the U.S. Constitution, we do not find such contingencies: civil liberties are absolute. Post-1790 presidents have temporarily mooted
civil liberties in time of war, and the CIA-led camp of the Deep State has justified its unlimited powers by effectively declared
"a state of war is now permanent and enduring."
So what's left to defend if America has become the enemy of civil liberties and democracy , i.e. become a totalitarian state ruled
by Security Services and their political henchmen and apologists?
I have long suggested that the tectonic plates of the Deep State are shifting as the ruling consensus has eroded. Some elements
of the Deep State--what I call the progressive wing, which is (ironically to some) anchored in the military services-- now view the
neocon-CIA (Security State)-Wall Street elements as profoundly dangerous to America's long-term interests, both domestically and
globally.
I have suggested that this "rogue Deep State" quietly aided Donald Trump (by subtly undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign) as
the last best chance to save the nation from the neocon's over-reach that the Establishment's Wall Street-funded leadership (Bush,
Clinton, Obama, et al.) has overseen--including granting the CIA and its allies virtually unlimited powers unhindered by any effective
oversight.
This profound split in the Deep State has now broken into open warfare. The first salvo was the absurd propaganda campaign led
by Establishment mouthpieces The New York Times and The Washington Post claiming Russian agents had "hacked" the U.S. election to
favor Trump.
This fact-free propaganda campaign failed --having no evidence didn't work quite as well as the NYT and Wapo expected-- and so
the propaganda machine launched the second salvo , accusing Trump of being a Russian patsy.
The evidence for this claim was equally laughable, and that campaign has only made the Establishment, its propaganda mouthpieces
and the neocon Deep State look desperate and foolish on the global and domestic stages.
The desperate neocon Deep State and its Democratic Party allies went to absurd lengths to undermine Trump via the "Boris ad Natasha"
strategy of accusing Trump of collaborating with the Evil Russkies, even going so far as to briefly exhume former President G.W.
Bush from deep-freeze to make a fool of himself, saying the Trump-Evil Russkies connection should be "investigated."
Now the rogue elements have launched a counterstrike--Vault 7. Here is one example of how quickly the CIA's over-reach has been
absorbed by the body politic:
We now know that the CIA maintained a special program (UMBRAGE) to mimic Russia-based hackers and create false trails back to
fictitious "Russian hackers." A number of highly experienced analysts who reviewed the supposed "Russian hacks" had suggested the
"evidence" smelled of false trails-- not just bread crumbs, but bread crumbs heavy-handedly stenciled "this is Russian malware."
The body count from Vault 7 has not yet been tallied, but it wouldn't surprise me if former President Obama and his team eventually
end up as political casualties. Non-partisan observers are noting all this over-reach occurred on Obama's watch, and it hasn't gone
unnoticed that one of Obama's last executive orders stripped away the last shreds of oversight of what could be "shared" (or invented)
between the Security Agencies.
Indeed, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have placed all their chips on the increasingly unviable claim
that the CIA is the squeaky clean defender of America.
Vault 7 is not just political theater--it highlights the core questions facing the nation: what is left to defend if civil
liberties and democratically elected oversight have been reduced to Potemkin-village travesties? If there are no limits on CIA powers
and surveillance, then what is left of civil liberties and democracy? Answer: nothing.
The battle raging in the Deep State isn't just a bureaucratic battle--it's a war for the soul, identity and direction of the nation.
Citizens who define America's interests as civil liberties and democracy should be deeply troubled by the Establishment's surrender
of these in favor of a National Security State with essentially no limits.
Americans tasked with defending America's "interests" globally should be asking if a CIA/NSA et al. with unlimited power is detrimental
to America's soft and hard power globally, and toxic to its influence.
The answer is obvious: a CIA with unlimited power and the backing of a corrupt Establishment and media is more than detrimental
to America's soft and hard power globally --it is disastrous and potentially fatal to America's interests, standing and influence.
Those of us on the sidelines can only hope that the progressive wing of the Deep State, the rogue elements who see the terrible
danger of an unlimited National Security State, will succeed in undermining the powerful political support for this toxic totalitarian
regime.
I like my FAKE NEWS to be about RUSSIA . Hut, Hut, HIKE -- The dUmmycrats demanded the March 20 investigation into, of all
things, ELECTION TAMPERING. We know they did this right through the entire thing. Every time Burnie got moar votes in the primaries,
Honest Hill'rey's LEAD GOT BIGGER.
Hill'rey got debate questions ahead of time DOH!
It got so blatant DNC boss Wasserman either quit or got fired, take your pick, then half-ass denied she would EVER tip the
fake scales for Hill'rey. A couple days later she signs on DIRECTLY WITH THE HILL'REY CAMPAIGN. Whooops!
Trumps goes on Twitter and says then pResidont Barkey spied on him at Trump Tower. ALL the establishment TURDS, in unison,
squeal, "that's crazy".
A couple of days later Wikileaks drops Vault 7 and we learn that, courtesy of the patriots of CEE-EYE-AY, our TVs and phones
are spying on everybody and they have "Umbrage" software that can make it look like anybody did it.
James Comey asks the DOJ to confirm this is crazy by disclaiming Trump's crazy accusations and THEY DON'T.
FUCK YOU!
Remember class, Comey opened Hill'rey investigation #2 after Chuck Schumer's protégé, disgraced pedo, pervert, former congrossman
Anthony Weiner's laptop popped up. Then, another pervert, former pResidont $lick Willie, who himself was IMPEACHED for lying about
an affair with an intern and started a BOMBING CAMPAIGN on the SAME DAY , taps Lorretta Lynch on the tarmac and POOF, Hill'rey
is exonerated again.
DJT - "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days,"
"They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering,
including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more
than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said.
Ranking member Adam Schiff is going to insist the above is all outside the scope of their fake investigation, and the majority
rEpublitards will say they're opposed to this but say sorry "It's just too hard". OR, NONE of the history of this situation WILL
EVEN OCCUR TO ANY OF THEM. RUSSIA!
McAfee says the cia was handed unlimited money by Obama to hack for him and the nsa, cia and fbi need total restructuring:
"The CIA Just Got Nuked!" The Legendary John McAfee on 'Vault 7' Revelation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRBKpeMHT5E
I was thinking about all this and I'm worried that their only answer will be to take Donald out. If that were to happen would
things go right back to "there is nothing to see here" press and "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" government?
or have the dominos already started to fall?
I said it before and I will say it again. It is going to get incredibly ugly before it gets better. Buckle up people. And never
lose lose your resolve to fight this fight. Well, that is, if you prefer Freedom over some government agency controlling your
life.
I feel sorry for all of the people who join the military who think they are going to defend our freedoms and the constitution.
They don't even realize their own government is taking those freedoms away faster than any foreign enemy could in hundreds of
years. This is why people revolted and left Britain for America. Sadly there is no where else to run or hide from busy bodies
who think they know what is best for everyone else.
Anyone who joined during Bush's last couple of years and all of Obama's term is an idiot.
I understand the patriotism after 9/11 (no matter whether you believe that it was a conspiracy or not. Only a very small percentage
did not believe the official story right after it happened) .
TRUMP is TOO QUIET about all this WikiLeaks dump. And you would expect him to feel vindicated regarding the wiretap. But no..
he's quiet... TOO QUIET. If they got some dirt on him...just a little... bye bye MAGA. He'll dance like a bitch for the Deep State.
And
1. by leaving Pence to be too LOUD (and Stupid; for fuck sake this Vice President tries to take over Trump, In Europe talked
shit with NATO behind Trump's back, now this, instead of being silent and just go to women' marches ):
I like the idea of putting recruiter offices on the top floor of VA hospitals: potential recruits have to thread the gauntlet
through all the wards on the way up. It won't discourage everyone, but that decision will be a little better-informed.
I fully understand those sentiments, and largely agree with them. Some of us knew the score (9/11, police state, Zionism, etc.)
and joined for one reason: the combat/weapons training and to get first-hand experience dealing with stressful, chaotic situations
- all with an eye toward the time when those attributes will be direly needed! Soon, I suspect. There are many good people in
the military who know the score, especially in the NCO corps.
Granted, most people that read ZH do so for the gloom reports. Nevertheless, no one is taking out Trump . If they did, there
would be revolution. (Although crybaby liberals might want revolution if they don't get their way, so I could be wrong.)
CIA is how America fights wars before the actual war using non-Americans in foreign soil. Then economic sanctions to play chicken
with money ...but house (wall st.) always wins this game. And when all else fails, then US military is deployed ...with mercenaries
to hide actual #s.
Why? .....because they know you don't want half of your tax dollars going to wars. But strong military only protects the haves....the
billionare class with lots of paper wealth.
How adorable, another goyim playing the victim card and pretending that Christian Europeans and their American descendents
were just moral angels living in a utopia until the Jews showed up. Even a cursory, non-leftist review of the behavior of Christians
since they decided which fictional books would form their religious cannon will demonstrate they were perfectly terrible to each
other and others more or less continuously for thousands of years. Their elite colluded amongst themselves, as they do now, against
the common man. Pretending like the most recent adoption of Jews as middle management for their empire is not part of their usual
divide and conquer plan is not merely sticking your head in the sand, but all the way up your colon.
The real absurdity of your comments is that given the most recent CIA revelations, we are talking about a very goyim agency
that has been acting this way since it's inception. Are you really going to argue that Allen Dulles was a crypto-Jew, or that
the folks that brought Nazis back into the US after the war and incorporated them into government just woke up one day and decided
to hand the keys of the kingdom over to the Jews? It's abusrd. While there is certainly a certain annoying hysteria and neuroticism
that plagues Jewish intellectuals in America, you can spin however you want, but they're not in charge, they're a few pegs below.
The Jewish thing is so out there in the open--that is mighty convenient, no? You don't have to exactly dig deep to find all these
Jews seemingly running things. That is by design, as it has always been. When SHTF, who do you think people are going to turn
on? This whole thing should be obvious to ZHers by now, by you all continue to get hoodwinked by one of the oldest plays in the
elite playbook. It also works out nicely because, as I mentioned above, it allows Christian whites to absolve themselves of the
sins of their own ancestors (and where do you think they may have gotten that idea from?).
Anyway, never mind me, and commence with your myopic paranoia and continue missing the bigger picture.
You're generally looking at internal Jewish power struggles and factions, day after day. They're pretty much openly interceding
in Israeli elections, then turning around to have overwhelming influence in American elections. It's an exceptionally special
relationship, apparently. And the CIA is up to its careerist eye balls in it, just like the Bush family.
One faction may be better than another. Trump, supported by alternative Jewish media/Drudge/Breitbart/etc. was better than
all the certified kosher candidates that neoconservatives tried to pick over him. And then he was better than Hillary. Yay...
whatever.
It's still kind of sad that no one else has much representation in their own supposed country, as an ethnic oligarchy or some
sort of "globalist"/international/Communist power structure has formed in the usual manner. The key words are nationalist vs.
internationalist, not any other ideologies that are secondary to "Who we are..." as "We the people..."
former CIA agent Robert Steele about the future of the Trump Presidency and the Deep State and a possible impending economic
crisis. He says they will collapse the economy this summer while Soros will have Berkeley times 1000 out in the streets and Trump
will resign. Says Rinse is just a spy for Paul Ryan and MacMaster is a spy for John McCain. He said he has made so many mistakes
and has a rotten staff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ZuzE3RYX0&feature=youtu.be
Now the CIA (rogue parts) has their balls in a vice, squeeze them. Trump should tweet "I find the things released in Vault
7 disturbing and we are investigating all aspects"
I think Trump has their balls in a vice, at least the actors in congress.
The March 20 hearing is on a Monday, so if he starts tweeting about the Weiner laptop on the Friday before, and FORCES it into
the fake news, WATCH OUT, and get your popcorn ready.
Veritas vos liberabit. The truth will set you free. [The
English variant "And Ye Shall Know the Truth and
the Truth Shall Make You Free" is carved in stone in the Original Headquarters Building (OHB) of the
Central Intelligence Agency. ]
The motto of the Criminal Insurgent Assassins -and some day, the truth will set us free; just as it did when the East Germans
stormed STASI headquarters and started ransacking their 'secret' files.
That's not so much about Eurocentric modernism as America-centric neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?" demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist Joan Robinson. ..."
"... Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists: a society of hustlers. ..."
"... how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. ..."
"... he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become too high? ..."
"... "That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ..."
"... Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken. Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant of the struggles against heresy. ..."
"... Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a description of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day. ..."
"... I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly of their ways, and become normal humans. ..."
"... So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people, ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that had just been destroyed. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way or another, they get flattened. ..."
"... I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices in "morality". ..."
"... At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did. ..."
"... "They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression and better weapons. ..."
"... It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status, things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence, an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb. ..."
"... Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to win. But when all resources ..."
"... I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire. I propose hockey. Beats starting a war . ..."
"... When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa (Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election). ..."
"... The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously "It would be a good idea". ..."
"... I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization. But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc. ..."
"... I believe that one element of modern life that should be removed forever is the infinite search for maximizing profits. ..."
"... On more than one occasion I've compared the rent-seeking profit mongers to Molocks that cultivate us milder Eloi and cannabalize us. ..."
"... But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in THEM anyway. ..."
"... Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory (yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility. We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different, at best. ..."
"... Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark Age be? ..."
"... Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome, or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar institution have we now? ..."
"... Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful. ..."
"... The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm. ..."
"... I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism, free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time. ..."
"... But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems, the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis. ..."
"... IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing. ..."
"... Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent seeking. ..."
"... Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations. ..."
"... It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument, but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment. ..."
"... This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to the blight of NeoLiberalism ..."
"... The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage. But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise, things have reached an unlovely pass. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... For further reading, I strongly recommend John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards". ..."
"... I think that people who are interested in how the Enlightenment may or may not have contributed to the problems of modernity would do well to read Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity , by Darrin McMahon. Another book of value is The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters , by Anthony Pagden. ..."
"... I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West". ..."
Across the globe, a collective freak-out spanning the whole political system is picking up steam
with every new "surprise" election, rush of tormented souls across borders, and tweet from the star
of America's great unreality show, Donald Trump.
But what exactly is the force that seems to be pushing us towards Armageddon? Is it capitalism
gone wild? Globalization? Political corruption? Techno-nightmares?
Rajani Kanth, a political economist, social thinker, and poet , goes beyond any of these
explanations for the answer. In his view, what's throwing most of us off kilter - whether we think
of ourselves as on the left or right, capitalist or socialist -was birthed 400 years ago during the
period of the Enlightenment. It's a set of assumptions, a particular way of looking at the world
that pushed out previous modes of existence, many quite ancient and time-tested, and eventually rose
to dominate the world in its Anglo-American form.
We're taught to think of the Enlightenment as the blessed end to the Dark Ages, a splendid blossoming
of human reason. But what if instead of bringing us to a better world, some of this period's key
ideas ended up producing something even darker?
Kanth argues that this framework, which he calls Eurocentric modernism, is collapsing, and unless
we understand why and how it has distorted our reality, we might just end up burnt to a crisp as
this misanthropic Death Star starts to bulge and blaze in its dying throes.
A Mass Incarceration of Humanity
Kanth's latest book, Farewell to Modernism: On Human Devolution in the Twenty-First Century , tells the history
of a set of bad ideas. He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student
in India, wondering why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline,
the logic always escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from
start to finish." To his amazement, his best teachers agreed. "Then why are we studying economics?"
demanded the pupil. "To protect ourselves from the lies of economists," replied the great economist
Joan Robinson.
Kanth realized that people are not at all like Adam Smith's homo economicus , a narrowly
self-interested agent trucking and bartering through life. Smith had turned the human race - a species
capable of wondrous caring, creativity, and conviviality - into a nasty horde of instinctive materialists:
a society of hustlers.
Using his training in history and cultural theory, Kanth dedicated himself to investigating
how this way of thinking took hold of us, and how it delivered a society which is essentially
asocial - one in which everybody sees everybody else as a means to their own private ends. Eurocentric
modernism, he argues, consigned us to an endless and exhausting Hobbesian competition. For every
expansion of the market, we found our social space shrunk and our natural environment spoiled. For
every benefit we received, there came a new way to pit us against each other. Have the costs become
too high?
The Creed of Capture
The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence to
achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the welfare
of community and society.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to the Western
spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into song, calling on
the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From the Eurocentric
modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly do it so that we can
say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach of somebody else." Hooray for
me!
"That's our big dream," says Kanth. "Everyone and everything is a stepping stone to our personal
glorification." When others get in our way, we end up with a grim take on life described succinctly
by Jean Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
Sounds bad, but didn't Eurocentric modernism also give us our great democratic ideals of equality
and liberty to elevate and protect us?
Maybe these notions are not really our salvation, suggests Kanth. He notes that when we replace
the vital ties of kinship and community with abstract contractual relations, or when we find that
the only sanctioned paths in life are that of consumer or producer, we become alienated and depressed
in spirit. Abstract rights like liberty and equality turn out to be rather cold comfort. These ideas,
however lofty, may not get at the most basic human wants and needs. .
... ... ...
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus of
reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
"The Eurocentric modernist program, according to Kanth, has four planks: a blind faith in science;
a self-serving belief in progress; rampant materialism; and a penchant for using state violence
to achieve its ends. In a nutshell, it's a habit of placing individual self-interest above the
welfare of community and society."
Kanth hasn't dealt much with the wild skepticism of Enlightenment and modernist thinkers: That
would put a strain on such simplistic thinking. He's never heard of Kant or Rousseau? Pascal?
He's never even read Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach"? Dickens? A speech by Abraham Lincoln? The
novels of Jane Austen? Maybe some articles by Antonio Gramsci? The Leopard by Tomasi di Lampedusa?
Anything about Einstein? Or even Freud for that matter? Looked at a painting or etching or work
in ceramic by Picasso?
Just because economics has devolved into looting and excuse-making for looting isn't a critique
of the cultural and scientific flowering that were part of the Enlightenment and Modernism. Are
we really supposed to think that Milton Friedman and his delusions have destroyed all aspects
of the enormous changes since 1600 or so? And I, for one, don't want to backslide into the Baroque–when
states used their power for religious wars so virulent that Silesia and Alsace were depopulated.
Alienation is not the name of a river in Egypt BTW, Did any of your examples lead to anything
other than this?
The sum of individuals adds up to the bizarre creature we call "culture." A flower in the air,
to be sure.
They didn't even have food delivery! This post isn't the best evah in the history of NC - I
mean it shouldn't be censored or taken down or anything and everybody has a right to an opinion,
but "Oy Vey what a shock to a reader's delicate intellectual sensibilities."
You wonder if it's Beer Goggles that are being looked through or if this is a case of transference
and projection. The fact that the post author is a poet raises suspicion, since they aren't the
most reliable sources when it come so sober factual analysis.
Mr. Kanth makes some valid points, but his criticism of the European Enlightenment is mistaken.
Many of the horrors of modernity had their origins in the Counter-Enlightenment and in the Church
Inquisitions, not the Enlightenment. The modern police state is a refinement of and a descendant
of the struggles against heresy.
If one is going to criticize societies for lacking "moral economies", it's not just the European
(and American) based societies that need to be targeted. Other societies have deep failures that
extend back for millennia, such as the caste system of India.
Agreed. Parramore's phrase 'history of a set of bad ideas' does seem a bit harsh for a
description of the Enlightenment.
Been a while since I read Candide , but the end where he meets the world famous sage
and asks for the secret of happiness in a terrible world only to be told 'Tend your own garden'
and then having the gate slammed in his face has always stuck with me.
You could interpret that to mean isolate yourself from your fellow human beings and just look
out for yourself, but I don't think that's what Voltaire was getting at.
Like most big ideas, the problem isn't with the original idea so much as the corruption
of it over the years as it's put into practice. Massive reform is necessary for sure but I'll
take the Enlightenment over nasty, brutish, and short any day.
Perhaps, beyond anthropology, there are lessons in evolutionary biology. Individual humans
are fairly weak animals. Our ancestors were obligated to "huddle" to survive, or as Richard Dawkins
might suggest, huddling, banding together in families and groups, was an evolutionarily successful
strategy. Those well adapted to communal living were more likely to survive, so that tendency
was selected for. However, "cheaters" can also survive. That is, it is not uncommon in the natural
world to find individuals and groups of individuals who cheat the group – expend less energy to
reproduce, such as male sunfish that display the secondary sexual characteristics of females,
so are not driven off by nest building males, make a mad dash in to fertilize eggs when a real
female shows up, but provides no protection for the young – the adult male does that. In human
culture, there are also cheaters, those who provide little to the larger society, yet reap a disproportionate
level of resources.
So, learning more of our cultural roots and adopting positive measures for social cohesion
is a good idea, but much like Jesus' view that the poor will always be with us, cheaters, from
banksters to dictators, will too.
As Kanth sees it, most of our utopian visions carry on the errors and limitations born of
a misguided view of human nature. That's why communism, as it was practiced in the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, projected a materialist perspective on progress while ignoring the natural human
instinct for autonomy- the ability to decide for ourselves where to go and what to say and
create. On flip side, capitalism runs against our instinct to trust and take care of each other.
I think this paragraph speaks volumes for transitioning to a society with a BGI with libertarian
socialist leanings. Let people be free to create what they are passionate about while allowing
humans to express their innate desire to care for one another without it signifying weakness or
at their time own personal expense. I don't think this approach necessarily precludes rockets
to Mars either. The engineers who are passionate will still get together and build one. It may
take a little longer if they can't convince others to help but hopefully this will foster more
cooperative approaches and less viewing of other humans as consumables.
Libertarianism and libertarian socialism are two different things. Libertarianism is a less
authoritative conservatism while libertarian socialism is a less authoritative social democracy.
Think Chomsky, not Ron Paul. Or think of it as a more relaxed Bernie who thinks things should
be done on a smaller, more local scale.
Kanth, like many, senses that a global financial crisis, or some other equivalent catastrophe,
like war or natural disaster, may soon produce painful and seismic economic and political disruptions.
Perhaps only then will human nature reassert itself as we come to rediscover the crucial nexus
of reciprocities that is our real heritage. That's what will enable us to survive.
I read somewhere that some Native Americans looking down on the ruins of San Fransisco
after the great quake of 1906, thought that at last the crazy white people would realize the folly
of their ways, and become normal humans.
So they were amazed that before the ruins even stopped smoking, the crazy white people,
ignoring the obvious displeasure of the Great Spirit, were busy rebuilding the same mess that
had just been destroyed.
I have a strong suspicion that evil empires do not come to their senses, rather, one way
or another, they get flattened.
I can remember arguing over this in my philosophy classes way back in the 80's – that Objectivism
and the Enlightenment were two sides of the same coin, and that those Enlightenment writers were
writing tomes to justify their own greed and prejudices, while cloaking their greed and prejudices
in "morality".
At the time (I was young) it seemed to me that the Enlightenment was an attempt to destroy
the basis of Jesus's and Buddha's philosophy – that the most moral position of humanity was to
care for its members, just as clans, tribes, families, and other human societies did.
The most frequent response from professors and classmates to my thesis? But those clans, tribes,
families, etc., didn't accomplish much, did they? As if the only reason for humanity's existence
was to compete against itself
Needless to say, I didn't stick with Philosophy ..
And we need new syntheses, at which this is an attempt.
It's not a stretch to say the trend since the renaissance has been to exalt the individual.
Kanth is aiming for a communitarian philosophy. An interesting departure point for discussion.
I don't see what people find so offensive.
"They didn't accomplish much" meaning they lost militarily to cultures with more aggression
and better weapons.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect. The trouble is in organizing all of society around this
one struggle, forcing everyone into explicit competition and making the stakes too high. When
the losers can't afford to buy food, when they and their little children live on the street and
die in the cold, when their kids can never compete on an equal field to improve their own status,
things have gone too far. And in addition to material needs, humans also have a need for independence,
an escape from being constantly ordered around by the winners and under someone else's thumb.
Capitalism made the stakes too high. But it was designed by the winners.
You might argue that there were plenty of "hopeless losers" in the systems that preceded capitalism
- the orphans, elderly crones, and beggars without livelihoods who used to wander the hedgerows
in medieval times. We have more resources now which also means no excuses.
Note, as an aside, how granting economic rights to outgroups like women and Blacks brought
them into the same market competition. Well, a lot of men don't want to compete with women for
status. They want to compete with each other. The more competitors you add the harder it is to
win. But when all resources are restricted to the market, it's unjust to exclude any
group from access. Once again the stakes are too high. Social democracies are better places to
live for exactly this reason.
It seems to me that humans, as hierarchical mammals, really do have a desire to compete
with each other for status and respect.
I think you're right about that and if we do ever manage to abolish capitalism and develop
a less violent and more egalitarian society, there will need to be an outlet for that innate desire.
I propose hockey. Beats starting a war .
When President Trump defeated his rival in the last election, among the many ways in which
the event was captured was a representation of the President as Perseus carrying the head of Medusa
(Clinton) in his outstretched left hand. Medusa was a monster gorgon of the Greek mythology; a
representation in this case by Clinton (a woman) who dared to take real power in this essentially
male world and silenced for trying to participate in the public discourse (election).
I take this example to point out that both Lynn Parramore and Rajni Kanth declaring in a version
of mumbo-jumbo are sadly wrong-modernism has always been skin-deep excepting in accommodating
the technological element in the tone of life. Voltaire and Rousseau aside, both Kanth and Parramore
know which side of the mumbo-jumbo bread is their butter; even bemoaning the collapsing supposed
ruins of modernism they do not fail to take advantage! "Eurocentric modernism has unhinged us
from our human nature" asserts Kanth in his "book" but I would like to bluntly ask him: Please
define your "us" and "our" in that proposition and clarify if poor Indians like Yours Truly find
a dot in that set.
The point is that what passes as Modernism has never entered modern life. In support of
my proposition I cite an encounter between a journalist and Mahatma Gandhi in 1930s: The journalist
asked Gandhi, "Mr. Gandhi, what is your opinion of the western civilization?" Gandhi replied instantaneously
"It would be a good idea".
It does not at all. This is the price one pays as an innocent reader by reading social science
mumbo jumbo which is so irksome. It lacks the grace of the real mumbo jumbo too. Kanth is bluffing;
the author misunderstands his stupid linguistic constructions of Kanth and incomprehension and
chaos follow. The whole article seems to be a bluff about a bluff(the book).
I think he's right about Eurocentric modernism being incompatible with human civilization.
But it can't be just an evolutionary accident that civilization is so aggressive. It served a
purpose. We refer to it as 'survival'. I used to tell my daughter not to make fun of those 'dorky
little boys' too much because they all had a way of growing up to be very nice men. And I told
her women are the reason we have all survived, but men have made it so much easier! And etc.
We have been very successful as a species; surviving all of our own inquisitions, pogroms,
hallucinations and yes, this is a serious situation we are in. We might even try to guide ourselves
out of it, using science and technology, as we huddle.
I suspect there was a fatal error long, long ago: you lend me your ram so my ewe can have offspring.
If there are twins, we each get one; if not, we agree upon future breeding rights and grazing
areas. After generations of this sort of breeding activity, I have in my mind the notion that
there is a 'natural increase' from lending or swapping.
Along comes a scribe with a tablet, whom I have now hired to list the number of my flocks (wealth
on the hoof); I lend you forms of wealth (rams, ewes, oxen, axes, boats) , and the scribe assumes
there must be some 'natural increase' as the outcome of this lending and swapping. Consequently,
the scribe carves cuneiform markings to represent what we might call 'compound interest' that
result from lending and swapping of non-biological resources - despite the fact that if you sit
two clay tablets in the sun, they do not (and never will!) create an additional clay tablet. Ditto
heaps of dollar bills; it's not the money that creates increase; it's the assumption of 'increase'
(originating in breeding activity of flocks and herds) that makes the money generate surplus -
not any property of those scraps of paper themselves.
BTW: FWIW, double entry bookkeeping seems to trace the earliest period of modernism, which
IMVHO adds heft to Kanth's argument about something shifting probably earlier than 400 years
ago.
It's possible that Michael Hudson has covered this; if so, I've not had time to read it yet.
I hope to in future. David Graeber's work on redemption ('buying back' someone enslaved or indentured)
and his anthropological findings also lend heft to Kanth's analysis.
"He first caught the scent that something was off as an economics student in India, wondering
why, despite his mastery of the mathematics and technology of the discipline, the logic always
escaped him. Then one day he had an epiphany: the whole thing was "cockeyed from start to finish.""
But the economics profession's problem isn't "blind faith in science." It's a massive failure
to apply the scientific method, combined with an expectation that we all put our blind faith in
THEM anyway.
I think our problems do not stem from any theories or ideologies, they are the predictable
result of human nature – specifically of the fact that the balance between the loving side of
human nature and the aggressive side is not evenly distributed among individuals. It is precisely
the most aggressive among us who most desire, and work the hardest, to dominate and control others.
I had the same experience as he had with economics with law, ok I only studied it when studying
business and that does not a lawyer make, but it made no sense for me. But I do think I maybe
just have the wrong kind of brain for it, expect a logic that isn't there.
Essentially a post-modern critique of modernism without all the jargon of p-m critical theory
(yay!!). I don't think we have enough data from the pre-modern huddling societies to determine
if that's how we want to live. Yes, my boss at work exploits me, but on the other hand, I can
walk into an air-conditioned supermarket and survey row after row of steaks that I can afford
to buy. I love to drive cars. The cinema is enchanting. Dying of a plague is a very remote possibility.
We could give it all up, but there's no guarantee our lives would be richer or fuller–just different,
at best.
Just how dark were the Dark Ages? Or, to borrow Churchill's phrase, how dark would a NEW Dark
Age be? I don't think you can get rid of Modernism very easily, for certain parts would survive.
Science and tech, for example. Ideas of surveillance and control. But along with this, new prejudices,
new superstitions, perhaps? What perverse new form of religion or philosophy might arise from
the ashes of our civilization?
Two possibles: the cargo cult children of Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome,
or the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence. At least the Church in Rome and Constantinople
provided some kind of lifeline of civilization during the collapse of the Roman Empire. What similar
institution have we now?
Sounds like bog-standard post-modernist tosh to me, just without the obscure ProfSpeak jargon
that usually accompanies it. I fail to see how this is helpful.
The only thing missing in this post is Bambi. Of course the Bushmen would kill Bambi dead with
spears and roast her flesh over a fire. So would we, actually. hmmmm.
To illustrate one of its signature follies, Kanth refers to that great Hollywood ode to
the Western spirit, "The Sound of Music." Early in the film, the Mother Superior bursts into
song, calling on the nun Maria to "climb every mountain, ford every stream."
Sounds exhilarating, but to what end? Why exactly do we need to ford every stream? From
the Eurocentric modernist viewpoint, Kanth says, the answer is not so innocent: we secretly
do it so that we can say to ourselves, "Look, I achieved something that's beyond the reach
of somebody else." Hooray for me!
Many would part company with Kanth over the above characterization. There are many reasons
why people climb mountains and ford streams that do not include, or even consider, that element
of exclusive personal achievement. Some might even aver that climbing and fording and so many
other human activities are done "because it is there", while others appreciate a spiritual or
other inspirational aspect.
Will we climbers and forders be told that we are selfish or otherwise deficient or on the wrong
side of history or whatever the mal du jour is because we like a little bit of hygge
or Gemütlichkeit as we live our lives?
Quite that is indeed the point where I stopped reading and started skimming someone who mistakes
metaphors in a musical for physical actions is not going to enlighten my world (no matter how
much I dislike the film).
climbing every mountain and fording every stream is probably impossible in the literal sense
(aren't there way too many streams for this? and mountains probably too), and certainly it is
impossible in the metaphoric one.
I don't see why poor Julie Andrews, of all people, has to be singled out here as exemplifying
malign post-Enlightenment discourses of proprietorship and exploitation. That's just mean
. Surely those ideologies are better examined through a close reading of the Shamen's inexcusable
'90s electro hit "Move Every Mountain"?
I agree dude is right that the values now unraveling (democracy, pluralism, individualism,
free speech, international-ism (in both the good and bad ways)) go all the way back to that time.
But this article is a perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Surely none
of the third world cultures he praises got where they are by totally throwing out previous systems,
the good parts and bad, every time they faced a crisis.
IMO the problem is enlightenment values have been hollowed out, narrowed to only those superficial
aspects of those values which benefit the marketplace. Like how real food got turned into Mosanto
fast-food so gradually, nobody noticed that the nutrients are missing.
While it's obvious how this thesis deflates modern capitalism, it would also appear to me that
the idea of refocusing on "kinship and community" would present a challenge to the "global solidarity"
mentality underlying most leftist thinking as well. You cannot simultaneously have an emphasis
on the huddled community, while also arguing that workers worldwide have a deeper and more important
connection than the business owner and his or her employees (assuming both are from within the
same community, natch). Either you assume humans have a universal commonness, which effectively
obliterates the notion of community, or you accept humans tend towards tribalism, which both discounts
any notion of creating a global, uniform leftist economics, but also suggests a troubling tendency
towards xenophobia.
Good point, "kinship and community" are analogous to tribalism and nationalism on a larger
scale unless you rephrase it to mean kinship with your family and neighbors on the local level,
and with humanity on a national/global level. Unfortunately, some of our current liberal globalists
seem to be forgetting the part about local kinship and community while embracing global humanity.
I dunno, may have something to do with cheaper labor abroad.
Partly, but there's also an association in the minds of many liberals and leftists of localized
control and thinking equating with oppression, historically. Things like segregation, discrimination,
violations of the separation of church and state, anti-labor employment & worksite laws, etc.
I think Kanth is quick to criticize materialism and scientific progress for all our ills while
seeming to have missed the horrid standards of living in his anthropological studies prior to
scientific progress with enlightenment principles over theocracy. I'd like to know what the longevity
of per-enlightenment citizens was compared to today. In fact, longevity in this country around
1900 was still in the mid 40's for most.
What I find would have been a better argument is to focus his critique not on scientific progress,
but on how there always seems to be a certain small minority of the population which seems to
have an out sized voice in how we choose to self govern. What we seem to be losing today is the
silent majority of voices who are for universal health care, not eroding further entitlements,
bodily security as well as economic security while still being able to encourage those who chose
to take risks and put themselves through more work and strain to be fairly rewarded.
The problem as I see it today, is that the pendulum, both politically, and socially, has swung
too far towards the selfish individualist.
The problem with how science is seen in a modernist context is two-fold. The "blind faith"
leads people to see it as all-encompassing, all-powerful, and not recognizing its scope and where
that scope ends. Ergo, anything that is successfully sold to the public and TPTB as "science"
gets said treatment and is viewed as being unquestionable (like, say, neoclassical economics).
Bruno Latour has been on this for decades in 1991 the book "We Have Never Been Modern" This has been followed by many other books, prizes, invited lectures, and thought exhibition
called Reset Modernity. The book, published last year, is related to the exhibition with that
title. Published by MIT press with 60 authors.
Reset Modernity
Reset Modernity!
Edited by Bruno Latour and Christophe Leclerc
Overview
Modernity has had so many meanings and tries to combine so many contradictory sets of attitudes
and values that it has become impossible to use it to define the future. It has ended up crashing
like an overloaded computer. Hence the idea is that modernity might need a sort of reset. Not
a clean break, not a "tabula rasa," not another iconoclastic gesture, but rather a restart
of the complicated programs that have been accumulated, over the course of history, in what
is often called the "modernist project." This operation has become all the more urgent now
that the ecological mutation is forcing us to reorient ourselves toward an experience of the
material world for which we don't seem to have good recording devices.
Reset Modernity! is organized around six procedures that might induce the readers to reset
some of those instruments. Once this reset has been completed, readers might be better prepared
for a series of new encounters with other cultures. After having been thrown into the modernist
maelstrom, those cultures have difficulties that are just as grave as ours in orienting themselves
within the notion of modernity. It is not impossible that the course of those encounters might
be altered after modernizers have reset their own way of recording their experience of the
world.
At the intersection of art, philosophy, and anthropology, Reset Modernity! has assembled
close to sixty authors, most of whom have participated, in one way or another, in the Inquiry
into Modes of Existence initiated by Bruno Latour. Together they try to see whether such a
reset and such encounters have any practicality. Much like the two exhibitions Iconoclash and
Making Things Public, this book documents and completes what could be called a "thought exhibition:"
Reset Modernity! held at ZKM | Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe from April to August 2016.
Like the two others, this book, generously illustrated, includes contributions, excerpts, and
works from many authors and artists.
Seems to me that the insight into the relevancy of anthropology vis a vis economics is a product
of science. And Adam Smith had some good points that have been lost along the way, namely penalizing rent
seeking.
Smith has been seriously misrepresented. The Theory of Moral Sentiments shows a very different
side to that presented by those who selectively quote from The Wealth of Nations.
It's hard to tell from the rather incoherent summary of what looks like an incoherent argument,
but the "everything went wrong after the Enlightenment" meme has been circulating for ages. It
was speared pretty effectively by Domenico Losurdo in "War and Revolution" some years ago. The
author seems to be jumbling all sorts of arguments together, some valid and some not, but the
valid arguments are in general criticisms of liberalism, which is not the same of the Enlightenment.
This is a very good point, as the Enlightenment was not merely a straight line connection to
the blight of NeoLiberalism. Rather, there were those, such as Burke, or some of our "Founding
Fathers" who were students of history, and while discriminating observers of the deleterious elements
of human nature, they were also cognizant of the more helpful elements of that same human nature.
They, however, tended toward the view that those helpful elements required deliberate nurturance
in order to come to the fore. Some of this nurturance could be achieved by partially neutralizing
the deleterious elements by balancing interests (you weren't going to get rid of the propensities,
but you could limit the scope of their play by pitting societal forces one against the other in
political structures, vide the doctrine of separation of powers), while nurturance could
also be achieved through perpetuation of those societal institutions that address the individual
conscience and behaviors like religious doctrine and examples.
The naked embrace of selfishness, while never absent over these centuries, did have countervailing
currents and forces with which to contend that were sometimes able to at least minimize the damage.
But more recently, with supposedly scientific NeoLiberal economic thought sweeping the field throughout
much of the first world, and with the overall decline of religious and moral systems as a counterpoise,
things have reached an unlovely pass.
But it would be incorrect to solely blame Enlightenment themes for where we are today. Much
of what was presumed to be necessary to the proper, humane functioning of the ideal Enlightenment
society has been pushed aside in favor of the degraded every-man-for-himself, homo economicus
scourge that holds sway.
Joseph de Maistre, the conservative critic of Enlightenment values, deserves far more blame
for the horrors of modernity than do Voltaire or his like minded colleagues. And I can't even
find de Maistre mentioned in the index of Saul's book.
Thanks for mentioning Joseph de Maistre. I have never heard of him. I think you'd enjoy this
book, nonetheless. Saul doesn't actually "blame" Voltaire. He blames those who came after Voltaire.
For that matter, the bulk of the book is about the 20th century's (mis)interpretation of the Enlightment
project. I should have mentioned that the full title is "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship
of Reason in the West".
Interesting story Waring told when I heard her speak in Toronto – As she boarded a bus at the
airport to travel to her hotel, and a young man (20s) recognized her because the film is shown
to high school students throughout Canada.
And Capital Institute's John Fullerton
FIELD GUIDE TO A REGENERATIVE
ECONOMY Primarily due to reading George Monbiot's inane rejection of the work of Allan Savory
and Capital Institute's work with Grasslands LLC. Brought to me this morning by Nicole Foss and
the Guardian.
And for farmer's and lovers of the land, I couldn't help but hear Wendell Berry, "It all turns
on affection."
Interesting to have these things intersect with this morning's coffee. Thank you.
"... This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's pay check, right off the top. ..."
"... The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich. ..."
"... So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their money. ..."
"... The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and 60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors. The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense is that nobody could have forecast this! ..."
"... In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell. ..."
"... We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security, more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly. You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
"... "Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion." ..."
"... "Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954) assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory." ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... it insults the intelligence of the audience, ..."
"... we would now call ..."
"... totally insupportable on its face. ..."
"... as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation, ..."
"... You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
"... Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues? Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars? ..."
"... "You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy." ..."
"... "The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus. ..."
"... The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. " ..."
Posted on
March 9, 2017 by Yves
Smith Yves here. This Real News Network interview is from a multi-part series about Michael Hudson's
new book, J is for Junk Economics. And after a lively discussion by readers of the economic necessity
of many to become expats to get their living costs down to a viable level, a discussion of the disingenuous
political messaging around retirement seemed likely. Among the people in my age cohort, the ones
that managed to attach themselves to capital (being in finance long enough at a senior enough level,
working in Corporate America and stock or stock options) are generally set to have an adequate to
very comfortable retirement. The ones who didn't (and these include people I know who are very well
paid professionals but for various reasons, like health problems or periods of unemployment that
drained savings, haven't put much away) will either have to continue working well past a normal retirement
age (even charitably assuming they can find adequately compensated work) or face a struggle or even
poverty.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.
I'm speaking with Michael Hudson about his new book J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in
the Age of Deception.
Thanks for joining me again, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here.
SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, on page 260 of your book you deal with the issue of Social Security
and it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries, or that progressive
taxes should be abolished in favor of a flat tax. Just one tax rate for everyone you criticize. We
talked about this earlier, but let's apply what this actually means when it comes to Social Security.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The mythology aims to convince people that if they're the beneficiaries of Social
Security, they should be responsible for saving up to pre-fund it. That's like saying that you're
the beneficiary of public education, so you have to pay for the schooling. You're the beneficiary
of healthcare, you have to save up to pay for that. You're the beneficiary of America's military
spending that keeps us from being invaded next week by Russia, you have to spend for all that – in
advance, and lend the money to the government for when it's needed.
Where do you draw the line? Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay
for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society. You had the first public pension
(social security) program in Germany under Bismarck. The whole idea is that this is a public obligation.
There are certain rights of citizens, and among these rights is that after your working life you
deserve to live in retirement. That means that you have to be able to afford this retirement, and
not have to beg in the street for money. The wool that's been pulled over people's eyes is to imagine
that because they're the beneficiaries of Social Security, they have to actually pay for it.
This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission.
He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that
they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions.
He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes.
He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not
really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's
pay check, right off the top.
The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off
out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent
its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage
earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social
Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government
to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security
that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich.
So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp
reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic
rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate,
stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their
money.
The idea that Social Security has to be funded by its beneficiaries has been a setup for the wealthy
to claim that the government budget doesn't have enough money to keep paying. Social Security may
begin to run a budget deficit. After having run a surplus since 1933, for 70 years, now we have to
begin paying some of this savings out. That's called a deficit, as if it's a disaster and we have
to begin cutting back Social Security. The implication is that wage earners will have to starve in
the street after they retire.
The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and
60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's
also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks
have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors.
The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have
enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that
people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense
is that nobody could have forecast this!
There are so many corporate pension funds that are going bankrupt that the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation doesn't have enough money to bail them out. The PBGC is in deficit. If you're going to
be a corporate raider, if you're going to be a Governor Romney or whatever and you take over a company,
you do what Sam Zell did with the Chicago Tribune: You loot the pension fund, you empty it out to
pay the bondholders that have lent you the money to buy out the company. You then tell the workers,
"I'm sorry there is nothing there. It's wiped out." Half of the employee stock ownership programs
go bankrupt. That was already a critique made in the 1950s and '60s.
In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists
made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to
set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would
then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the
company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning
it to the corporate shell.
So it's become a shell game. There's really no Social Security problem. Of course the government
has enough tax revenue to pay Social Security. That's what the tax system is all about. Just look
at our military spending. But if you do what Donald Trump does, and say that you're not going to
tax the rich; and if you do what Alan Greenspan did and not make higher-income individuals contribute
to the Social Security system, then of course it's going to show a deficit. It's supposed to show
a deficit when more people retire. It was always intended to show a deficit. But now that the government
actually isn't using Social Security surpluses to pretend that it can afford to cut taxes on the
rich, they're baiting and switching. This is basically part of the shell game. Explaining its myth
is partly what I try to do in my book.
SHARMINI PERIES: If the rich people don't have to contribute to the Social Security base, are
they able to draw on it?
MICHAEL HUDSON: They will draw Social Security up to the given wage that they didn't pay Social
Security on, which is up to $120,000 these days. So yes, they will get that little bit. But what
people make over $120,000 is completely exempt from the Social Security system. These are the rich
people who run corporations and give themselves golden parachutes.
Even for companies that have engaged in massive financial fraud, the large banks, City Bank, Wells
Fargo – all these have golden parachutes. They still are getting enormous pensions for the rest of
their lives. And they're talking as if, well, corporate pensions are in deficit, but for the leading
officers, arrangements are quite different from the pensions to the blue collar workers and the wage
earners as a whole. So there's a whole array of fictitious economic statistics.
I describe this in my dictionary as "mathiness." The idea that if you can put a number on something,
it somehow is scientific. But the number really is the product of corporate accountants and lobbyists
reclassifying income in a way that it doesn't appear to be taxable income.
Taking money out and giving it to the richest 5%, while making it appear as if all this deficit
is the problem of the 95%, is "blame the victim" economics. You could say that's the way the economic
accounts are being presented by Congress to the American people. The aim is to popularize a "blame
the victim" economics. As if it's your fault that Social Security's going bankrupt. This is a mythology
saying that we should not treat retirement as a public obligation. It's becoming the same as treating
healthcare as not being a public obligation.
We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not
increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security,
more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly.
You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because
the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money
to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now
you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.
You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright
serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary
"financial/real estate/public enterprise" class that is transforming the economy.
SHARMINI PERIES All right, Michael. Many, many, many things to learn from your great book, J Is
For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception. Michael is actually on the road promoting
the book. So if you have an opportunity to see him at one of the places he's going to be speaking,
you should check out his website, michael-hudson.com
So I thank you so much for joining us today, Michael. And as most of you know, Michael Hudson
is a regular guest on The Real News Network. We'll be unpacking his book and some of the concepts
in it on an ongoing basis. So please stay tuned for those interviews.
It's 10 bagger time for sure. A house in the tropics with servants at your beck and call. Breakfast
on the veranda. Lunch at the club. An afternoon sail. Dinner at the house of a famous author.
Or some native woman who cooks spicy food and is hotter than the sun. No shuffleboard and pills!
You need to stay buff if you wanna live like this. You can't be flabby and short of breath.
Yves's remark on retirement by sector is apt. I laugh bitter tears when I see that a financial
CEO contract always includes a "pension," as if the tens of millions of dollars in salary and
bonuses weren't enough.
A "pension" is for those who, broken by a life of hard physical labor, finally can't work any
more for their crust of bread. It's not another revenue line-item that's barely enough to refuel
the yacht.
There was a time when people "saved for retirement." With real rates of return being negative,
and all assets priced arbitrarily at the whim of the central bank's policy du jour, I am perfectly
frank when people ask "what should they invest in": nothing. Pay down your debt, and spend whatever
you have beyond an emergency cushion right now, while you can enjoy it. Savings will inevitably
be wasted, by inflation, the "health-care system," or financial-sector scammers. Do not ask for
whom the bell tolls; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
This is all in the context of the Federal Government already spending 20% of GDP, a number
that was never designed to happen. It is the States that were supposed to be in charge of the
people's welfare, not the national authority. So the argument that we should increase Federal
taxes to somehow redistribute wealth is also wrong, because that wealth will simply be wasted,
spent by people who are responsible to no one.
At moments like this there are no good choices. Most Europeans have long learned to live with
governments that were hostile to them, and that is where we stand now.
Tocqueville's Democracy In America is tough going in spots, but my gosh, what a beautiful world
he depicts, when the average Pennsylvanian's tax liability beyond his township was $4 a year.
I won't argue too hard about your "Federal vs State" argument, but note that if the state is
in charge of most taxation then Richy Rich can live in a low tax state next door and employ the
well-educated, healthy (single-payer) people in your state.
"Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology:
Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream
worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology
is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through
a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model
that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model
by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely
suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in
order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It
can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific
appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion."
"Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct
insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview
of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that
economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th
century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent
and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly
wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not
progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954)
assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory."
"A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence" Richard
A. Werner
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy" in 1989.
Capitalism had conquered all and was the one remaining system left that had stood the test
of time.
With such a successful track record, everything was being changed to a new neo-liberal ideology
and globalization was used to test this new ideology everywhere.
The Great Moderation seemed to indicate that the new ideology was a great success.
"Seemed" is the operative word here.
A "black swan" arrives in 2008 and nothing is the same again, the Central Bankers pump in trillions
to maintain the new normal of secular stagnation.
Sovereign debt crises erupt, the Euro-zone starts to disintegrate, austerity becomes the norm.,
no one knows how to restore growth and the populists rise.
A new ideology comes in that is rolled out globally and seems to work before 2008.
What happened in 2008?
This is the build up to 2008 that can be seen in the money supply (money = debt):
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
The theory.
Irving Fisher produced the theory of debt deflation in the 1930s.
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005.
You can see what Steve Keen saw in the graph above, it's impossible to miss when you know what
you are looking for but no one in the mainstream did.
If you paid off all the debt there would be no money.
Money and debt are opposite side of the same coin, matter and anti-matter.
The money supply reflects debt/credit bubbles.
Monetary theory has been regressing for over 100 years to today's abysmal theory where banks
act as intermediaries and don't create and destroy money.
The success of earlier years was mainly due to money creation from new debt (mainly in housing
booms) globally feeding into economies leaving a terrible debt over-hang.
Jam today, penury tomorrow.
This is how debt works.
Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having seen 2008 coming, announcing
it publicly beforehand and having good reasoning behind their predictions (Michael Hudson and
Steve Keen are on the list of 12).
They all saw the problem being excessive debt with debt being used to inflate asset prices
(US housing).
The Euro's periphery nations had unbelievably low interest rates with the Euro, the risks were
now based on common debt service. Mass borrowing and spending occurs at the periphery with the
associated money creation causing positive feedback.
Years later, it was found the common debt service didn't actually exist and interest rates
correct for the new reality.
Jam today, penury tomorrow.
Why doesn't austerity work? (although it has been used nearly everywhere)
You need to understand money, debt, money creation and destruction on bank balance sheets and
its effect on the money supply. Almost no one does.
Alternative and I would say much more accurate realities:
1) Michael Hudson "Killing the Host", "J is for Junk Economics"
The knowledge of economic history and the classical economists that has been lost and the problems
this is causing. Ancient Sumer had more enlightened views on debt than we have today.
2) Steve Keen "De-bunking Economics"
His work is based on that of Hyman Minsky and looks into the effects of private debt on the
economy and the inflation of asset bubbles with debt.
3) Richard Werner "Where does money come from?"
The only book generally available that tells the truth about money, I don't think there are
any other modern books that do and certainly not in economics textbooks
4) Richard Koo's study on the Great Depression and Japan after 1989 showing the only way out
of debt deflation/balance sheet recessions.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The limit for money creation holds true when banks keep the debt they issue on their own books.
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books.
Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages, e.g. NINJA mortgages,
and getting them off their books.
Money is being created freely and without limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Thanks SOS, agree. We're at that 08 point now, in fact it's worse.
Pensions should just be a click of the computer, no borrowings, savings or taxes needed and
they need to be sufficient to live on.
No, we aren't 'winning'
In Australia, we used to give people the 'aged' at 60 for women and 65 for men. Now its 67
for both, the woman's aged cut in was raised for 'equality' reasons, and it going up to 70 for
my kids.
Politicians, judges, CEOs and the c-class, all those 'shiny bums', they can often work well
into their 60s. The rest of us experience age discrimination in a tight job market and are forced
into menial jobs just when society should be funding their well earned retirement.
The whole "there aren't enough workers to support retirees" meme is risible.
Example: Jane funds an IRA for 30 years. For those 30 years, there is one person paying in,
and zero taking out. When Jane retires, the IRA flips to one person taking out, and zero paying
in.
Disaster, or working as advertised?
That Serious Thinkers, elected officials and the SSA themselves advance this trope to explain
why SS is hopeless is proof of willful mendacity.
Now if these folks admit, well yuh, you paid in over all of these years, but the money ain't
there no more, then first, that's an admission of mismanagement (unsurprising), and second, bail
us the fuck out like you did Wall Street.
Most every purported "help" by the government is the exact opposite: your paying into a black
hole.
Look around you. What around you was paid for by the government? The answer is none of it was.
Taxes are a way to keep the bureaucratic structure afloat. What is very clear is that once government
reaches a certain size it begins to massively leach off of those that work and gives it to those
that "manage".
Look at any industry today and you will find, in the private sector, declining or stagnant
wages for the "drones". Then look at the public sector: expanding, better benefits, better wages,
less work etc. Thinking about it makes my blood boil. I see truckers making less now then 10 years
ago, yet, the industry keeps crying that they "don't have enough workers". Yeah, sorry no one
wants to work 25/8 driving around in the day time, sleeping in a truck at night, getting tracked
through GPS & get penalized for going above speed limits when they can work for the DMV, make
the same amount, and sit at a desk for 7 hours a day with plenty of benefits and vacation time.
Its about time for this system to implode. I see globalization and government expansion as
a huge force that will eventually cause a revolution in the States.
Globalization and the government are simply red herrings meant to distract Trump voters while
shareholder value driven corporate overlords continue looting.
Look around you . The government employs less people than pretty much for my whole
life. Please get informed before you go off on a multi-paragraph rant.
maybe noone should work in trucking, freight trains are much more energy efficient as far as
a means of transporting goods over long distances. Nah I'm not faulting truckers, just saying
it makes no societal sense is all except maybe for the last few miles, but then neither do a lot
of things. I doubt many people want to work at the DMV, but then maybe the benefits are enough
to make a distasteful job seem worth it.
As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When an
author says this,
Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society.
why should I believe anything else that he has to say?
The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social welfare
policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among the
aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social or
political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.
Haygood had to resuscitate "rusticate" for the other day, to achieve a modern equivalent of
that.
All of this is common knowledge. In case you don't think so, spend five minutes with any book
of demographics or social history; and that's just for Europe. Don't let's even ask what "nobody
expected to pay for their retirement" meant in early nineteenth-century Alabama.
By the way, Hudson does this all the time. When I can fact-check offhand, from my fund of common
knowledge, he is often casually abusing the truth. I can be pretty sure that the rest of what
he says is just as unreliable.
You may be correct about the 19th century, but it is 2017. And his points about the US tax
system, the banks, the wealthiest 1% and our gov't deceiving the middle and lower class are solid.
A very basic retirement and healthcare should be provided to all in any decent marginally successful
society. Not to mention a supposedly "great" one.
I think this is where some progressive get tripped up and don't understand why their policies
aren't more popular to the wide swaths of America outside of their bubble.
Often times, these people (I use this term loosely to include working class whites in Appalachia
as well as Silicon Valley libertarians) like to provide a fair and wide safety net. However, most
policies that are advanced are strictly means tested. This causes significant resentment among
those just outside of the cutoff lines. Think: Social Security has essentially blanket coverage.
Yes, there's some redistribution going on behind the scenes, but if I pay in for 30 years I will
get most of my money back. It's wildly popular, while welfare programs are not.
The same applies for health care – Medicare is popular and Medicaid is not. If I pay in for
a government program, I want to be able to take advantage of it. Save me the crap about not wanting
to subsidize the lifestyles of the 1%; they pay in far more than they would take out of the program.
It's a small price to pay to have universal coverage and buy in from all segments of society.
So extending Medicare down to everyone is a better political strategy than extending Medicaid
upwards to encompass higher income levels.
You read a great deal into a statement that you didn't at all prove was untrue. Not impressive.
The question is, did society believe that it had a responsibility of care for people that got
too old to work? You didn't even address that. Yes we know life was "nasty, brutish and (most
often) short. That doesn't invalidate what he said.
PhilM 'I can be pretty sure that the rest of what he says is just as unreliable.'
No mate, he speaks truth and may have exaggerated, but the point remains that here, the UK,
most of Europe – then the state funds your pension if you need one. It is now a social obligation.
Only in the US, do you have this class of people (the working class) who don't deserve retirement
and must fund their own meagre pensions, and if the 'pool which funds the pensions' becomes insufficient,
well you know the rest.
Taxes see, they fund things, or more often don't, because it's a widely accepted lie to keep
the private bank money creation bullshit going forever.
That's the problem, Dog, I generally agree with his point, and with the responders to my comment,
on policy grounds. My point is that leading with something that is provably false, and even probably
false to common knowledge, is not a winning tactic; some would say it insults the intelligence
of the audience, even.
To me this site, if it's about anything, is about filtering out the BS that is used by people
with an agenda to "enhance" their arguments. Lambert does this with a Lancelot-sized skewer. And
part of the beauty is the crowd-sourced fact-checking from an extraordinarily informed, and sceptical,
community.
I may not have much to add to their expertise, but one thing I do know is some European history,
and it drives me berzerk to see people just misuse history as if it strengthens their argument.
If they don't know that what they are saying is true, they should not say it. And by "know it
is true," I mean, know the source, and the source of the source, and be able to judge its reliability.
That is what scholarship is all about: seeing how far down the turtles go.
So when someone just tosses out an assertion about "what the past thought was right," as if
that created a moral obligation or not in 2017 (which as MBC quite rightly observed it does not,
at least not without a clearer argument), they should be critiqued. When their assertion is based
on sloppy cherry-picked facts and wrongly generalized, they should be called out as either uninformed
or malicious, in hopes they will be less so in the future.
That's all I was saying; I did not have a point to make about pensions, because I agree with
Hudson's viewpoints almost all the time, which is why it is so sad to see him turn out to be so
cheesy, so often.
My personal experience of pensions is this: they are a total scam to lock people into exploitive,
nearly intolerable working conditions on the flimsiest of promises in the private sector; and
in the public sector, they are a way of adding to the debt burden of generations yet to come without
the assent of the people: taxation without representation, in effect.
I have seen professionals crumble morally thanks to the force of the pension. It is despicable
corporate oppression at the subtle level, because it looks as if they are doing a good thing,
which of course they are not. It's more subtle than their obvious screaming cruelties to people
and animals and the land, which, it must also be said, nobody does anything about either.
Yes pension systems aren't perfect, but some people don't have family or money to fall back
on when they get old. I am seeing more and more of my own friends in their 60s struggling to earn
money through work. They want to stop, but can't afford to.
And, I am dismayed and disheartened of seeing people on the sidewalks that could be my parents.
Or, shit, me
I have no sympathy for these people. Read Hillbilly Elegy and see the perspective from the
white working class. More often than not, people who are "struggling" in mid life are those who
made bad choices. They abused drugs, had kids out of wedlock, or didn't make a career for themselves.
Often, they spend poorly – on luxury items and consuming excessively.
I live now just like how I did when I was a poor student – with a carefully limited budget
and spending within my means (more on experiences than products). I save 80% of my income and
plan to retire early. More people can do the same.
My mentor/hero bought a fixer upper house that she repaired by herself. She bikes to work every
day in the snow, and buys her clothes from thrift stores. She makes a six figure salary.
Save for an uncertain future, folks, and you won't find yourself in dire straits later on in
life.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
I suspect your children or your extended family, were your retirement if you lived long enough
pre-20th century times. Also I cannot imagine there was any sort of defined retirement prior to
20th century for the masses. People simply did whatever they could within their families until
they couldn't. Work loads probably just decreased with the fragility of old age.
Also many people did live long lives. IIRC, heavy mortality was primarily concentrated in children
and childbirth and maybe the occasional mass epidemic or bloody war. Dodge those and you could
probably live a fairly long life.
Quite right; there was a bimodal or multimodal curve, which is why mean averages of life expectancy
are not all that enlightening. But the fact is that most people who worked or fought, worked or
fought their whole lives, until they were incapacitated; then there was their family, or the Church,
or the poorhouse, or starvation, usually leading to mortal illness, if it had not done so before
then.
The other side of that story is that the old folk were there as part of the social and economic
unit: helping to pick the harvest with the very youngest; sharing skills and knowledge across
four or five generations, century after century-rather than being shuffled off to die in some
wretched cubby, doing "retirement" things. There's a terrific little book, Peter Laslett's The
World We Have Lost, that gives a well-sourced and interesting picture of pre-industrial family
life that pushes people to overcome some of their self-satisfaction about this kind of thing.
I remember reading where they found a Neanderthal remains that showed that this guy was definitely
disabled to the point where he couldn't have survived alone. Which means someone else helped him
live longer.
That's what humans have always done pretty much, before money. People paid in by being part of
society, and then their community helped them later. Social insurance is just the money big civilization
version of it isn't it?
I'm just thinking of the people with aging parents and children with parent cosigned student
loans And what if they were responsible for paying the $90,000+ / year nursing home payment and
all the medical bills, instead of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid On top of trying to help
their kids get through college.
The whole scenario is a bad joke and getting worse.
There wasn't 15-20% of the population expecting to live 30 years in retirement and the next
generations to pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics.
I have no issues paying for retirees. I have issues with asking the younger generations to
pay for lifestyles that are bigger than theirs. The Western retirement lifestyle is too energy
and resource intensive.
I don't think most people collecting a social security check actually have a big lifestyle,
much less trips to the tropics, that's a Charles Schwab commercial, not a reality for most people.
What Social Security has done is mostly reduce the number of old people living in poverty. Ok
so young and middle age people are still living in poverty, making everyone live in poverty including
people that are old and frail and sick is not an improvement. Are retired people's lifestyles
actually shown to be more energy intensive, I think in many ways they would be less so, ie not
making that long commute to the office everyday anymore etc..
Sorry, but your comment is delusional. It is impossible for someone retired on only Social
Security to "pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics". In what universe
is that possible on a MAXIMUM annual income of less than $32,000? Googling "maximum social security
benefits" generates the following info:
"The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement
age is $2,639. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had
the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years. Depending on when you retire and how
much you made while working, your benefits may be considerably less. The estimated average monthly
benefit for "all retired workers" in 2016 is $1,341."
I suspect a lot of people (younger than boomers) might be still mortgaged to a small degree
when they retire as housing costs have gone up so that people can't afford a mortgage when they
are young, so if they buy real estate at all it's at middle age, buy the first home in their 30s
or 40s or 50, for a 30 year mortgage. But McMansions have nothing to do with that.
The income distribution table shows that the younger retirees 65-75 are not suffering when
compared to the working population they seem to have a good thing going for them
Merging all these data points, it becomes quite apparent that there is a large percentage of
retirees who still carry debt while collecting social security.
Increasing social security to some group means making another group pay
As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When
an author says this,
Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society.
why should I believe anything else that he has to say?
The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social
welfare policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.
For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected
to live long enough to retire.
Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among
the aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social
or political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.
Historically, he is right and you are entirely wrong, which is not surprising as Michael Hudson
is originally a philologist and historian and has specialised in economic history.
The modern conception of retirement is mostly a 20th Century invention, but throughout history,
there are many versions of 'retirement', and they were almost always paid out of current expenditures.
Roman soldiers were paid lump sums and frequently given land on reaching retirement age through
the Aerarium Militare. Militaries throughout ancient and medieval history had similar schemes,
and not just for officers, but again, these were rarely if ever paid out of a contribution scheme
– it was considered an obligation of the State.
In many, if not most societies, it was accepted that aristocratic employers and governments
had obligations to elderly staff – for example, fuedal workers would keep their homes when they
were no longer capable of working, and this extended well into the 19th Century. Organised religions
would almost always have systems for looking after retired religious members, again, always paid
out of current revenues, not some sort of investment fund. The concept of a fixed retirement age
(outside of the military) is a relatively modern one, but the concept of 'retirement' is not modern
at all.
This is the worst strawmanning bull**** I have seen in a while; it is simply infuriating. I
don't have the time to put all of what follows into perfect order, but here's what I can tap out
in a minute or two.
If, PK, you are trying to prove that some people in the past have stopped work and still gotten
paid, as part of their lifetime compensation for the work they have done, and that this is, de
facto, compensation during what we would now call "retirement," you win. Straw man knocked
over.
So let me again quote what Hudson says, just so your argument can be demonstrated as the pointless
distraction that it is:
"Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society."
That couldn't be clearer. "Nobody anticipated," as in "nobody." Meaning it was a generally
accepted social value that . what follows. What follows is "people," as in "people"; not just
soldiers, or priests, or servants; "people," ie, Gesellschaft; and then, "their own retirement,"
(which can only imply a period when they were old enough still to do something productive that
earned money, but chose not to, instead; because otherwise it would be called "disability," right?).
"That was viewed as an obligation of society," meaning, it was a right, not a privilege or gift
or compensation, and it was universal, because it applied to "people," and "nobody" thought otherwise.
There is just nothing there that is justifiable in any way based on the history of the nineteenth
century. The only exception is Bismarck's Germany, which is adduced as proof of the statement,
which is totally insupportable on its face.
If you stand by that, and are trying to suggest that "retirees," meaning as a group everyone
in society beyond a pre-defined age, as opposed to the disabled, were ever perceived as having
a societally based right to welfare support before the very late nineteenth or early twentieth
century, and that only in a very few, very advanced places, you fail three times over.
You do this in classically ahistorical ways: you conflate Gesellschaft with Gemeinschaft; you
adduce the military of the ancient world, which is just hilariously anachronistic, but even those
prove you wrong when examined closely; you completely misconstrue the rules of the corporately
organized ancien regime, which by the way was ancient history as far as the post-Dickensian industrializing
Europe that Hudson speaks of; you adduce the military and the priesthood as if they were representatives
of "society" as a whole, which they were not–they were adherents of the body that made the rules,
and liked to keeps its friends close, and could reward them. The same, while you are at it, was
true of some different varieties of public servants–but not many, and again, not before the late
nineteenth century, and certainly not in the US:
"Like military pensions, pensions for loyal civil servants date back centuries. Prior to the
nineteenth century, however, these pensions were typically handed out on a case-by-case basis;
except for the military, there were few if any retirement plans or systems with well-defined rules
for qualification, contributions, funding, and so forth. Most European countries maintained some
type of formal pension system for their public sector workers by the late nineteenth century.
Although a few U.S. municipalities offered plans prior to 1900, most public sector workers were
not offered pensions until the first decades of the twentieth century. Teachers, firefighters,
and police officers were typically the first non-military workers to receive a retirement plan
as part of their compensation."
Your ad hominem appeal to Hudson's authority as a historian is amusing: it is actually
not surprising that Hudson is wrong, and I am right; because he is an economic historian,
with a special faculty, apparently, for conducting contemporary policy polemics; and I would be
happy to give you my professional authority, except that this is the internet, so appeals to professional
authority don't mean anything at all, but I'll just put it to you that it is more than sufficient;
but leaving that aside, I am without a polemical agenda, except just this one: that the past needs
to be respected in its totality, and that even when being used to score points in contemporary
policy arguments. I know which of us has more credibility here just by reading Hudson's sentences,
which are devoid of historical meaning or sensitivity; and I know that I, as a historian, would
never knowingly misuse the past to make a point about the present, because that is being a bad,
bad doctor.
You bring up three cases: military, clergy, and servants. Those are exactly not what
Hudson is talking about when he mentions Bismarck, or the nineteenth century, or retirement and
its old age provisions as a whole, so you basically proved my point just by failing to address
the actual argument. What Hudson is referring to-because he says so with his one example-is the
Bismarckian "Gesellschaft" obligation to what had in previous centuries been called the the third
estate in generic terms. Not, mind you, the first and second estates and their servants and adherents.
If Hudson were talking about pensions for the military, he would have said so, and his argument
would have ended there, in a paragraph, because they are fully protected in that regard and have
been, at least more than the average citizen, since the GI Bill. Pensions for the military is
not part of some kind of "social obligation" for retirees; it is a reward for long service, and
therefore not some kind of "right of social welfare," but a kind of compensation, and it was not
much, at that, in the 19th century.
The regular clergy, which made up most of the clergy until the dissolutions, did not retire:
their jobs were for life, because they lived a life of prayer, and that was not something that
ever ended. The Church supported all clergy as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation,
not as a generalized "social obligation" like social security, or what Bismarck instituted.
If your point is that certain corporate groups took care of their privileged members when they
no longer worked, that is one thing; if your point is that "retirement" as a condition that merited
social welfare, in general, the clergy don't make that for you. They were exceptions to the general
rule that people had to fend for themselves, a rule that applied to the entire third estate by
definition from time immemorial.
Lastly, servants: those who "retired" in the nineteenth century very often did not have the
same treatments as servants in the ancien regime, many of whom died in harness in any case. But,
if their employing families did continue to provide for them, they did so not out of a sense they
were meeting the "obligation of society to the retired," but as a matter of family or community
duty, noblesse oblige. It was completely at the mercy and discretion of the family involved. It
was a matter of personal honor, and still is, when servants have been your friends and companions
and have prepared and eaten the same food you have, and cleaned your mess and watched your back
and brushed your horses and trained you to ride, and seen your youthful foolishness, sometimes
for generations. Those are not "obligations of society"; they are personal and family and moral
obligations. So Cato the Elder took some heat for his recommendations on discarding old and broken
down slaves, but nobody suggested it was up to the Republic to pay for them instead. Since you're
going to the ancient world, you might better have used that example than that of the soldiers.
And so all that is what Hudson is not talking about. He's talking about Bismarck's
social security as a moral precedent, reflecting a widely held belief in the popular right to
a social safety net after a certain age.
So of course some people were "pensioned." They were called "pensioners," and many of them
were not at all "retired," but had gone on to work at other things, like soldiers who opened up
fish-and-chips shops (q.v.). That does not mean that there was ever a Gesellschaft-like concept
of "retirement" as a condition that brought the right to support by the commonwealth; not before
Bismarck. That's what Hudson's reference tries to imply, that such a concept was common in the
19th century, at a widespread societal level in Western Civilization, and it is provably, demonstrably,
obviously wrong. If it weren't, why would the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908 have ever been passed?
"Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement.
That was viewed as an obligation of society."
You simply cannot construe that to have any truth, given the facts of the century. You can
straw-man me about the concept of "retirement" all you like, although you are still wrong there,
because the groups you name aren't people who "work for a living," which is the third estate;
they are the first and second estates, and their adherents: those who fight for a living, and
pray for a living, and those who obey them.
So the fact remains that Hudson's statement was just polemical fluff, and no historian worth
the name should have uttered it. I guess I'll sit here and wait for his response, because yours,
well .
"He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is."
This just drives me to apoplexy. 1, that it is not called a tax, and 2, that wage taxes are
never ever reduced.
Incessant yammering about "incentives" – but doesn't a wage tax disincentivise both employers
and employees with regard to wage work? – – Endless talk about how CEO's can't do ANYTHING unless
their taxes are REDUCED!!!!!!! But somehow .that just goes out the window when it comes to wages
– TAXES MUST GO UP.
Cheney – deficits don't matter .except apparently with regard to social security ..
The other scam about FICA and its "separate" funding is that social security being in balance
is OH SO IMPORTANT – deficits will be the death of it. Yet the general fund is in deficit (see
Mish today for a bunch of stuff on the hypocrisy of repubs on the deficit) and ever more deficit
and nobody seriously cares about it or worries about it. MONEY can always be found for invading
for Iraq, and paying for invading anybody is NEVER a problem. Feeding old folks, on the other
hand, sure strains the resources
Its like it is as important to keep a reserve army of the impoverished as it is to keep the empire.
FD -'This just drives me to apoplexy' Breathe, buddy.
Yes, mate, feeding old folks – looking after the oldies so they have health care, decent food
and a home.
How well each country does it reflects their views on whether it's a social obligation. For
many countries, there is no safety net and families provide the care, if they can.
It's becoming that way in the west too. I don't see many governments increasing welfare for
our poorest people, benefits are being gutted and those that did save for retirement are seeing
their funds looted and zero interest paid
Life in Indian joint family is great- no retirement work- food for life for a member- great
lack of boredoms and lonely depressions- life, life ,- exquisite vegetarian food fit for Gods-
low tech human scale towns- GREAT TO BE ALIVE ON 3 dollars a day! This talk of retirement and
working and senior junior savings is so pathetic that my sex drive just evaporated into thin air
reading it! Get a life.
It's good to read Michael Hudson's call-out of FICA as a mechanism to crush workers and transfer
wealth to the already rich.
FICA is indeed the worse sort of deductive reasoning. It is based on the premise that the rich
are entitled to be rich, and that the masses want to take their money from them. In America in
particular, wealth has historically been based on grants from the sovereign to loot the commons
(timber, agriculture, mineral extraction, railroads, military procurement, data mining, etc.).
These grants to loot the commons have nearly always been based on corrupt practices of cronyism
and bribery. Alchemists like Greenspan simply provide theo-classical mumbo-jumbo after-the-fact
justification for their piracy.
Ironically, I was just reading about impending failure of the Oroville Dam, a prime example
of America as the seat of greed. It was well-known that the spillways were inadequate and crumbling
due to 50 years of use. However, the Reagan-ites of Southern California refused to tax themselves
in order to save Oroville and Yuba City, 450 miles away.
It's sad that everyone, especially the rich, think that they can blow-up the United States
and then fly to their bolt-hole in New Zealand or Australia - or if you're not so rich to a shack
in Panama or Thailand. I suspect that we will soon find ourselves to be unwelcome pariahs in those
places.
How is FICA a redistribution to the wealthy? If anything, what you pay in buys you a share
of the distributions when you retire. That means the output is roughly proportional to the input
you contribute. The wealthy stop contributing after roughly the $120,000 limit, but that doesn't
mean they take an outsized distribution. They take home exactly the same (pre-tax) as someone
who only made $120,000 per year.
If anything there's a bit of redistribution behind the scenes that favours the poor. See my
earlier post. If you make too many changes to Social Security such that it becomes another welfare
program, it will lose its popular backing and eventually get axed.
Neoliberalism is OUT-DATED. Rather, for the past four decades, it's been fiat currency for
the .01% and gold standard straitjacket ideology for everyone else.
"The mainstream view is no longer valid for countries issuing their own non-convertible currencies
and only has meaning for those operating under fixed exchange rate regimes,
'The two monetary systems are very different. You cannot apply the economics of the gold standard
(or USD convertibility) to the modern monetary system. Unfortunately, most commentators and professors
and politicians continue to use the old logic when discussing the current policy options. It is
a basic fallacy and prevents us from having a sensible discussion about what the government should
be doing. All the fear-mongering about the size of the deficit and the size of the borrowings
(and the logic of borrowing in the first place) are all based on the old paradigm. They are totally
inapplicable to the fiat monetary system' (Mitchell, 2009).
We might now consider the opportunity afforded by the new monetary reality, effectively modelled
by MMT. A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The
government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is now
the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating exchange
rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold window closed
a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments with significantly
more scope to enact policies which benefit society.
However, the political layer, in the way it interacts with monetary reality, has a detrimental
effect on the power of democratic governments to pursue public purpose. In the new monetary reality
political arrangements that sprang up under the old regimes are no longer necessary or beneficial.
They can largely be considered as self-imposed constraints on the system; in short the political
layer contains elements which are out-of-date, ideologically biased and unnecessary. However,
mainstream economists have not grasped this situation – or perhaps they cannot allow themselves
to- because of the vice-like grip that their ethics and 'traditional' training has on them.
MMT provides the best monetary models out there and highlights the existence of additional
policy space acquired by sovereign states since Nixon closed the gold window and most nations
adopted floating exchange rates. We just need to encourage the use of the space to enhance the
living standards of ordinary people."
Heterodox Views of Money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) by Phil Armstrong (York College)
2015
A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The
government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is
now the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating
exchange rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold
window closed a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments
with significantly more scope to enact policies which benefit society.
What I especially like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits
what everyone who tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in
understanding money systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores
underlying centuries of private-property-based liberal capitalism. Those mores, which remain more
than illusions despite the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state
capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least
theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually
means something, and so representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a
functioning productive civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years,
can survive a bit longer.
The very real and useful core of MMT, which describes what we see happening since the gold
standard fell, and is therefore unimpeachable from a certain objective turn of mind, is Janus-faced.
On the one hand, it acknowledges what the Framers knew intuitively when they gave the Federal
government the power of issuing money: the sovereign makes the money. On the other, as often used
here, and especially in your comment, it is a rationale for a government unrestrained by property
rights and representative constraints on its power of expenditure. That will not end well, simply
because it will not last long, and it will end in a military despotism or landed aristocracy (if
you're lucky). Because it always has, and you are not going to change that, are you?
In one of the recently discovered lectures (1940) by Karl Polanyi, in referring to post-war
Europe (post 1918) he argued:
"The alternative was between an integration of society through political power on a democratic
basis, or if democracy proved too weak, integration on an authoritarian basis in a totalitarian
society, at the price of the sacrifice of democracy."
It is still the same issue today which PhilM nicely illuminates when he states: "..What I especially
like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits what everyone who
tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in understanding money
systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda to undermine the mores underlying centuries
of private-property-based liberal capitalism. These mores, which remain more than illusions despite
the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming
completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit
on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually means something "
The national security state already has a potentially totalitarian hold on us and in the future
the MMT scenario "as a rationale for a government unrestrained by property rights and representative
constraints on its powers of expenditure" might nicely finish us off.
It would no longer be the neo-liberal present where the whole of society must be subordinated
to the needs of the market system, but the other extreme, where the whole of society must be subordinated
to the needs of the state supposedly working in the "public interest."
it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores underlying centuries
of private-property-based liberal capitalism.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian
State capitalism? If this is supposed to be a topical reference I don't get it.
as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore
power, then "representation" actually means something
How so? Did "taxation" restrain Bush from spending trillions on invasions? Can't you have representation
without taxation?
representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a functioning productive
civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years
I thought that was the Catholic Church
"Property rights"-the private monopolisation of the gifts of nature-at least in their traditional
form, seem to me to be the third fundamental flaw in our political economy, along with Capitalism
(narrowly defined) and our bogus monetary ludibrium. We need a new Church.
MMT: great stuff. With you 100%. The issue is corruption and this culture of privilege and
corruption we live in. You better believe the government will be issuing currency for other than
the public interest. The fact is we live in an MMT economy now, it's just that the currency created
by the government is being passed out to the ethnically privileged .001%. The talk of deficits
and national debt is all a smoke screen to cover up this fact. It is way past time to educate
the masses on this theme, kudos to Michael Hudson & Steve Keen.
One part of society parasitical on the productive part .. starts small. $1 per $1000, then
$10 per $1000 until it gets to $1000 per $1000. Neither bought politicians, nor bought citizens,
stays bought.
Of course we shouldn't expect women and children to work that is destructive of reproduction
and child raising. Some women should work some children should work but only a few. Otherwise
obvious system dynamics will reduce the net population in quality and quantity.
You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the
road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.
This is a zero-sum game for the elite. They're already soaking us. If they soak us on tolls,
they'll have to take less money soaking us another way.
In contrast, Fed Gov reducing spending is not a zero-sum game for the elite. That means less
money to be soaked up from the public. Unless of course, the public compensates by taking out
more private debt. In which case, ka ching for the elite again.
That said, I don't think the mind-set really is to reduce Fed Gov spending. Rather, the mind-set
is to reduce entitlements so that other Fed Gov spending can be increased, namely on defense,
intelligence communities, etc. And I really don't think the elite have much of a dog in that fight.
After all, the elite suck up all the money regardless of how it's spent by the Fed Gov. So my
guess is that this campaign to reduce entitlement spending is being waged by the other agencies
in the Fed Gov and the eco-system that feeds off them.
In the 1980s Greenspan pushed for massive increases in FICA. And Reagan spent it on Star Wars.
Recently I've read that that wasn't really a missile shield project but a cyber technology project.
Today we read that the CIA has disseminated all this accumulated and obsolete technology; leased
it out to private contractors; or variously bribed the Europeans with it. Etc. Fast-back to the
1930s and FDR took the same SS money for WW2. In the 60s, JFK agonized about the budget and the
value of the dollar and could see no reason to go into Vietnam, but oops. LBJ bulldozed through
Congress our Medicare plan, which upped SS contributions, and he went promptly into Vietnam, spending
it all and stuffing the retirement funds with treasuries. Shouldn't we all be looking at how transitory
these achievements (or disasters) have been. Maybe nothing more than boosting the economy for
a few years every other decade or so. Money could achieve much more than this if we accepted as
fact the fleeting benefits of misspending it and instead concentrated on a steady economy benefiting
all. Hubris rules, but it doesn't ever make things better.
'it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries' - Sharmini
Peries
If it's a myth, it's one that's incorporated in the Social Security Act of 1935, as well as
(for private pensions) the ERISA Act of 1974.
After about a century of experimentation, we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the
present value of the future liability using an appropriate discount rate, and then keep it funded
on a current basis.
Social Security grossly violates this model in three respects. First, it is only about 20 percent
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its own trustees.
Second, because Social Security does not avail itself of the Capital Asset Pricing Model developed
in the 1960s, it invests in low-return Treasuries, which causes required contributions to be cruelly
high. Had Soc Sec been invested in a 60/40 mix of stocks and bonds, FICA taxes could have been
half their current level and funded higher benefits.
Third and finally, Social Security is treated as an off balance sheet obligation in the Financial
Report of the United States. Unlike the legally enforceable obligation of private pension sponsors
to make good on their promises, the government refuses to take responsibility and put itself on
the hook. The Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security essentially is a welfare program, which
Congress can cut back or cancel at will. So much for "security" - there isn't any.
Social Security is part of a general pattern of government taking a sleazy, second-rate approach
to its social promises, by exempting itself from well-established prudential rules mandating best
practices. Frank Roosevelt wanted his constituents to be forever dependent on the kindness of
perfidious politicians. He got his wish.
>we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the
C'mon Jim you can do better than that. Here is dictionary.com, do you see the problem with
your statement?
know:
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
estimate
verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
1.to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc.,
of; calculate approximately:
When you lend money to the profligate, they are happy. When you ask to be repaid, they are
furious. It turns out that is just as true when workers who payroll taxes on their whole income
"lend money" to the wealthy by paying excess amounts to the SS trust fund which in turn, enabled
tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy are incensed that the SS trust fund, which has "lent" trillions
to the treasury is now demanding to be "repaid" with interest.
That's the trick about S.S. that gets me. You cannot pay in 15% of your income with some amount
of reasonable compounding interest for your entire career and not have a massive nest egg at the
end. But the math is done straight up such that there never was interest on the payments, so we
are entitled to very little, despite every other form of investing on the planet returning some
kind of interest.
It's one of the reasons I argue for a Sovereign Wealth Fund to retain and manage all SS recepts,
so at least the contributions and return on investment are accounted for in plain sight, so nobody
can bait and switch.
And heaven forbid the Sovereign wealth fund could also be used as government bank that loans
(our) money direct to citizens, without private banks getting a cut.
It ain't utopia, but it is a way of playing their game and still winning results and the pr
war even in the face of the most anti-sociailst conservative.
We need to keep up with the Feudalism 2.0 Moniker.
We continue to refine society towards only 4 classes of people:
Warlords/Politicians
Productivity Owners
Rent Extractors
The Oppressed
Over the last 35 years the productivity owners have been making a run, vacuuming up all the
productivity improvements leaving everybody else stagnant, before considering inflation, but with
the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.
>but with the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.
Hmmm.
Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?
Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?
Apparently not an actual quote, but one Reuther certainly endorsed.
You know "they" are just planning to kill 2/3 of us off, don't you? The elite are evil and
sure many of them are stupid, but far from all of them.
"You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't
have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to
this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy."
Spot.On.
From Marx's "Capital", Chapter 26 (The Secret of Primitive Accumulation):
"The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace
the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of
wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle
both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters
they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers
d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use
of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those
by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus.
The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to
the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of
this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. "
"... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
"... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
"... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
"... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
"... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
"Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover,
the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid.
Even Donald Trump thinks so ."
At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John
Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and
CNN sexed up the transcript.
Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked
by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He
won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it
than when other people have led it.'"
From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in
response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying
to do it here.
Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:
[T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right.
Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald
Trump.
The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state
is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin
palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban
smart set .
We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by
using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that
is happening.
One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot"
story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or
the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate"
reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible
the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats
like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly
refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks
don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive.
They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation,
or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and
after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just
told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.
Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that
normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance
in the media. What does this mean?
They can't win hearts and minds of people with discredited neoliberal ideology. So they need to spy on them.
Notable quotes:
"... I find this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on. ..."
"... Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant to allow for monitoring. ..."
"... What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. ..."
"... three Trump associates were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama. ..."
"... I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored all the time. And that's the rub. ..."
"... which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American ..."
"... The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador, he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this. ..."
"... My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being prosecuted???) ..."
"... Getting "stuff" on people so that they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention Roy Cohn? ..."
"... Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action. ..."
"... Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! ..."
"... Whoa. Wilkerson looks on edge, usually very cool in these pieces. ..."
"... I have the impression he can't contain himself on the subject of Brennan. Is that your take? ..."
I find
this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively
says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on.
At the 50,000 foot level, Trump's claim is trivial. Anyone who paid attention to the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the
NSA is in a total data acquisition mode, hoovering up information from smart devices and able to use computers and tablets as monitoring
devices. But Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant
to allow for monitoring. And pinning surveillance on Obama personally was another huge stretch. In other words, Trump took what
could have been an almost certain statement of fact, and by larding it up with dodgy particulars, pushed it well into crazypants
terrain.
What made Trump look bad was the FBI making clear it was not snooping on Trump, when the FBI would have been involved in a wiretap.
Lambert and I discussed that it wasn't hard to come up with scenarios that weren't wiretaps by which Trump could have been spied
upon while keeping Obama Administration hands clean. The most obvious was to have another member of the Five Eyes do the dirty work.
What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this
matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. And he states
that the idea that Lambert and I had casually bandied about, that a foreign spy organization like the GCHQ, did Trump dirty work
for the US government, is seen as a real possibility in the intelligence community.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fgd4WDMG4mQ
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. Welcome to another edition of the Wilkerson Report.
Of course the accusations are flying in every direction in D.C.. The latest Donald Trump saying that President Obama spied on
him, ordered the listening of his telephone conversations. Now joining us to talk about these allegations is Larry Wilkerson.
Larry joins us from Falls Church, Virginia. Larry was the former Chief of Staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Currently
an Adjunct Professor of Goverment at the College of Willam and Mary and a regular contributor to The Real News Network.
(discussion)
PAUL JAY: So, Larry what do you make of these allegations? Most of the media seems to be saying Trump is alleging this in order
to distract from the real controversy, which they say his and his administration's connections to Putin and Russia. What do you make
of Trump's allegations?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, I'm certainly not one, Paul, to defend HMS Trump and that whole entourage of people, but I will paint you
a hypothetical here. There are a number of events that have occurred in the last 96 hours or so that lead me to believe that maybe
even the Democratic party, whatever element of it, approached John Brennan at the CIA, maybe even the former president of the United
States. And John Brennan, not wanting his fingerprints to be on anything, went to his colleague in London GCHQ, MI6 and essentially
said, "Give me anything you've got." And he got something and he turned it over to the DNC or to someone like that. And what he got
was GHCQ MI6's tapes of conversations of the Trump administration perhaps, even the President himself. It's really kind of strange,
at least to me, they let the head of that organization go, fired him about the same time this was brewing up. So I'm not one to defend
Trump, but in this case he might be right. It's just that it wasn't the FBI. Comey's right, he wasn't wire-tapping anybody, it was
John Brennan, at the CIA And you say, "What would be John Brennan's motivation?" Well, clearly he wanted to remain Director of the
CIA for Hillary Clinton when she was elected President of the United States, which he had every reason to believe, as did lots of
us, that she would be.
PAUL JAY: Now, Larry, do we have any evidence of this? Is this like a theory or is there some evidence?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, it's a theory that's making its way around some in the intelligence community right now because they know
about the relationship between the CIA and the same sort of capabilities, maybe not quite as vast as the NSA has, but still good
capabilities that exist in London. I mean, otherwise the president just came out and said something was patently false. Generally
speaking, you know, I would agree with that, with regard to this particular individual, but not in this case.
PAUL JAY: Now why would the British go along with this?
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, you have to understand this is a real problem, Paul, it's been a problem for a long time. Only certain
governments have national technical means that feature $5 billion satellites orbiting the United States and the rest of the globe
and providing intricate national means of looking at other people 24/7. Even streaming video and so forth. There are only so many
people who can afford that. We're the biggest guy on the block so when we sidle up to France or we sidle up to Germany or Japan or
anybody else, they have two choices, either cooperate with us and share in that treasure trove from time to time or they don't cooperate
with us and I'll tell you what we do, we cut them off. So this is a very incestuous relationship. I saw this up close and personal
when we were saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we had Paris and Tel Aviv and Berlin and London and everybody
agreeing with us. I now know why they agreed with us, more recetively(?) (sound difficulties – 00:04:45 – 00:05:05) You still there?
PAUL JAY: Yeah.
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, they agree with us because they don't have any choice. Their choices are stark. They agree with us and
hope it doesn't rebound to their discredit or hurt them or they don't agree with us and we cut them off.
PAUL JAY: Okay, now let's go back to Trump's allegations. Trump does not seem to be shy about just making stuff up from whole
cloth without any basis at all. Why would one thing this isn't just another fabrication?
LARRY WILKERSON: Paul, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'm not so sure you're right in that–
PAUL JAY: I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking, is there any reason to think that we know that he's not making this up?
LARRY WILKERSON: No, except that the series of events that occurred lead me to believe that John Brennan was, in fact, working
with London and perhaps something came out of that, that might have assured John Brennan of a continuation of his role at the CIA
with a new administration headed by Hillary Clinton. That makes every bit of sense to me when I think about it. And remember, I've
been there and I've seen this stuff.
PAUL JAY: Okay. We'll have to wait over the next few days or hours and see if more hard evidence follows out. But let's go look
a little further, if you're right, Brennan's helping Clinton, you have different sections of the intelligence community helping various
players. Some of them seem to be turning on Trump, some are feeding Trump, some are supporting him, it's like you got little fiefdoms
in the intelligence community all with their own agendas here.
LARRY WILKERSON: This is very disturbing. It's happened in the past, of course, when we politicized intelligence. It happened
when Bill Casey and Ronald Reagan when Bill Casey made the case for a Soviet buildup so Reagan could justify his arms buildup in
the U.S.. The Soviets were not involved in a buildup at all. That was all fabricated intelligence. It's happened with Henry Kissinger
and Richard Nixon from time to time. But this is a new level of 17 different heavily funded intelligence agencies and groups, headed
by the DNI and the CIA all apparently playing their own little games within various segments of a political community in this country
and leaking accordingly. And I don't eliminate the FBI from that either. Why else would Comey come out, for example, just prior to
the elections and say he had other e-mails and imply that they might be damning of one of the candidates? It's everyone playing in
this game and it's an extremely dangerous game.
PAUL JAY: Is part of what's going on here, is that all of these institutions whether it's CIA or FBI or NSA and on and on with
all the alphabet, that their first priority, their deepest interest is their own agency. Their existence, their funding, their own
jobs, that this is really - it's not about some supposed national interest to start with it starts with just who these guys are and
they become entities unto themselves.
LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely. Hoover, take Hoover at the FBI, during World War II, it can be proven, it can be analytically demonstrated
that Hoover spent more man hours and more money trying to look at his own administration, trying to gain power over elements of that
administration than he did looking at the Nazis. I mean, this is not anything new, it's just come to a depth and a profundity of
action that is scary and dangerous.
When you have your entire intelligence community more interested in its own survival and its own power, and therefore, playing
in politics to the degree that we have it doing so today, you've got a real problem. And I'm not talking about the people beavering
away in the trenches who are trying their best to do a good job, I'm talking about these leaders, these people at the top and the
second tier level, who are participating in this political game in a way that they should not be, but they've been doing for some
time and now they've brought it to a crescendo.
PAUL JAY: Is part of what's happening here an overall decay, if you will, of the state itself, of the American government? Which
is a reflection of what's going on in the economy. You have so much of Wall Street is about pure parasitical investment. There's
more money being invested in derivative gambling and billionaires gambling against billionaires and shorting, kind of manupulating
commodity markets and so on, more money in the parasitical activity than there is investment in productive activity. And these are
the guys that are financing political campaigns even electing presidents, in the case of Robert Mercer, who 's the billionaire who
backed Trump and Bannon. Bannon worked for Mercer. The whole state and the upper echelons in the economy they seem to be into such
practically mafioso short-sightedness. Like, "What can we do today for ourselves and damn what happens later?"
LARRY WILKERSON: The decay of (sound difficulties) empire hat on and I will tell you, yes. You're right. This empire is decaying
at a rapid rate. And it is not just reflected in the fact that we can't govern ourselves, the fact that we have a congress that can't
even see the nation for the trees. My political party, Paul, right now thinks that it's going to achieve its full agenda or at least
a good portion of it while this buffoon in the White House twiddles his thumbs. They don't see the country. They don't care about
the country. All they want to do is achieve their agenda; social, economic and otherwise. This country, in all of its components,
whether it's government or it's finance, economics or whatever, is falling apart.
PAUL JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
I took a glance at the article and read one of its links to the NYTimes article which confirms that three Trump associates
were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama.
Even without digging into the story, the fact that Trump's claim is viewed with such disdain by the MSM has always struck me
as incredulous. I have generally assumed that most communications among people in power is monitored whether legally or not.
I've read most of those. The problem is that the important thing – was a FISA warrant issued – not been confirmed by the government
to my knowledge. Apparently it is secret by law so it is one of those things that the government will neither confirm nor deny
– and I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored
all the time. And that's the rub.
The other thing about the articles is the incredible amount of contradiction (assuming the government officials aren't being
misquoted there are a LOT of things that just don't square).
I think comes down to this – very simply the government/intelligence community (IC) does not really want to admit how many people's
conversations it actually listens to or CAN listen to. Nobody can look at this and say that the 4th amendment is meaningful .
In this case, a U.S. general, working on behalf of the president elect (or was this before Trump was elected?), was monitored
by the IC and removed from office because of illegal leaks. We don't REALLY know why – but the idea that the IC has a veto over
the president's appointees should give everyone pause.
Would a warrant actually be needed? In the New York Time article on January 12, 2017 they say:
After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act - which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the
target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American - the court permitted raw sharing of
emails acquired under that program, too.
The way I understand it (gleaned from a National Review article written by a former justice department lawyer Andrew McCarthy
– I excerpted quite a bit of it, but it is now in skynet heaven )
is that Russki subjects of interest (or any nationality) are always monitored. This means that Americans will occasionally get
MONITORED if in communication with such individuals as well and those communications are STORED (monitored and stored ARE NOT
THE SAME AS LISTENED TO). Now, to actually listen to the Americans in these conversation is what supposedly requires the FISA
warrant – it is suppose to be based on something that the person is acting as an AGENT of a foreign power.
Or the FBI could have been doing just a regular financial fraud investigation between Trump companies and Russia found nothing
(OR found something and IS still investigation), and than passed it over as an intelligence matter. I can't do justice to the
article without being skynetted, so you will have to read the article for yourself if interested.
If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?
So I'm not sure the point about monitored / stored / listened to is the case anymore. The NYT article I referenced is all about
the old privacy rules being removed.
In addition the part of the article I quoted seems to say that isn't the case anymore.
Flynn did a lot of work during the transition from Trump Tower. We know some of his calls where intercepted and not just the
one from the beach.
Evidently Paul Manafort lived in Trump Tower for a while. From the news articles his phone calls where also intercepted.
I did look up a bunch of McCarthy's articles in National Review. Thanks for the pointer.
"If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?"
The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador,
he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this.
My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the
change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being
prosecuted???)
The issue from the NR article is, as I understand it, is that Flynn should not be listened to unless there was some REAL suspicion
that he was an agent and there was a FISA warrant (a former US general is really suspected of being a Russian agent???). So one
can know that Flynn had a conversation with the ambassador (from monitoring) but not the substance unless there was a FISA warrant
– if I am understanding this correctly.
If he wasn't proven to be an agent than that conversation is suppose to go into the "vault" and never be released or acknowledged.
So there are just a lot of things that don't add up.
I'm thinking like the meme "fake news" that the people who started this whole think may regret looking into whether Trump was
improperly monitored after all. BUT I DON"T KNOW – maybe Trump is guilty of something
Does anybody really believe that these people feel bound by law? This is raw power politics. Getting "stuff" on people so that
they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats
and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention
Roy Cohn?
It's not about removing anyone from office but to get them to do your bidding. Likewise it is a big distraction from
the ongoing fraud and corruption consuming this nation. Men like Wilkerson are finally realizing how far along our Mafia culture
has come to complete and utter collapse. Next time the music stops will there be any chairs left?
Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general
will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals
didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action.
As an example, I've seen a number news articles saying Kim Jong-un killed Kim Jong-nam, even though, as far as I can tell,
Kim Jong-un has an airtight alibi, having been in a different country at the time. Most people understand such claims to mean
that functionaries of the North Korean government headed by Kim Jong-un are responsible for the killing and Kim Jong-un is just
used as a metonym for that government.
Same thing with "wiretap". Trump is of a generation where wiretap was a generic term used to refer to any sort of bugging.
Reading them as specific references comes across as a particularly pedantic and uncharitable interpretation.
Actually, checking the tweet, I see Trump wrote "tapp", an even more generic term for using electronic devices to listen in
on other people's private conversations.
Actually it was "wires tapped" with Trump having put the quotes in. So yeah, very generic term. And it says Trump Tower. Doesn't
he own Trump Tower? All that stuff in the Trump Tower is 'his'. So the claim is even more generic.
There were numerous reports that people associated with the campaign (headquarters in Trump Tower) had their phone conversations
intercepted. I assume it was when they were talking to a 'Russian'.
The first thing I thought when I heard this was "Hey, Trump finally attended an intelligence briefing."
If the NSA really is listening to everything, can anyone answer why the powers that be would even bother with an actual wiretap
anymore? Isn't it something anachronistic, like owning a beeper or something?
This is exactly the way I took it–with "obama" and "wiretap" being generic terms. Funnily enough, it made all the furor over
the tweet initially hard to understand. Now it makes the literal parsing look desperate and deliberately obfuscatory.
I find it impossible to believe that the MSM does not know that wiretap = any kind of monitoring/surveillance and that "Obama"
= white house, and/or Obama administration.
There is nothing wrong about doing a story about the nuances of surveillance, but to go on and on and ON about there is no wiretapping
is absurd. And the MSM professes to wonder why people find them unreliable
I may be "mis-remembering" here, but it reminded me of a time when ben bernanke was testifying in front of some congressional
committee or other. A member of the panel referenced the fed "printing" money. Bernanke replied that the fed doesn't "print" money.
They enter it onto a computer. A textbook distinction without a difference.
OH EXACTLY RIGHT!!! To go off on a tangent – to not say that money is "loaned" into existence and as much as you need can be
obtained from the either, just would beg the question of why Goldman Sachs, somebody who managed to lose trillions is deserving
of more loans, but a borrower who was scammed into some mortgage with some skyrocketing interest rate proviso is not. And the
unpalatable answer – the FED is to protect the rich and f*ck the poor .
Trump's language was very clear (at least to my ear) in attributing personal involvement to Obama (calling him a "bad (or sick)
guy"). But with "wiretap" note the use of quotation marks. When I first heard about these tweets the morning after, the first
thing I did was to go to Trump's twitter feed to have a look for myself. For me the quotation marks scanned as scare quotes and
I instinctively interpreted "wiretap" in its generic sense.
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is
McCarthyism!
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court
earlier. A NEW LOW!
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just
prior to Election!
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad
(or sick) guy!
In his autobiography "Memoirs of a Revolutionist," Peter Kropotkin describes being interrogated by a member of the Okhrana,
the Tsar's secret police, after his arrest.
In the course of the interview, Kropotkin expresses amazement that the secret police had so deeply infiltrated his revolutionary
cell. His interrogator expressed smug satisfaction, and then informed him that such surveillance was commonplace, and that in
fact no one in the entire empire was more closely surveilled than the Tsar himself.
I've always operated under the assumption that the intelligence agencies devote ample resources to keeping the Executive under
close observation, and that he likely has no more secrets than the rest of us.
The difference now is that the agencies are not just monitoring executive goings-on, but becoming active political players.
Needless to say, clueless, hopeless Democrats are cheering them on.
Your title of "Empire In Decay" reminded me of my last two years at school (late 1980s) and the emphasis on Tudors and Stuarts,
Bourbons and Habsburgs in history classes. The school organised lectures from history professors like Henry Kamen and Paul Kennedy.
Kennedy had just written the book on the rise and fall of empires and been on the airwaves. Kamen is an expert on imperial Spain.
One rarely sees that sort of expertise in the MSM. We get the likes of McCain, Miss Lindsey, David Brooks, Bernard-Henri Levy,
Simon Schama (sic) et al masquerading as experts.
Paul Kennedy knew his stuff. Read his book back in the day, cover to cover. That is the level of state-craft these people are
thinking about. One dinky national election is mere detail. I am sure all the agencies have read the Club of Rome report and what
came after it. It isn't just Global Warming time. Chess end games, all the way down, until checkmate.
It's appalling, isn't. Just the same talking heads going around studios and obsessing over trivia and sound bites.
I remember the Sunday lunchtime and evening shows in the UK thirty years ago, featuring academics and journalists who had been
in a country for years and got to know the country well. The advent of 24 hour and international news seems to have destroyed
what was good coverage / analysis.
FWIW, one of my friends and also son of immigrants from a former French and British colony works at the UK mission to the EU.
He is a professional historian and studied at LSE and Cambridge. He hopes to return to Cambridge by the end of the decade and
teach, but will also write about how Brexit panned out from a ring side seat.
It would be great if Yves could get historians of the calibre of Kamen, Kennedy, Howard, Scarisbrick and Sauvigny to contribute.
Gore Vidal was telling the world about the National Security State years ago seemingly without any impact on the wider public
mindset.
Only when the legitimacy of leaders is seriously in question does this stuff pique the public interest. Isn't there something
called positive vetting? But then, there are no qualifications required for becoming a politician – seemingly every other job
nowadays needs a certificate but not that.
I'm just hoping that when I accidentally delete something important I can type a cry for help into Firefox and GCHQ will get
it all back for me.
If these things are true then there is little reason to think we aren't far, far beyond decay.. we are the festering maggot
laden puss spreading more toxic virulent dangers far and wide.
Little can explain those who circle the wagon in deference to, even in favor of the surveillance state unless they are afraid,
blackmailed etc.
Chaotic unpredictable Trump (who must be clean as a whistle to survive this long) may have grabbed this Shock Doctoring chaotic
beast by the tail. Will he be willing or able to bring it down? If so, he may be the greatest thing that's ever happened to this
country. He's already survived more than I ever dared imagine an individual could. I mean we have long been way past stay out
of any and all airplanes territory here.
The irony is just too rich a man in favor of ever increasing military, more torture, more drones just isn't enough for the
intel state.
A long while back a post Snowden revelation was that there exists a rule and mechanisms in the NSA to make sure that politicians
are put on a list that specifically excludes their communications from being vacuumed with everyone else's. To bypass the list
requires authorization at the highest levels in the agencies involved (and maybe even presidential authority). That is how Congress
protects itself and why it so easily gives all kinds of spying authorities to the agencies. This is not czarist Russia in other
words.
On whose authorities were the protections bypassed in the Trump case ? Comey has already come out to say he didn't do it. Devin
Nunes, the Chairman the House Intelligence committee seems to not have been informed of any surveillance op involving Trump so
the committees maybe out of the loop. This implies either CIA/NSA or GCHQ as I don't see Canada getting involved in it or NZ.
Was the flimflam Russian bs crapped out by GCHQ and CIA to gain such legal authorities and dredge opposition on Trump to prevent
his election or to soft coup him out ? That the Russian 'intel' came from an ex British spy seems suspicious.
The history of the FBI under Hoover makes me question your claim that members of Congress are exempt from surveillance. Are
we really supposed to believe that, the technology being what it is, the intelligence agencies would show such admirable self-restraint?
That's a bet I wouldn't take.
Yes I know and agree it would be foolish to rely on it. In practical terms they might do it anyway specially if safe in Obama's
approval, tacit or otherwise, but the rule exists anyway, if only to be a cudgel if the congress is feeling ornery. If I remember
correctly, it was discussed in Emptywheel's website in the context of the hacking of Angela Merkel.
Eureka Springs below mentions the senate hack. The hacking of the senate computers was a CIA screwup and the agencies don't
like to be in the spotlight that way but CIA seems to mind it less than the others. This is another reason I think CIA may be
behind the Trump tapp.
What strikes me is that this is NOT astounding, and should really come as no surprise. Think of the subterfuge and intrigue
back in the ancient empires of China, Greece, Rome. It's part of our human DNA. What cracks me up is the strength of the kool-aid
the innocence and starry-eyed conviction that we are exceptional. The concept of America spun in elementary school is indeed exceptional-
even exceptionally virtuous. But in fact, with our convenient lives, preoccupation with debt service and preoccupation with Dancing
with the Master Chefs, misdirection has kept us from the ugly reality that we are right in there amongst the best, if not the
most aggressive, in our dominant empire phase.
Think about the outrage when it was determined we were monitoring Merkle's phone. Empire in decline, indeed! Seems to me Homo
sapiens is really heading out toward the end of their dead branch on the tree of life: RIP Too much head, not enough heart.
A reason that I don't completely ignore Trump's claim (I do not like Trump!) is that it is beginning to look as if the entire
Obama Presidency had a few real primary objectives. Firstly was to protect Wall Street from any prosecution but one of the other
primary longterm goals was the TTP. Obama's desire to get the TTP through at any cost makes the act of listening in on Trump (who
said he would kill it) very plausible.
I believe that Cocomaan asked about a new Church committee in yesterday's comments. And the entire post above gives the reasons
why not. There is no one in Congress of the caliber of Frank Church. (Even if McCain has fantasies ) No one will take on a multinational
intelligence system, deliberately interlocked to avoid accountability. And when was the last congressional investigation that
produced results and legal proceedings?
The "Five Eyes" always remind me of V for Vendetta. (Which is not just a great graphic novel, but an unfolding prophecy.)
White-collar America, triumphant: Love means never having to say you're sorry.
I agree. Ron Wyden is perhaps the only one possible, but the fact that Clapper was never humiliated for lying to Congress shows
that we don't have anyone up to the task.
A nice interview and a good example of why I keep coming back to this blog. You don't get this kind of analysis anywhere else.
While all this infighting and spy vs. spy skulduggery goes on, one thing is for certain – the neo-cons and "deep state" are
too distracted by operation "take down the Donald" to pay much attention to their usual work.
The creation of failed states appears to be badly behind schedule now; Syria may actually be restored by the Russians and Iran
back to a functional state, and there appears to be a gutting of the State Department in progress which will make future "color
revolutions" difficult.
Is it any wonder there are so many powerful interests screaming that Russia "hacked" the election?
Having just read "Sleepwalkers" and the new Rasputin biography and reading how everyone of any note
in political circles was monitored in Europe and Russia over 100 years ago these modern revelations come as no surprise. In those
days they did it by opening mail, intercepting telegrams and having people followed 24 hours a day.
It reminded me of when the Chaplain was arrested by the CID men because Yossarian signed the chaplain's name or Washington
Irving's or Irving Washington's name as he censored soldiers letters home while staying in the hospital.
Thanks for this very important post. Nothing that Wilkerson said is a surprise – at all – to me. In fact, it's what I've figured
has been happening since well, at least since Hoover, as Wilkerson indicates.
As others have pointed out, though, this type of spying has gone on in many forms over the eons of time. None of it is new.
The only sort of newsworthy aspect of it is that people in positions of some power and knowledge of behind the scenes stuff, like
Wilkerson, are coming out and saying it.
I always figured, esp since the Snowden reveal, that ALL politicians of any major impact/level would be spied on – or at least
the data is gathered and available to be perused on an as needed basis.
I read somewhere that Trump allegedly was steamingly angry about this. I want to say: SO? What did you expect? THIS is the
way things work. Sometimes you're going like that Intel and sometimes you won't.
I'm not that convinced whether it makes a difference if there was an actual wire tap or the info was gathered by spy satellite
or some other method. But I could be wrong in that regard.
So it seems to me that Trump is naive, albeit I also get it that he's hitting out at his enemies and using his tool of choice:
twitter. So he makes his short tweets and expresses his anger against his enemies to shore up the defences of his supporters.
I can only hope that Trump was NOT naive enough to not realize that he wouldn't be spied on. Trump can hate Obama all he wants
– and I don't like Obama much either – but this kind of spying has be de rigueur for a long long time and no doubt, will continue
to be so for a long long time.
Will Trump be able to "tame" the Spooks? Good luck. JFK tried that, and we all witnessed how that turned out.
Thanks for this post. My guess is Wilkerson is right that intel agencies care most about their own turf and budgets. What's
interesting is, judging by the Chicken Little flailing after the election, imo the CIA and other agencies never saw a Trump win
coming, or really even possible. So, what are these agencies doing with all their big data? Did they simply use Google/Ada for
their election probabilities intel? /s
Sorry about length but I think this puts together some interesting info.
According to the BBC (from a Jan 13 report)
FISA warrants were issued:
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to
me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community.
He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I
had heard from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information
was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation
about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American
citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were
the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation,
there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency,
responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the
secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted
permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in
July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election
day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities
– in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United
States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were
the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said
one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request
for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry
Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight
people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders
of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff
attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.
RT: What do you make of the accusations made by Donald Trump? How big of a deal is this?
Larry Johnson: I think it's a huge deal. The problem is Trump probably should not have done this via Twitter because to
call it a "wiretap" is technically inaccurate. And the denials by the Obama people – like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning
of "is" is with respect to "was oral sex a sexual act."
In this case I understand from very good friends that what happened was both Jim Clapper and John Brennan at CIA were intimately
involved in trying to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump. That there was some collusion overseas with Britain's own GHCQ
[Government Communications Headquarters]. That information that was gathered from GHCQ was actually passed to John Brennan
and it was disseminated within the US government. This dissemination was illegal.
Donald Trump is in essence correct that the intelligence agencies, and some in the law enforcement community on the side
of the FBI, were in fact illegally trying to access, monitor his communications with his aides and with other people. All of
this with an end to try and destroy and discredit his presidency. I don't think there can be any doubt of that. I think it's
worth noting that the head of the National Security Agency, an Admiral [Michael] Rogers, made a journey to the Trump Tower
shortly after Trump had won. And in the immediate aftermath of his visit, Jim Clapper and others in the intelligence community
called
for him to be fired . Why did Rodgers go to Trump Tower? My understanding is that it was to cover himself, because he was
aware that the NSA authorities had been misused and abused with respect to Donald Trump.
Another piece of evidence that Wikerson alludes to (
March
1, 2017 ) :
The American media is ignoring a story from London about the abrupt resignation of Robert Hannigan, the head of Britain's
highly secretive Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which is the code breaking equivalent of the U.S. National
Security Agency (NSA). Hannigan's resignation on January 23 surprised everyone, with only a few hours' notice provided to his
staff. He claimed in a press release that he wanted to spend more time with his family, which reportedly includes a sick wife
and elderly parents. Given the abruptness of the decision, it seems likely to be a cover story.
Putting it altogether and there seems like a lot of smoke, will the MSM look for the fire?
If we ignore the noise that comes from all sides 24/7 we should ask ourselves what is the worst consequence of this election
cycle. I think that the fact that hatred became acceptable and normal is by far the worst. Will take a long time, if ever, to
heal that.
From the book The Damned Yard by Ivo Andric
The success with which the politicians were able to pursue their campaign of division and mutual antagonism depended to
a very large extend on the power of language to create a reality people are ready to believe in without reference to fact.
Introduction page viii
"It can happen, as you know," wrote Brother Mato, "that some of our people watching the Vizier destroy the Turks and their
"prominent people" would comment on how some good would come of it for the rayah, for our fools think that another's trouble
must do them good. You can tell them straight, so that they know now at least what they refused to see before: that nothing
will come of it. Page 11
Such was their capacity for hatred! And when the hatred of the bazaar attaches itself to an object, it never lets go, but
focuses increasingly on it, gradually altering its shape and meaning, superseding it completely and becoming an end in itself.
Then the object becomes secondary, only its name remains, and the hatred crystallizes, grows out of itself, according to its
own laws and needs, and becomes powerful, inventive and enthralling, like a kind of inverted love; it finds new fuel and impetus,
and itself creates motives for ever greater hatred. Page 19
Well this time Wilkerson did look upset. Just last week he looked tired but not so upset in his RNN interview. The topic this
time is of course Trump being tapped and Wilkerson clearly doesn't like it. But did anybody else notice that Wilkerson is wearing
the exact same clothes as in the most previous interview? And the time of day is very similar by the lighting behind him on the
ceiling and on his face as he speaks down into his computer. So that's odd. Because it indicates to me that they were getting
ready to debunk "Trump is crazy" talk even before Trump's claim hit the news. Or at least as soon as it did; they were ready with
this interview. I get the feeling they waited a few days to make it look spontaneous. Makes me think there is almost a civil war
going on. But regardless of these tactics, it's annoying that the DNC pulled this clumsy crap via the UK.
The OECD's new
terms of reference
to assess the
implementation by countries of BEPS Action 13 related to Country-by-Country
Reports (CbCR) may penalise countries, especially developing ones, that try
to obtain by their own means the CbCR's valuable data needed to tackle
multinational tax avoidance.
Country-by-Country Reports (CbCR) (to be
prepared by multinationals with group revenues over EUR 750 million) will
offer information on multinational economic activity, profits and tax paid
broken down for each country where they operate. This CbCR "map" will reveal
any misalignments between the location of real activity, and where profits
are ultimately declared to hold both multinationals and tax havens to
account.
We have long advocated that this CbCR map
should be publicly available, so that all tax authorities, civil society and
journalists may have access to them.
Our suggestion
is that multinational companies
publish their CbCR maps on their webpages.
But the OECD, which is, after all, a club
dominated by the interests of rich countries, disagrees. It wants this map's
information to be fully confidential and to be obtained by authorities only
via bilateral automatic exchange of information, in the same way as banking
information.
Banking information should be confidential
and it makes sense to exchange it bilaterally, as the OECD's Common
Reporting Standard or CRS requires. After all, information on bank accounts
held by say, Zambians in German banks is only relevant for Zambia, but no
other country could make use of it.
But with CbCR "maps", the opposite is true.
Not only should they be public (because they contain no confidential or
sensitive information), but if they are to remain confidential, at least
their dissemination to foreign authorities should be as easy as possible.
Once a multinational prepares their CbCR map,
that same CbCR map is relevant for every country where the multinational
operates. There was thus no need to create a new international legal
framework and have countries sign new treaties for automatic exchange of
CbCR maps among authorities. Multinationals should have been required to
disseminate their CbCR maps to all of their subsidiaries for them to locally
submit the CbCR to every tax authority.
But the OECD wanted the complex framework
precisely to limit access to CbCR, not only by the general public, but also
by developing countries' authorities. Responding to the OECD's approach,
TJN's
last report
advised countries, especially
developing countries, not to follow the OECD's complicated framework
enshrined in the Model Legislation that all countries are required to adopt
(see the figure below, left side). Since CbCR maps are so relevant to tackle
tax avoidance, countries should make sure that they will obtain them one way
or another. If any country is unable to receive the CbCR automatically from
another country for whatever reason (regardless of the reasons that the OECD
legislation contemplates), they should ask for the CbCR map from any local
subsidiary resident in their country ("local filing") as the figure below
shows, right side. Otherwise, they may never access the CbCR at all (see
text in red in the figure below). Also, for a fuller explanation graphic on
CbCR see
here
.
The OECD approach, based on automatic
exchange of information, uses a complex framework that depends on developing
countries being able to convince a developed country to sign an
international agreement with them. Not only is it complex, but it leads to
situations (in red) where the developing country will not access CbCR
information they need. TJN's improved OECD-proposal, while not as ideal as
having multinationals publish CBCR information on their websites, at least
simplifies the framework and ensures that developing countries obtain the
CbCR one way or another.
The new OECD's
Terms of Reference for peer reviews on CbCR
however, will penalise countries that do not abide by the OECD's Model
legislation that focuses on restricting "local filing" by subsidiaries. The
OECD allows local filing of CbCR maps, only if, among other things, the
interested country already has an international agreement to exchange
information with the country where the multinational company is
headquartered, very likely a wealthy country. Local filing is allowed only
when a second international agreement is not in force:
"(c) Limitation on local filing obligation:
( ) iv. that
no
local filing of a CbC report relating to a particular fiscal year can be
required
unless
one or more
of the following conditions have been met with respect to that fiscal year:
( ) b) the jurisdiction in which the Ultimate
Parent Entity is resident for tax purposes
has a
current International Agreement to which the given jurisdiction is a party
but does not have a Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect to
which this jurisdiction is a party by the time for filing the
Country-by-Country Report" (Terms of Reference, page 13; emphasis added)
If the wealthy country (where the
multinational is headquartered) does not want to sign the first agreement
with the developing country interested in receiving the CbCR map, what
happens then? Well, the developing country pays the price: it will not be
able to obtain the CbCR at all.
The OECD does say that all jurisdictions
should sign agreements with all relevant countries, but it also acknowledges
that this takes time
1
–
and that means time paid for by the country interested in receiving the CbCR
map.
In the meantime, if the developing country tries to require the
CbCR from a local subsidiary, the OECD may penalise it with a bad peer
review.
It is clear to us that the OECD does not want
local filing (the easier way to access CbCR), and that not only will it give
a bad review to those countries that do not respect the Model legislation
framework,
but the OECD also explicitly welcomes countries not requiring
local filing at all:
"Local filing is not required to be
introduced in order to meet the minimum standard and the absence of local
filing requirements will not affect the outcome of the peer review on CbC
reporting" (Terms of Reference, page 18).
The OECD does not seem to welcome civil
society involvement either:
"Because peer review is an intergovernmental
process, business and civil society groups' participation in the formal
evaluation process and, in particular, the evaluation exercise and the
discussions in the CbC Reporting Group is not specifically solicited"
(ibid., page 22).
As for developing countries, the only
provisions in their favour is that if they cannot implement CbCR provisions
or expect to receive the CbCR
, they will not be penalised (as long as
they prove that none of their multinationals would be covered by CbCR
provisions):
"It is recognised that developing countries
may face capacity challenges in implementing CbC reporting ( ). Many
developing countries are interested in receiving CbC reports, and as such
will introduce CbC reporting obligations even if they do not have any MNE
Groups headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC
reporting. This is because introducing domestic legislation for CbC
reporting is a precondition in order to receive CbC reports. However, it is
possible that there are developing countries that do not have any MNE Groups
headquartered in their jurisdiction that would be subject to CbC reporting,
and that are not yet ready to receive CbC reports
.
In such cases, rather than find such developing countries to have failed to
implement CbC reporting, the peer review will instead require a
certification process whereby the jurisdiction could confirm that there are
no MNE Groups within scope that are headquartered in the country and
documenting how that fact is known for the year in question" (ibid. page 18;
emphasis added).
To sum up,
given the OECD's opposition to
public CbCR, developing countries will be on the safe side with regard to
blacklists if they do not expect to access the CbCR.
If they want to
access it, they will have to depend on the discretion of rich countries on
whether they will deign to sign an international agreement with them. If a
developing country cannot convince a developed country (where most major
multinationals are headquartered) to sign an international agreement, and
decides to require it from a local subsidiary, it may be given a bad review
by the OECD, with the potential of being blacklisted.
The worst part is that developing countries
have a greater need to access CbCR to try and address tax avoidance by
multinationals, and this information is so general that it should be
considered public, so that civil society, researchers and journalists have
access to it as well.
1
End note 11 on page
18 of the Terms of Reference Report reads: "It is acknowledged that
jurisdictions may not have exchange of information instruments in place with
all members of the Inclusive Framework. Jurisdictions are encouraged to
expand the coverage of their international agreements for exchange of
information. However, as this can take time, for the purposes of the peer
reviews, jurisdictions will be assessed on their compliance with the minimum
standard in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the
year of the particular annual review".
What are the practical implications for a country being blacklisted by
the OECD? Would the downside really outweigh the potential advantage of
going after tax revenue due?
What countries are currently on the OECD blacklist and who cares?
If a developing country has corrupt leaders that might be getting bribes
from MNEs to not go after taxes, wouldn't this whole question be moot at the
practical level?
Why not what CA tried for a While?
Profit in country = sales in country/worldwide sales x worldwide profit.
All readily available data. If in fact sales in country not profitable
because costs in country too high, take business elsewhere.
Think apple would they like to forget about their us or china sales?
This is just another example of how Big Data can fail. All polling is is
the use of Big Data – weighting factors are just another name for
algorithms. Unlike Cambridge Analytica which was going outside its data to
make projections, the pollsters insisted on using the wrong model to
determine human behavior – and that is just as bad. Instead of watching who
the polls said was in the lead, I was watching the error analyses. The model
of how people vote had changed, but polling companies just didn't notice (or
perhaps didn't want to notice). Certainly the elections of 2010, 2012, and
2014 should have alerted them to changing trends and model instability and
their error analyses should have been much higher than they were. But
putting data into a garbage compactor just gives you more garbage .
People assume that "Big Data" is science. It is not. They are
"models", like kid's Lego models, that reflect the consciousness of the
"Model's Creator" (This kid seriously likes battleships, or cosy little
houses!) Sort of like the way IQ tests reflect the culture, class and
race of its creator. (You usually do not get points for identifying a
bird by it's bird-song or differentiating edible plants from the
inedible, by taste/smell).
This proves that most Big Polling companies are run by Clintonistas,
just as Big Media is run by Clintonistas. Their polling numbers still
show that Trump is losing, to this day. They are truly exceptional
people. (In a weird and creepy way)
This also implies that Lambert possesses that very rare quality-
The Open Mind
, that can see through
powerful/dense/stinky bullshit, with x-ray vision.
It's amazing how much more complex a humanities approach is compared
to a stone cold set of unemotional variables. To wit: Trump won because
the "rural" component of the LA Times was exaggerated – so then what does
that say for the urban component who where almost as down-and-out. This
is logic karma. The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic
analysis gets it right. Love it a lot. And there is some connection to
our favorite Mr. Professor, Mark Blyth when he describes these fed-up
electorates (those betrayed by neoliberalism) as "no-shows." Well, we
could go on and on. Truth becomes the fractal analysis of politics.
"The humanities guy, using a tree of almost-psychic analysis gets
it right".
I've got some bad news for you. Decision trees are part and parcel
of Machine Learning techniques.
And polling has nothing to do with Big Data per se – sample of a
few thousand is not Big Data in any way form or shape, it's just
statistics. And while statistics doesn't have any bias, statisticians
(and polsters) do (as do, for the matter, any and all humans).
Your comment reminds me of some data science jokes going around:
1. Data science is statistics done on a Mac.
2. A data scientist is a statistician living in San Francisco.
3. A data scientist is a person who knows more about statistics
than a computer scientist and knows more about computer science
than a statistitian.
(I'd give credit to whoever started these jokes if I could only
figure out who they were ..)
Statistics is a big part of Big Data – it cannot be done without
it. You'd probably be surprised to know that polling is a part of
data science. And you'd probably don't know that the first
documented use of Big Data was by Tycho Brache/Kepler ..
It is important to understand what Big Data/Data Science is since
it is here and it isn't going away. Curiosity Stream has an
excellent video, "The Human Faces of Big Data" that is well worth
the watch.
And as always, the worst thing a person can do is give up their
ability to think critically when presented with Big Data results,
which are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given.
GIGO still applies .
I need to correct my next to last sentence to read: .which
are not truths, but only patterns based on the data given AND
the algorithm used ..
Sometimes the data is good, but the algorithm is bad and vice
versa
I have to remind myself every time I see data modelling political and
cultural phenomenon that these particular models can or will work well
until they don't. They always operate within a political and cultural
paradigm and when that paradigm is broken or even just faltering the
methods (which are heavily biased by that paradigm) fall apart. I can't
say it is apophenia as the data/patterns
are
relevant within an
existing paradigm. Maybe it is apophenia in reverse. The culture
establishes an agreed upon framework thus informing the modeller and
skewing their modelling. So the culture creates the patterns on a largely
nonscientific basis and the modeller simply interprets them to predict
the culture's future behavior. It seems like an exercise in futility.
While the "horse race" data is interesting & kinda fun to dissect in
retrospect, I don't think it really captures the essence of what happened.
Boiled down to 2 factors:
1) Trump was the "bomb thrower" candidate. First he blew up the R's
establishment candidates in the primaries & then blew up the D's
hyper-establishment candidate in the general.
2) HRC was a terrible and, ultimately, incompetent candidate. Her
palpable sense of entitlement & arrogance was quite off-putting to a
significant portion of the electorate. That she won the popular vote but
still managed to lose the election says it all about her campaign strategy.
Trump's election was a giant middle finger to the "politics-as-usual"
crowd.
(Unfortunately Trump is really very "establishment" – he just ran a
non-traditional campaign. I'll be rather surprised if he makes beyond 2020)
I suspect there was a lot more neo-liberal working behind the sceine
that we might suspect. Polling companies are a lot like the acounting
firms for the banks – they are paid to overlook acounting issues. Those
that don't, do not get to keep their contracts. The polling firms were
paied not to measure the mood of the electorate, but to produce polls
that conformed to the narative. And the narative was that Clintion was
going to win by a landslide.
The polls were just another tool for manufacturing consent.
The nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded,
guilt by association conspiracy theory that OMG! the "Russians are coming with Trump" has been
okay for the past 9 month, now that the president is uncovering the deep state's assault on the Bill
of Rights conspiracy theories are an issue!
If Obama's Stalinist candidate had won it would be already be too late save America's liberty!
"... The threat from Russia is nothing compared to the attack on the Bill of Rights by the Obama Stalinists! Neocon hack Strobe Talbot who brought the neocon Kagans into Bill Clinton's State Dept to run Color Coupes and topple Yugoslavia. Estonia and Ukraine should be dismembered like Bill Clinton did Yugoslavia. Filled with malarkey from PNAC humbug tank nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded, guilt by association conspiracy theory up through here: ..."
"... Really! They "know" Putin [anything other than Clinton and the DLC's wretchedness to many people] cost the neolibs their entitlement to run their deep state power. ..."
"... That is where I stopped reading he "can", "could", "would", "assessments" [from the deep state spooks' neolib agendas] and "NATO is not obsolete" are the very fake news themes of the past 14 months of recently ended Clinton con! How could Putin contaminate the neoliberal permanent war crowd's anointed? Putin could NOT have as much power as the DLC crushing Bernie? ..."
The threat from Russia is nothing compared to the attack on the Bill of Rights by the Obama Stalinists! Neocon hack Strobe Talbot who brought the neocon Kagans into Bill Clinton's State Dept to run Color Coupes and topple Yugoslavia.
Estonia and Ukraine should be dismembered like Bill Clinton did Yugoslavia. Filled with malarkey from PNAC humbug tank nattering nabobs' wild, unfounded, guilt by association conspiracy theory up through
here:
"It is bad for Trump, since the ongoing revelations of a foreign adversary's contamination of an American election undermines
the outcome's validity."
Really! They "know" Putin [anything other than Clinton and the DLC's wretchedness to many people] cost the neolibs their entitlement
to run their deep state power.
That is where I stopped reading he "can", "could", "would", "assessments"
[from the deep state spooks' neolib agendas] and "NATO is not obsolete" are the very fake news themes of the past 14 months of
recently ended Clinton con! How could Putin contaminate the neoliberal permanent war crowd's anointed? Putin could NOT have as much power as the DLC crushing Bernie? Barry insists on linking teaching points about the 10 fallacies of logic spewing forth from alt left Trump assassins.
"... "The original pretext was that FISA warrants were obtained in October for some limited capacity of Trump surrogates," Barnes recalled. "The problem is FISA's a very limited law, especially if you are talking about U.S. citizens. If you're talking about foreigners, then the breadth of the law is very broad, and the president can, in fact, intercept and surveil foreign activities at a much wider degree because of a limited application of the Fourth Amendment – although the Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to understand the limits of the Constitution as to foreigners, but that's another story ." ..."
"... "So President Trump is correct that it appears that's what took place here, based on published reports, headlines in the New York Times that use the words 'intercepted calls' involving Trump advisers who are American citizens. It raises very serious issues, and he's absolutely right to raise them," Barnes said ..."
"... "I think that is problematic about Clapper in particular. He'd be the least likely guy you would want to put up as a credible source for the administration," Barnes replied. "But what he really also did at the same time was that he gutted the sort of defense that Obama could have had. Because here you have these stories that come out about intercepted calls, and Clapper goes on TV and says there's actually no legal grounds for any intercepted calls to be taking place, at least not through the FISA authority, which is exactly what was being cited as the reason it was done." ..."
"... "Actually, Clapper's answer raises even more questions. Either (a) Clapper's lying, which is always possible, or (b) Clapper is being truthful, which means all these intercepted calls were done entirely illegally and off the books, or (c) it was done through the Department of Justice in some entirely different manner that would put Obama right in the middle of it," he said. "In other words, if it wasn't done as some sort of national security matter, but was simply done in some sort of disguised investigation that was a politically motivated means of monitoring your adversaries," Barnes elaborated. "So he ended up opening more Pandora's Box than he closed it." ..."
"... "There were three different interpretations of Comey and Clapper combined coming out and saying that," he suggested. "One interpretation was that they were not being fully forthcoming and that it was a message to their underlings that they were not going to be the ones to take the fall if any such activity took place, and that those underlings could take Hillary-style actions in terms of whatever evidence may remain of that." ..."
"... "The second interpretation of what Clapper and Comey did is that they were both kept in the dark – that you had a sort of a rogue operation of people, including Sally Yates at the Department of Justice, who circumvented both Comey and Clapper in order to engage in this sort of illicit personal surveillance," he continued. ..."
Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on Monday's Breitbart News
Daily to talk about President Trump's allegation that the Obama administration wiretapped him during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Barnes's latest article on the subject for
LawNewz
is entitled "Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance."
"The allegations that Trump raises are allegations that derive directly from what the newspapers have reported – the Guardian,
BBC, Heat Street, the New York Times, the Washington Post , where they all talk about there being an interagency
panel of people who were involved in an investigation, who purportedly requested and obtained various means of intercepting phone
calls," Barnes explained.
"So there have been competing stories, and on Sunday, they got even more complicated, as both Clapper and Comey denied any knowledge
of any wiretapping presence," he continued. "Their denials went a little further than Obama's himself, where all he said was that
he himself didn't personally order something – which was a rather absurd cop-out because the president doesn't directly order things
of that nature. His surrogates or delegates do."
"The issue goes right to: why, at any time, was anybody's phone calls being intercepted that were on the Trump team, that are
American citizens?" he said. "The various news stories that are out, including one by Andrew McCarthy, who
recounts
them for the National Review , there's just no legal grounds for any of that surveillance to be taking place. There's
no legal grounds for any of those calls to be intercepted."
"The original pretext was that FISA warrants were obtained in October for some limited capacity of Trump surrogates," Barnes
recalled. "The problem is FISA's a very limited law, especially if you are talking about U.S. citizens. If you're talking about foreigners,
then the breadth of the law is very broad, and the president can, in fact, intercept and surveil foreign activities at a much wider
degree because of a limited application of the Fourth Amendment – although the Ninth Circuit doesn't seem to understand the limits
of the Constitution as to foreigners, but
that's another story ."
"The issue he raises is critical and essential, and it's been ever since these stories started leaking out," he said of McCarthy's
writing. "Aside from the criminality of the leaks, it was that this is information that never should have been gathered in the first
place. What FISA requires is that if you're going to intercept a call where an American is on the line at any level, then what you
have to do is you have to go through certain protocols, and you have to establish basically probable cause that the person is involved
in criminal conduct of some sort. Just the fact that I, as a U.S. citizen, am talking to a foreigner does not allow magically the
Fourth Amendment to disappear as to my right to privacy."
"And yet, purportedly, that's what effectively took place here because here you had Sally Yates discussing a transcript of a call
that involved former NSA assistant Michael Flynn, and that's information that never should have been in her possession or custody,"
he observed.
"Just because one of the people on the phone call may have been not a U.S. citizen, that's no legal grounds to intercept
an American's communications. Another way to think of it is, sometimes you'll see in the movies where the guy is sitting in a van,
and he's listening in on a phone conversation on a wiretap, and the person he's listening to shifts to some personal conversation,
maybe of an intimate nature, that has nothing to do with the criminal investigation going on. You'll see him turn off the recording
device and put down his headphones," he explained.
"If it happens that the manner and method of interception was something that you couldn't physically do that, then what you're
supposed to do is to scrub the information and delete it from the record. In fact, an ex-CIA officer wrote an article for
American Conservative documenting that
that was always the protocol and procedure, whenever they were involved in an intelligence-gathering investigation. Yet apparently
here , according to published reports, what they actually did is they went and they not only kept the information, didn't
scrub it or delete it, they deliberately went back and saved it, and then shared it with a bunch of other people who had no authority
to ever look at it," said Barnes.
"FISA is very particular about this," he noted. "It requires protection of any innocent American's information that ever may be
gathered through this process. You have to not only scrub it and delete it; you cannot disseminate it to people. You can't identify
the individual that's being sourced in the investigation. And the failure to follow FISA's strict procedures is actually a crime.
FISA section 1809 of Title 50 makes it a criminal penalty to either gather the information outside of FISA's procedures or to disseminate
it outside of FISA's procedures."
"So President Trump is correct that it appears that's what took place here, based on published reports, headlines in the
New York Times that use the words 'intercepted calls' involving Trump advisers who are American citizens. It raises very serious
issues, and he's absolutely right to raise them," Barnes said.
SiriusXM host Alex Marlow noted that President Obama's
denial of Trump's wiretapping accusation was "thin." "It clearly leads to many more questions than it answers," Marlow said.
"Oh, absolutely," Barnes agreed. "There's different parts of it that are problematic. The first thing is that if he was being serious
about a denial, you simply issue a two-sentence statement. You say, 'I am not aware of any wiretapping that took place on Mr. Trump
or his campaign, and I would not have supported such a wiretap had it occurred.' He could have been very broad. It's interesting
that Comey and Clapper were much more specific and particular than Obama was."
"The second aspect where there were some ludicrous claims included therein, such as the White House never engaging in electronic
surveillance of a United States citizen," he continued. "Well, as Andrew McCarthy and other attorneys have pointed out, and other
people familiar with the national security operation have pointed out, Obama drone-bombed American citizens in various foreign locations
around the world while he was president, including one in Yemen quite prominently. There's no way you can actually do that without
some form of surveillance on the individuals. It's not like you had a global map tattooed on the wall, and you took a dart and threw
it at the map, and said, 'Oh, okay, we'll drone-bomb there.'"
"The fact that he didn't deny the existence of the wiretap, did not deny his awareness of it, did not deny his approval of it,
and then made clearly materially false or misleading statements about his engagement and involvement with surveillance of American
citizens – and this coming on top of Clapper committing perjury previously before Congress that led to Ed Snowden becoming Ed Snowden
I mean, Ed Snowden probably never becomes Ed Snowden if Clapper doesn't commit perjury, and then, Obama's reaction to Clapper's perjury
was to promote him, rather than to demote him, about spying on American citizens," said Barnes.
After playing a recording of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper flatly denying the existence of any FISA court
order relating to Trump Tower, Marlow asked, "Do we care what this guy says? He's a known liar."
"I think that is problematic about Clapper in particular. He'd be the least likely guy you would want to put up as a credible
source for the administration," Barnes replied. "But what he really also did at the same time was that he gutted the sort of defense
that Obama could have had. Because here you have these stories that come out about intercepted calls, and Clapper goes on TV and
says there's actually no legal grounds for any intercepted calls to be taking place, at least not through the FISA authority, which
is exactly what was being cited as the reason it was done."
"Actually, Clapper's answer raises even more questions. Either (a) Clapper's lying, which is always possible, or (b) Clapper
is being truthful, which means all these intercepted calls were done entirely illegally and off the books, or (c) it was done through
the Department of Justice in some entirely different manner that would put Obama right in the middle of it," he said. "In other words,
if it wasn't done as some sort of national security matter, but was simply done in some sort of disguised investigation that was
a politically motivated means of monitoring your adversaries," Barnes elaborated. "So he ended up opening more Pandora's Box than
he closed it."
Marlow played an excerpt from an
interview
given by former Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in which he essentially said President Trump's accusation
that President Obama directly ordered surveillance on Trump Tower might be "incorrect" in the details, but Trump was "right" to believe
a surveillance operation could have been in progress.
Barnes said Mukasey did "accurately relay what has been reported to the press, which is this request for a FISA warrant in the
summer that was rejected because it put Trump's name in the warrant request."
"To give you an idea of how rare that is, if that did occur, is that the last 35,000-plus requests for the FISA court to issue
a warrant, it's only been denied 12 prior times, to public knowledge," he noted.
"According to the published reports, they went back in October and simply left Trump's name off of it, slightly limited it, and
got it," he said of the FISA request in question. "Now, Clapper's statement completely denies that ever occurred in terms of October,
in terms of ever getting any FISA warrant on anybody connected to, in his own words, the Trump campaign. So there's a major discrepancy
present."
"Secondly, the one area where he doesn't quite correctly describe the situation: there is some misleading information out there
that the government can just tap the phones of anyone involved who's working on any level on behalf of a foreign government, by any
means. Well, if that had been the case, everybody at the Clinton Foundation should have been tapped permanently," Barnes said. "Putting
that aside, the actual law requires that they not only be, quote, 'an agent of a foreign power,' but if they're a United States person,
there has to be evidence that they're engaged in criminal activities of a particular kind."
"So they couldn't just wiretap Michael Flynn, for example, or listen in on his conversations, even if the person on the other
line is not a United States person. They have to have evidence that he was engaged in criminal conduct. That is what was problematic,
as soon as the Flynn story broke, was there was no grounds for them to have ever recorded him, kept the recording, or shared the
recording. FISA law specifically prohibited it under those set of circumstances," he explained.
"That's the illegal aspect of what's going on. It's not just the political motivation that would be impermissible or inappropriate
because it would be First Amendment punitive use, misuse of the search warrant authority. But it actually violates what warrant authority
they could ever obtain in the first place, under both the First and Fourth Amendments, and under the FISA law itself," he said.
Barnes said the
reported request from FBI Director James Comey for the Justice Department to refute Trump's wiretapping accusation was "an interesting
set of statements."
"There were three different interpretations of Comey and Clapper combined coming out and saying that," he suggested. "One interpretation
was that they were not being fully forthcoming and that it was a message to their underlings that they were not going to be the ones
to take the fall if any such activity took place, and that those underlings could take Hillary-style actions in terms of whatever
evidence may remain of that."
"One little-noted story last week was that Trump put out a requirement that everybody connected to the story keep all information,"
he noted. "He did this before he did his tweets, but his motivation may have been to actually prove and document this illicit activity
took place."
"The second interpretation of what Clapper and Comey did is that they were both kept in the dark – that you had a sort of a rogue
operation of people, including Sally Yates at the Department of Justice, who circumvented both Comey and Clapper in order to engage
in this sort of illicit personal surveillance," he continued.
"I've been on the opposite side of Sally Yates in cases where she was at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Atlanta," Barnes revealed.
"If you were going to pick an unethical, corrupt prosecutor, she'd be at the top of the list. She tried to help railroad a family
there, in a case I dealt with over ten years."
"The third possibility is that this was just unlawful surveillance," he concluded. "I've had a lot of cases like that, especially
under the Obama administration. It became too frequent and too regular that you had agents that were just doing illegal surveillance,
without ever notifying their supervisors, without ever obtaining judicial authority, without ever doing it legally at all. And so
you may have had an operation that was a true Deep State kind of operation, that was just doing unlawful surveillance."
"There's too much information, like some of the criticism of President Trump. Well, people should be critical then of the New
York Times because it was their story that said there was intercepted calls of multiple members of Donald Trump's campaign. That
was, I think, the story that ran on Valentine's Day, actually. It was in the very first sentence of the story. So either the New
York Times was purely fake news or somebody in the government is lying about what they were up to," Barnes summarized.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files." ..."
"... FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever. ..."
"... So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. ..."
Did the surveillance state just take another gigantic Big Brotherish step forward? The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting
that the
Obama
administration is planning to support an FBI plan for "a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to
wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services."
Facebook posts, Skype calls, Google chats, Apple's iMessage - under the new plan, every form of Internet communication would have
to be accessible to law enforcement wiretapping. Civil libertarians, Internet companies and privacy activists are all understandably
unenthused. A blogger at FireDogLake immediately labeled the news proof that Obama intended to support the
"end of the 4th Amendment on the Internet."
That's a little overheated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, chiefly by requiring that search
warrants be authorized by a judge and supported by probable cause. According to all descriptions of the new FBI wiretapping plan,
if law enforcement wants to listen in on your Facebook chats or Apple iMessages, law enforcement will have to get a court order,
just at it would if it wants to wiretap your phone. If society is going to grant government the right to listen in to our old-school
phone conversations, it's hard to see how, in principle, it can deny the same right with regard to our Skype calls.
The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with
a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama
administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that,
according
to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review
Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files."
Now we're talking violation of the Fourth Amendment. And if we combine that kind of cavalier attitude toward our constitutionally
mandated protections with vastly expanded technical surveillance capabilities, then we've got a real problem. Civil libertarians
have a right to be nervous. Expanded power implies expanded opportunities to abuse that power.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls
the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities
have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more
data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval.
One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever.
So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government
that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers.
Yippee.
Andrew Leonard
is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.
"... "I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. ..."
"... Binney also told Sean Hannity's radio show earlier Monday, "I think the FISA court's basically totally irrelevant." The judges on the FISA court are "not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection," Binney said during the radio interview. "That's all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress." ..."
"... Binney also told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction are " simply out there for show" and "trying to show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts." ..."
"... "I think that's what happened here," Binney told Fox. " The evidence of the conversation of the president of the U.S., President Trump, and the [prime minister] of Australia and the president of Mexico. Releasing those conversations. Those are conversations that are picked up by the FAIRVIEW program, primarily, by NSA ." ..."
As we noted previously, Binney is the NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information,
who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely
regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control
structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet
Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian
atomic weapons"). Binney is the real McCoy.
Binney resigned from NSA shortly after the U.S. approach to intelligence changed following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He "became
a whistleblower after discovering that elements of a data-monitoring program he had helped develop -- nicknamed ThinThread -- were
being used to spy on Americans," PBS reported.
On Monday he came to the defense of the president , whose allegations on social media over the weekend that outgoing President
Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 campaign have rankled Washington.
"I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill
Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business
on Monday.
Everyone's conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.
Binney also told Sean Hannity's radio show earlier Monday, "I think the FISA court's basically totally irrelevant." The judges
on the FISA court are "not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection," Binney said
during the radio interview. "That's all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress."
Binney also told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction are " simply out there for show" and "trying to
show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and
the courts."
"That's not the main collection program for NSA," Binney said.
* * *
What Binney did not delve into, however, was if Obama directed surveillance on Trump for political purposes during the campaign,
a core accusation of Trump's. But Binney did say events such as publication of details of private calls between President Trump and
the Australian prime minister, as well as with the Mexican president, are evidence the intelligence community is playing hardball
with the White House.
"I think that's what happened here," Binney told Fox. " The evidence of the conversation of the president of the U.S., President
Trump, and the [prime minister] of Australia and the president of Mexico. Releasing those conversations. Those are conversations
that are picked up by the FAIRVIEW program, primarily, by NSA ."
Since Binney designed the NSA's electronic surveillance system, he would know.
"... The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and not given opportunities for advancement. ..."
"... They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up. They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get compliance and votes. ..."
"... I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear. ..."
"... It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before the inept campaign increased them. ..."
I went on two email rants tangential to this if anyone is interested, I enjoyed them.
On journalism:
The constraint on punditry is that they are all a bunch of high school mean girls. They
spend just as much time gossiping and trashing each other as teenagers. Anyone who doesn't parrot
faux objectivity, which is little more than the D party line, can expect to be ostracized and
not given opportunities for advancement.
They all pretend they can divine absolutely everything from polls, enabling them to forego
any real reporting in favor of some number crunching or referencing fivethirtyeight. Polls have
so many problems in the first place, that to try and extrapolate to what the electorate is really
saying is a fool's errand. Polls don't let people say that they would rather be boiled in oil
than elect the wife of the guy that laid the groundwork for the GFC, or that they really hate
both of them and as long as it looks like Clinton is going to win I might not bother to show up.
They certainly don't have an option for: I see how this country works, I see how corrupt 95% of
the elites are, I see how they have had success in their lives and pulled up the ladders of opportunity
behind them, I see how they think they are peers with the titans of industry and are willing to
forgive them of just about any misbehavior no matter how consequential and despite all that the
titans think of them as the paid help. I see how willing they are to make life harder for the
majority just to fellatiate their donors; leaving rhetoric and shame as the only tools to get
compliance and votes.
At the end of the day, polls are like horoscopes, a kernel of truth but you can see what you
want to see. Which is why we were subjected to copious think pieces about Bernie Bros and Racist
Trump voters that are little more than polling cross tabs woven into whatever narrative would
best help Clinton.
But why Clinton? It certainly isn't because there was a cozy relationship before this campaign.
Note this quote from
Politico :
But to this day she's surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some
of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked
with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked
and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists
rather than just disdaining them. Not even being nice to her in print has been a guarantor
of access; reporters likely to write positive stories have been screened as ruthlessly as perceived
enemies, dismissed as time-sucking sycophants or pretend-friends.
I think it has to do with the knowledge that she holds grudges and the level of inevitability
she was able to command. Anyone who dared to go even an inch beyond the mean girl hive mind could
be assured zero access in her Whitehouse and to have future opportunities for advancement disappear.
But it certainly isn't above her to play favorites and reword good coverage with access,
even to the point of
dictating adjectives to reporters .
The second email was to 538 because they put up a job listing, which I used as an opportunity
to get an email read by them.
Well, I don't have any experience editing or writing (except as a hobby) but I do have a very
extensive knowledge of current events, political trends, polling, voting methods, and heterodox
economics. Since it's doubtful you would consider me for a policy editor position I just thought
I would offer some constructive criticism.
1. Instead of using your models to display the odds of a candidate winning if the election
were held today, incorporate the polling error and historical trends to make a graph that starts
with lines for the past and ends with probability cones into the future. You may know that
polls are only for a snapshot in time, but the vast majority of the TV pundits who use this site
as a bible don't. Then they go and decide who gets coverage based on it. This is especially important
when you have a well known candidate vs lesser known ones. This is a key reason Sanders didn't
do as well and why we have a president Trump. They also couldn't emphasize enough how unelectable
he was despite the polls constantly saying otherwise which really was the one thing
that sank him . For some reason about
40% of
the country says they will vote even if they don't care about the outcome. I'm sure in reality
it is much less, even more so for a primary. However, one of the reason politics is so dysfunctional
right now is that no one in their right mind would run for congress or anything else when only
63/435 house districts had a margin under 15%. Any damage you do to the incumbency effect is a
huge plus.
2. Alternative voting. Since your site is all about data I can't for the life of me
understand why you haven't done a dive into alternative voting methods. It there is one thing
this election should have taught us it's that first past the post (FPTP) is a creation from hell
that needs to die. Then the only other option widely expressed is Instant Run Off (IRV), which
is just ever so slightly better than FPTP. Would it really be too much to ask to dive into
Score Voting ,
3-2-1 voting , Condorcet,
and Schultz? And maybe look at some of the
work being done to model
voter satisfaction with those systems.
3. Improving Polling. Clearly you have contacts at all the major polling firms I have
absolutely no clue why you haven't pressured them to gather better data. Since the elites in this
country absolutely refuse to be within a 5 mile radius of real people, they rely on polls to take
the temperature of the public. I'd say that hasn't been working so well. I have seen polls where
they find out your stance on ACA, give both side some of the opposing arguments, and then ask
again and manage to flip like 20% from each side. Any poll that is going to ask our suboptimally
informed electorate something about a hot button issue should give a reason or two for and against
before getting a response. Polls that are meant to determine a participant's preference on a range
of hot button issues really should be done with
quadratic voting .
Which brings me to horse race polls. Just to get a baseline about how dysfunctional FPTP is I
would have loved to see a poll in the middle of the Dem primary ask "regardless of who you plan
on voting for, who do you want to be the next president?" Primary season would also be a great
time to test out some of the alternative voting methods mentioned above, most of which would eliminate
the need for primaries entirely. But if we are stuck with FPTP I would love for the follow up
question to be "In one sentence why do you plan to vote for that person?" That would really be
invaluable data.
I could probably go on for another hour with things that I think you could do to personally
improve the miserable state this country is in and will continue to be in for the foreseeable
future, but I'll spare you. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I'm glad you posted this! I wasn't familiar with quadratic voting and the link is quite interesting.
It seems to have some similarities with ranked preference voting. That said, I agree with Peter
Emerson that in any choice there should be at least 3 options to choose from, and those options
should come from the voting base.
Choosing from how much I agree or disagree with a single proposal is still a poor option–it
depends what the alternatives are if one disagrees, or at least some basics about the implementation
if one agrees.
Using the questions from the QV video as an example, in some questions the nature of the potential
alternatives might affect results more than others. (For example, "Do you want to repeal the ACA?"
How a person answers might vary considerably depending on the alternatives.)
It's just not that hard: the Democrats bent the rules and thwarted what people wanted in
order to run Hillary because it was her turn, ignoring the negatives that were present before
the inept campaign increased them.
I read that book a long time ago. What I remember (perhaps incorrectly) is that there are simple,
compound and complex failures. One error causes a simple failure, two a compound and three a complex.
Complex failures are usually catastrophic. The errors were 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate
3) failure to adapt. Perhaps a bit overly structural, but it did stick in my mind for years.
> 1) failure to learn 2) failure to anticipate 3) failure to adapt.
Those are the types of failure, and those are reasonable enough buckets. But their analysis
of how multiple pathways to failure is to my mind far more supple - and you have to treat case
case separately.
While I generally agree with your analysis I think that your timeline is missing one key inflection
point, the ACA. During September and October some states began announcing pricing changes for
the coming year. That fed into the rolling narrative that the ACA was collapsing, or in a death
spiral, or otherwise in trouble right around the same time that radical opportunist
True Patriot(tm) Jim Comey was bringing up Weiners.
Others have argued (can't find the links right now sorry) that this was more meaningful than
the emails and my own informal poll of Trump voters is consistent with that. None of them mention
Bhengazi or the emails except as general background to her unsavoriness, meaning that the damage
was done long before October. But they do bring up the "collapsing state exchanges" and "unreasonable
price surges" as current problems.
I agree that the email furor could be masking the effect of an ObamaCare rate hike, but I have
never seen polling to this effect; if somebody has, please add! There are a lot of events happening
simultaneously, and then the press will pick one and make that the cause.
Bottom line, people in rural western Virginia (with which I am more familiar) might not have
even heard the term "neoliberal" [by the way, why do we use his portmanteau of two very positive
words to describe a loathsome philosophy? Why don't we just call it what it is, "neofeudalism"
or possibly more accurately, "archeofeudalism"], but these "deplorables" do know that their lives
suck more than they ever have due to their lives and livelihood being drained out of them by the
1% and the Accela Corridor Class, of which HRC was the examplar par excellence.
Just ignore all the polls, all the verbiage, all the analysis. Bottom line: Trump is the proverbial
"Ham Sandwich."
The original liberal revolution (circa 1776 and later) mobilized the power of the bourgeoisie,
money, and markets to correct the inadequacies of the remains of the feudal society based on agriculture
and land. The neoliberal revolution aims to mobilize the power of money and markets to correct
the inadequacies of the liberal society based on money and markets. Strategically, to put a price
on anything that's left without one, and eliminate the chances for Polanyi's "double movement".
You write: "all but the Daybreak poll got the popular vote outcome wrong. "
Ummh, your sentence exactly disagrees with your data. Almost all polls got the sign of the
popular vote total correct, with Clinton leading Trump by several points. The average (Huffington
Post does this) of a lot of polls was very close indeed to Trump's performance, with Trump having
fewer popular vote than Clinton by close to 3%.
I'm surprised in your narrative inflection points, you don't note Oct. 24 as a key date, the
day the administration announced that Obamacare premiums would increase by an average of 22%.
Though it didn't receive as much coverage from the horse-race media, it seems to me that if there
was one single event that tipped the race to Trump, it was that announcement.
I didn't follow the polling much in real-time, but my recollection from post-mortems is that
Trump received a number of bounces up at inflection events, but then his poll numbers subsided
back. But in the aftermath of Oct. 24 his numbers began to rise without subsiding later. The graphs
you posted are consistent with that, except that it's attributed to the Comey letter,, which received
a lot of media play, but probably was of lesser importance to voters, as opposed to its importance
as a Dembot excuse.
In Florida, Trump got 113,000 more votes than Hillary. However, election officials report that
130,000 voters refused to vote for either candidate and wrote in the names of various people and
cartoon characters. The usual "vote for the lesser of two evils" just isn't working any more.
Why not look at how Bill Clinton diverted the Democratic Party towards Wall Street and Oligarchs
and left behind huge swathes of traditional voters ? The story of the string-puller from Arkansas
and his connections, whether to get him a Rhodes Scholarship and multiple draft deferments, or
his visit to Russia in Dec 1969, or his governorship and its strange association with Rich Mountain
Aviation in Mena, AK.
This was where the Democratic Party turned away from its voter base and Blair copied this in
UK with New Labour, a Neo-Marxist front facilitating Financial Excess
You're asking why I didn't write another post. Basically, because I wanted to write about penguins,
and not peacocks. The focus is on the campaign, not on everything that's been wrong with the Democrat
Party since forever (though there'll be a bit more of that in the forthcoming post).
One of these days pundits are going to stop treating the election like some damn sporting event,
focusing on momentum and god knows what instead of where the candidates stand on the issues of
importance. When that happens, maybe we'll start electing candidates that are interested and capable
of solving problems instead of candidates merely striving to stroke their egos.
I commend you for your optimism, However, the two party (actually one party) duopoly will insist
on nominating neo-liberal candidates paid for by yuuge corporate bribes. May I suggest that you
look elsewhere if you want candidates capable of solving the people's problems rather than the
corporate ones.
The trouble with social science is that the subjects read about themselves and change behavior
based on what they read. This is the property that George Soros calls reflexive. Even physical
science at the quantum mechanical level has as a basic principle that the act of measuring something
changes it.
Yes, even George Soros can be right about a thing or two.
Interesting analysis. What would add considerably is if we had some way of also charting other
events, in particular election fraud events (including voter suppression, computer tabulator rigging,
etc.) and other election interference mechanisms such as media coverage / non-coverage / miscoverage.
Not to mention the primary problems. Or the issues having to do with "candidate selection"
in the first place.
Analysis of the election without examining the information made available to voters, and with
no hope of knowing how voters actually did vote (hint–we don't know this from official
election results), is dodgy to say the least.
At the minimum the glaring gaps in information (e.g. about actual vote tallies) should be acknowledged.
Did you read the title of the post? That often gives a good indiction of the subject matter
to be found therein. You want me to write another post. Perhaps one day.
The presence of actual election malfeasance for decades (and more–when have we ever had clean
elections under public scrutiny?) means that elegant analysis such as yours perversely perpetuates
the acceptance of phony election data. That's why some form of acknowledgement is needed somewhere
in the post. Not a different post or a different topic, just a mention that there are . . . issues.
I would love your approach if only it didn't contain the unspoken presumption of official election
results bearing any resemblance to actual votes cast! Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the precinct
and specific election. We should not advocate people continuing to blindly accept official election
results regardless of whether the results were expected, unexpected, close, non-close, matching
polls, not matching polls. Analysis that does not acknowledge the absence of meaningful election
scrutiny inadvertently perpetuates the problem.
It's like doing financial analysis on an economy where all data is submitted by companies with
zero requirement for backup financial data. (Not to mention then carrying out "polls" of what
"financial analyses" we believe or prefer!) We would never accept that kind of "data" and subsequent
"analysis" in a financial context.
I see it as a contest for power between two jet setters. Both had Boeings. One was owned by
the candidate, bigger & black & red.
The other was some smaller, and nondescript blue.
I'd like to see the number of flights and where they went compared.
Concerning your inflection points, Lambert: I remember from a while back that Empty Wheel had
a chart that showed a major shift in sentiment toward Trump when new higher Obamacare costs were
announced for 2017. Sorry, but I don't know how to run down that link.
It's bad now, but it could be worse. Project Fear. OK, Trump is a lunatic but how does that
compare with the status quo? Let's give the lunatic a go. How bad can it get?
"... Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will have no future as a party. ..."
"... Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment, and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved. ..."
"... Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling, is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything. ..."
"... Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out with the garbage. ..."
"... So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with racial politics. ..."
"... The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make a living. ..."
"... The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives. ..."
Until the Democrats reform their leadership and recommit to working people again, they will
have no future as a party.
Brad and Larry and Paul are a big part of the status quo for the liberal establishment,
and the incredible failure of leadership they have achieved.
Continuing to argue about it here, with the quick resort to personal attacks and name-calling,
is irrelevant, because the Democratic party is dead. Seriously, how big of a loss can they take
before the leadership gets tossed? It was not just the presidency. They have lost almost everything.
Don't count the Democratic Party out yet. Politicians need to make a living. After the Civil War
the Democratic Party had to scrape together what it could find that Republicans had tossed out
with the garbage.
So, the Democratic Party took to supporting immigrants and unions. Times have
changed and the Democratic Party lost the unions to corporatism, but tried to make it up with
racial politics.
That worked some, but the problem with identity politics is that eventually people
get their rights and freedoms and next thing you know they want jobs and college educations for
their children.
The Democratic Party made a big mistake abandoning the interests of ordinary working
people, but that is what their corporate donors demanded. So, it is time for a makeover and if
the next one does not take then they will be back at it again because politicians have to make
a living.
The Democratic party, much less so than the Republican party, is not homogenous. All the things
you ascribe to them past or present don't apply to most of their current members or operatives.
It is one of the pernicious aspects of an effectively two-party system that all progressives
have a strong motivation or even necessity to associate themselves with the "least bad" party.
By way of official narrative the Democrats definitely fit the bill, even though they contain a
lot of "co-opted" (if not corrupted) establishment baggage. That just happens with any major party
- elites and interest groups that nominally stay out of politics but factually participate and
not just a little are never resting.
In Germany, the 80's (perhaps late 70s?) saw an ascendancy of the Green party which was strongly
associated with environmentalism, and by implication resistance to then prevalent politics, social
mores, etc. They were successful as environmentalism and (I would say secondarily but that can
be debated) civil/individual liberties and gender/ethnic equality which they also featured big
time were themes that found wide appeal, and the time was ripe for them (e.g. environmental degradation
had become undeniable, and gender/ethnic discrimination had become recognized as a factor hindering
progress, aside from just fairness concerns).
A few decades later (and starting even a few years after the success) there was a noticeable
bifurcation in the Greens - it turned out they were not all on the same page regarding all social
issues. A number of Greens "defected" from the party and associated themselves with Red (Social
Democrats, equivalent of US Democrats) or Black (Christian Democrats, equivalent of US Republicans)
- showing that environmental or general (dimensions of) equal opportunity concerns are perhaps
orthogonal to stands on other more or less specific social issues (or if one wants to be more
cynical, that some people are careerist and not so much about principles - that exists but I would
prefer (with little proof) to think it doesn't explain the larger pattern).
"... With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY. ..."
"... Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.' ..."
Back in 2013, Fox News journalist, James Rosen, was named a 'criminal co-conspirator' and 'flight
risk' by then AG Holder -- which led to a series of events that made
Holden later regret doing it . With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all
of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including
his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a piece on the ordeal, saying "The Rosen affair is as
flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush's administration, and it
uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a
reporter as a criminal for doing his job - seeking out information the government doesn't want made
public - deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights
are based."
Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of
the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.'
"... He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning curve is way to steep and he is losing. ..."
"I hope he cleans fucking house and outs every last shit politician for every last little thing
they are probably already being blackmailed on"
He's not going to. Trump thinks he can enact his policies and make America great again. He
is completely underestimating how controlled the country is. FBI, CIA, NSA all of it.. The learning
curve is way to steep and he is losing.
I hate to say this but we are gonna see a sad end to this
administration. Trump should be dropping any and every bomb he has but he isn't. By the time he
figures out what to do it will be too late. I think it might be already. He expects the American
people to stand behind and we are but that is not enough. I think it may be that time... that
time we all fear would come and will show us the real America and Americans.
Trump, if you read ZH, and you read this, drop everything NOW. DROP EVERY BOMB YOU HAVE. ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree. By now Trump has enough pix and AV to crush the firebugs in public. And if the Deep State and their psychotic friends in the CIA NSA FBI, etc., want to take it
outside, Trump should unleash what good Intel forces are left and go Roman on them.
Since the pervert Dems and their psycho alphabetroid friends are hell bent on destroying this
country if they can't keep it in the swamp, then they may as well take a real beat down in the
process.
The one good thing about all this is that it is forcing all the DC sleaze out in the open where
we can all see them for the power abusers they are.
Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on
instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution"
against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons
to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs
to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that
neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
Notable quotes:
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
"... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
"... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
"... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
"... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
"... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
"... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
"... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
"... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
"... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
"... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
"... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
"... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
"... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation
of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.
The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means
a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is
one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the
divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have
now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will
stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist
alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational
textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their
profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists
want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control
the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't
even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen
soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war
and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants
power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed
their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we
doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not
been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.
Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never
invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's
something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.
... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval
Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews
needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.
Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top
aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters,
William Safire, and then added:
"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"
Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart.
They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...
The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on
Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention,
has been the how.
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation
picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence
agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.
We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.
Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the
existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.
But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is
acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information
about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.
The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent
resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance
empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good
thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the
calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.
But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi!
It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules
At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and
its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into
the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five
different categories of foreign intelligence.
For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would
be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and
his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures
for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.
In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The
first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador
knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.
The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior
intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there
was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.
(Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)
But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused
of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the
FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself.
But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy
way of saying "unredacted."
The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent
of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under
Title III of the U.S. code.
It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence
questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which,
during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about
them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January
16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further
calls when Trump was President.
At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well
as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty
that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.
For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient
national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing
so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.
But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days
after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped
his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn
untruth.)
Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did
not match what Flynn insisted he said.
McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not.
But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about
the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for
weeks.
Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness
from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals.
The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.
"... Keynesianism offered important tools for overcoming the economic crisis, but its application by Obama's government was too half-hearted and misdirected (going to banks rather than households) to effectively reduce the recession. Clinton paid the price. ..."
"... We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and long-term goals. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
Keynesianism offered important tools for overcoming the economic crisis,
but its application by Obama's government was too half-hearted and misdirected
(going to banks rather than households) to effectively reduce the recession.
Clinton paid the price.
This interview with Walden Bello is based on the article "Keynesianism in
the Great Recession:
Right Diagnosis, Wrong Cure," available here from the Trans National Institute.
Q: What were the main ways in which neoliberalism created the Great
Recession?
A: Neoliberalism sought to remove the regulatory constraints that the state
was forced to impose on capitalist profitability owing to the pressure of the
working class movement.
But it had to legitimize this ideologically. Thus it came out with two very
influential theories, the so-called efficient market hypothesis (EMH) and
rational expectations hypothesis (REH). EMH held that without
government-induced distortions, financial markets are efficient because they
reflect all the available information available to all market participants at
any given time. In essence, EMH said, it is best to leave financial markets
alone since they are self-regulating. REH provided the theoretical basis for
EMH with its assumption that individuals operate on the basis of rational
assessments of economic trends.
These theories provided the ideological cover for the deregulation or "light
touch" regulation of the financial sector that took place in the 1980s and
1990s. Due to a common neoliberal education and close interaction, bankers and
regulators shared the assumptions of this ideology. This resulted in the
loosening of regulation of the banks and the absence of any regulation and very
limited monitoring of the so-called "shadow banking" sector where all sorts of
financial instruments were created and traded among parties.
With so little regulation, there was nothing to check the creation and
trading of questionable securities like subprime mortgage-based securities. And
with no effective monitoring, there were no constraints on banks' build-up of
unsustainable balance sheets with a high debt to equity ratios.
Without adult supervision, as it were, a financial sector that was already
inherently unstable went wild. When the subprime assets were found to be toxic
since they were based on mortgages on which borrowers had defaulted, highly
indebted or leveraged banks that had bought these now valueless securities had
little equity to repay their creditors or depositors who now came after them.
This quickly led to their bankruptcy, as in the case of Lehman Brothers, or to
their being bailed out by government, as was the case with most of the biggest
banks. The finance sector froze up, resulting in a recession-a big one-in the
real economy.
Q: So how did these banks get to be so big and powerful? What drove the
"financialization boom" that triggered the recession?
A: Financialization or an increasing preference for speculative activity
instead of production as a source of profit was driven by four developments.
The first was the abolition, during the Clinton Administration, of the
Glass-Steagall Act that had served as a Chinese Wall between commercial or
retail banking and investment banking, as a result of tremendous pressure from
the big banks felt left out of the boom in trading. The second was the
expansive monetary policy promoted by the Federal Reserve to counter the
downturn following the piercing of the dot.com bubble in the first years of the
new century. Third was the government and business' move to shore up effective
demand by substituting household indebtedness for real wage increases. Fourth
was the lifting of capital controls on the international flow of finance
capital, following the era of financial repression during the post-war period.
These developments acted in synergy, first to produce a speculative boom in the
housing and stock markets, then feeding on one another to accelerate an
economic nose-dive during the bust.
Q: What was the worst impact of the crisis, and upon whom?
A: With unemployment hitting 10 per cent in 2010, working people suffered
the most. Although the unemployment rate is now down to five per cent, that
fall has been driven less by improved labor market conditions than a falling
rate of participation, as discouraged workers withdrew from the labor force.
More than 4 million homes were foreclosed. Lower income households, the main
victims of aggressive loan sharks, suffered most.
As far as growth was concerned, the recovery was tepid, with average GDP
growth barely 2 per cent per annum between 2011 and 2013, less than half the
pace of the typical post-World War II expansion. In terms of inequality, the
statistics were clear: 95% of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top
1%; median income was $4,000 lower in 2014 than in 2000; concentration of
financial assets increased after 2009, with the four largest banks owning
assets that came to nearly 50% of GDP.
An Economic Policy Institute study summed up the trends: "[T]he gains of the
top 1 percent have vastly outpaced the gains for the bottom 99 percent as the
economy has recovered."
At the individual and household level, the economic consequences of being laid
off were devastating; with one study finding that workers laid off during
recessions "lose on average three full years of lifetime income potential." One
estimate showed that the income of the United States would have been $2
trillion higher had there been no crisis, or $17,000 per household.
Q: What did Keynesianism offer as a way of responding to the crisis?
A: Keynesianism offered two major weapons for overcoming the crisis. The
first and most important was a fiscal stimulus, or deficit spending by
government. The second was monetary expansion. Essentially, these were forms of
government intervention designed to revive the economy after a collapse of
investment on the part of the private sector. They are called "countercyclical"
since they are designed to counter the recessionary pressures brought about by
the crisis of the private sector.
Q: How were Keynesian policies and strategies applied in the wake of the
onset of the recession?
A: The Keynesian interventions were in the right direction. Unfortunately,
they were applied half-heartedly by the Obama administration. For instance, the
size of the fiscal stimulus $787 billion might have been enough to prevent the
recession from getting worse, but it was not enough to trigger an early
recovery, which would have demanded at least $1.8 trillion, according to
Cristina Romer, the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
Expansive monetary policy was always a second best solution and was not as
effective as a fiscal stimulus. Yes, cutting interests to zero and quantitative
easing-or providing banks with infusions of money-did have some impact, but
this was rather small since, for the most part, individuals and corporations
did not want to go further into debt but wanted to focus on lessening their
debt.
Q: What three things could have been done, "truer" to the spirit of
Keynesianism, that would have reduced the recession?
A: First of all, there should have been a much bigger stimulus, one along
the lines of Cristina Romer's proposal of $1.8 trillion. Second, instead of
focusing on saving the banks, the government should have devoted resources to
assisting the millions of troubled homeowners, a move which would have raised
effective demand. Third, the insolvent banks should have been taken over or
nationalized and the billions spent on recapitalizing them or guaranteeing
their borrowing should have been devoted to creating jobs to absorb the
unemployed.
Q: Is financialization still a threat?
A: Yes, even conservative analysts say that the so-called Dodd-Frank reform
encourages moral hazard or reckless behavior by banks owing to their belief
that when they get into trouble, the government will bail them out.
Derivatives-which Warren Buffet called "weapons of mass destruction"-are
still virtually unregulated. And so is the shadow banking sector. The
non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total US$707 trillion,
or significantly higher than the US$548 billion in 2008.
As one analyst puts it, "The market has grown so unfathomably vast, the
global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage of
contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are difficult just to
comprehend, let alone assess." Former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairman Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC, says that none of the
post-2008 reforms has "significantly diminished the likelihood of financial
crises."
Q: What has been the legacy of the crisis on U.S. politics?
A: One can say that the Obama administration's failure to reinvigorate the
economy after eight years and to reform the banks was the central factor that
lost the elections for Hillary Clinton. If there's one certainty that emerged
in the 2016 elections, it was that Clinton's unexpected defeat stemmed from her
loss of four so-called "Rust Belt" states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania, which had previously been Democratic strongholds, and Ohio, a
swing state that had twice supported Barack Obama.
The 64 Electoral College votes of those states, most of which hadn't even
been considered battlegrounds, put Donald Trump over the top. Trump's numbers,
it is now clear, were produced by a combination of an enthusiastic turnout of
the Republican base, his picking up significant numbers of traditionally
Democratic voters, and large numbers of Democrats staying home.
But this wasn't a defeat by default. On the economic issues that motivate many
of these voters, Trump had a message: The economic recovery was a mirage,
people were hurt by the Democrats' policies, and they had more pain to look
forward to should the Democrats retain control of the White House.
The problem for Clinton was that the opportunistic message of this demagogue
rang true to the middle class and working class voters in these states, even if
the messenger himself was quite flawed. These four states reflected, on the
ground, the worst consequences of the interlocking problems of high
unemployment and deindustrialization that had stalked the whole country for
over two decades owing to the flight of industrial corporations to Asia and
elsewhere. Combined with the financial collapse of 2007-2008 and the widespread
foreclosure of the homes of millions of middle class and poor people who'd been
enticed by the banks to go into massive indebtedness, the region was becoming a
powder keg of resentment.
True, these working class voters going over to Trump or boycotting the polls
were mainly white. But then these were the same people that placed their faith
in Obama in 2008, when they favored him by large margin over John McCain. And
they stuck with him in 2012, though his margins of victory were for the most
part narrower. By 2016, however, they'd had enough, and they would no longer
buy the Democrats' blaming George W. Bush for the continuing stagnation of the
economy.
Clinton bore the brunt of their backlash, since she made the strategic mistake
of running on Obama's legacy-which, to the voters, was one of failing to
deliver the economic relief and return to prosperity that he had promised eight
years earlier.
Q: In what ways do we need to go beyond Keynesianism to address current
economic and ecological problems?
A: I think Keynesianism has valuable insights into how a capitalist economy
operates and can be steadied so its inherent instability and contradictions can
be mitigated. But, as Minsky says, these solutions do not address the inherent
instability of the system. A new equilibrium contains the seeds of
disequilibrium. With its focus on growth propelled by effective demand,
Keynesianism also has problems addressing the problem of ecological
disequilibrium brought about by growth.
The real issue is capitalism's incessant search for profit that severely
destabilizes both society and the environment. I think there is no longer any
illusion, even among its defenders, that capitalism is prone to crises, and
these days, these are crises that not only stem from the dynamics of production
but from the dynamics of finance.
We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting
equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on
cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and
long-term goals. In this scheme, finance would function to link savings to
investment and savers to investors, instead of becoming an autonomous force
whose dynamics destabilizes the real economy. A post-capitalist society does
not mean the elimination of the market. But it does mean making use of the
market to achieve democratically decided social goals rather than having the
market drive society in an anarchic fashion.
But Yobs! EMH is more than just a hypothesis. It's really, really true
stuff. Say Paris Hilton or even some squillionaire heir dude decides to spend a
little pocket change on a brand new pair of self driving, artificial
intelligence, rocket powered yoga pants.
An enterprising Silicon Valley startup will emerge and, with the help of IPO
financing, supply the product 'cause there is demand. It's that simple!
But can they patent their invention, monopolize the market, and defend
their obscene profits with an army of New York and D.C. lawyers circling
around the money machine? If so, count me in!
We need to work towards a post-capitalist system that aims at promoting
equality, enhances instead of destroys the environment, is based on
cooperation, and is engaged in planning to achieve short term, medium term, and
long-term goals.
Not going to happen because there is no long-term goal. That pile of
derivative crap will keep growing forestalling the day the nothing cancer it's
based on metastasis and brings it down, quantitative easing is a placebo.
That's the medium term. In the short term there's Silicon Valley's
monopolization model, run by selfish man-boy innovators stroking the egos of
old greedy politicians who look down on indebted, seduced spend happy
deplorables. The latest video of insecure man-boy Travis Kalanick arguing with
and dismissing the views of one of his drivers "Some people don't like to take
responsibility for their own shit." shows the attitude of the ruling classes
toward the 90% deplorable suckers they're working to con with new
"Innovations".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEDYCkNqns
The long-term our elites have given up on, smart people they are and as
Chris Hedges has said "know what's coming" as today's news brings warnings of
permafrost gas release. What are our elites solutions? Do as Peter Thiel and
buy citizenship to an island nation, or like those smart people who purchased a
condo in some mid-western abandoned missile silo? Why they have a doctor and
dentist on the condo board has me confused, what no butcher, baker,
candle-stick maker? And then what? After Bannon's apocalyptic melt down come
back home and take an Uber ride to your AirBnB where the doctor's serve up a
delicious gourmet feast?
The Best and Brightest, the ruling class. Time is running out, as the planet
burns.
When you have a finance dominated economy, the uber ceo is the standard
for what the "best and brightest" will become. That youtube video captures
the immaturity, selfishness, and arrogance of this child masquerading as a
man.
If you want things biased in your favour, bias the economics that
everything runs on.
The Classical Economists looked out on a world of small state, basic
capitalism in the 18th and 19th Centuries and observed it. It is nothing like
our expectations today because they are just made up.
Adam Smith in the 18th century:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to
the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in
idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported
by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged
to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money."
We still have a UK aristocracy that is maintained in luxury and leisure and
can see associates of the Royal Family that are maintained in luxury and
leisure by trust funds. As these people are doing nothing productive, nothing
can be trickling down, the system is trickling up to maintain them.
Adam Smith in the 18th century:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the
prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is
naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in
the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
Today's problems with growth and demand.
Amazon re-invested its profits and didn't suck them out as dividends and
look how big it's grown. Ignoring today's economics can work wonders.
The Classical Economists direct observations come to some very unpleasant
conclusions for the ruling class; they are parasites on the economic system
using their land and capital to collect rent and interest to maintain
themselves in luxury and ease (Adam Smith above).
What can these vested interests do to maintain their life of privilege that
stretches back centuries?
Promote a bottom-up economics that has carefully crafted assumptions that hide
their parasitic nature. It's called neoclassical economics and it's what we use
today.
The distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income disappears and the
once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated. The landowners,
landlords and usurers are now just productive members of society and not
parasites riding on the back of other people's hard work.
Unearned income is so easy, it's the UK favourite today.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned"
income from a BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned"
income and doing nothing productive.
Powerful vested interests come up with neoclassical economics so that it works
in their favour and only bottom-up economics can be easily corrupted. Top-down
economics is based on real world observation.
Their neoclassical economics blows up in 1929 due to its own internal flaws
but the powerful vested interests still love it as they designed it to work in
their favour.
Keynes comes up with new ideas that herald the New Deal and a way out of the
Great Depression.
The powerful vested interests don't want to lose their beloved neoclassical
economics and fuse it with Keynes ideas to roll out after the war. This gives
them the opportunity to get rid of some of Keynes's more unpleasant
conclusions, generally tone it down and remove all the really obvious conflicts
with their neoclassical economics. The only real Keynesian economics was in the
New Deal.
When the Keynesian synthesis fails in the 1970s, they seize the opportunity
to bring back their really biased neoclassical economics.
It still doesn't work of course.
It's reliance on debt based consumption and debt based speculation, tend to
end in debt deflation, e.g. the Great Depression, today's secular stagnation.
Today's secular stagnation is only being achieved by the Central Banker's
pumping in their trillions to stave off debt deflation and there are plenty of
asset bubbles still to burst.
Supply side economics – when inflation is too high and demand
exceeds supply
Demand side economics – when inflation is too low and supply exceeds demand
Today's economics was a solution to what went before it, as Keynesian
capitalism had ended in the stagflation of the 1970s, but it was far too
extreme.
Looking back with two assumptions:
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can
already meet every need, want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods
and services. It is demand side capital.
Pre-1930s – Supply side economics leading to:
Too much investment capital leading to rampant speculation and a Wall Street
crash
Too little consumption capital and demand is maintained with debt.
Leads to Great Depression and the debt deflation of an economy mired in debt
Post-1930s – Demand side economics leading to:
Too little investment capital compared to demand, supply constrained.
Too much consumption capital, leading to very high inflation.
Imbalance causes stagflation.
Post-1980s – Supply side economics leads to:
Too much investment capital leading to rampant speculation and a Wall Street
crash, asset bubbles all over the place.
Too little consumption capital and demand is maintained with debt. Global
aggregate demand is suffering and with such subdued demand there are few places
for real investment leading to more speculation.
Leads to the secular stagnation of the new normal, the assert bubbles have
yet to burst.
Maybe it's just the balance between supply and demand necessary to
achieve that happy medium.
Pre-1930s – Supply side economics – Runs into the debt deflation
of the Great Depression.
Post-1930s – Demand side economics – Runs into stagflation.
Post-1980s – Supply side economics – Runs into the new normal of
secular stagnation as the Central Bankers manage to stave off the
under-lying debt deflation.
Separate money and credit. We have a ridiculous system that requires
credit creation in order to create money, eventually too much credit is
created, but instead of that just being a banking crisis it's also a
monetary and economic crisis. Free your mind a little. Just separate the
two.
German Capitalism was State-sponsored. Siemens & Halske were based in Berlin
and lived off State contracts for railways, telegraphs. French Capitalism was
State-sponsored. English Capitalism was sponsored by Discrimination against
Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians, Baptists who were outside the Church
of England and could not therefore go to University or enter Professions under
Test & Corporation Acts 1665. They had to enter Trade. Hence Cadbury, Rowntree,
James Barclay, Samuel Lloyd were Quakers – the latter two forming banks.
Siemens created Deutsche Bank. As for Finance in Germany, Bleichroeder was
Bismarck's banker – the Bauer Family of Frankfurt became Rothschild. The
Finance in London was largely German immigrants – Kleinwort Benson, Sassoons,
Cassel etc.
Britain ultimately lacked investment opportunities because of Free Trade
letting competitors export goods into the UK market but tariffs preventing UK
exports to USA, Germany, Russia, France etc. Hence Capital was exported
building huge foreign investment portfolio through The City – liquidated in 1st
World War
'When the subprime assets were found to be toxic since they were based on
mortgages on which borrowers had defaulted, highly indebted or leveraged banks
that had bought these now valueless securities had little equity to repay their
creditors or depositors who now came after them.'
Interesting interpretation. Unfortunately it bears little relationship to
what actually happened. The financial crisis was a repo crisis. Most
collateralized mortgage obligations had plenty of equity to cover default
losses. Unfortunately, they were by nature opaque and hard to analyze quickly,
and like a murmuration of birds, everyone zigged at the same time, so there
were no buyers. The repo aspect of the crisis was what really counted. Suddenly
repo lenders refused to lend. Investment banks once had longer term financing
in place, but this eroded over the several years prior to the crisis. See Cohan
'House of Cards.' Also Ed Conard's 'Unintended Consequences.'
Anonymous, you are forgetting the role of the massive sub-prime mortgage
fraud that the banks initiated and then the banks foreclosed on those who
had bought the offered mortgages rather than re-negotiate new mortgages.
Forget repo; remember the fraud: forget opaque and hope for transparency
which was in short supply during the crisis. It's all about
the fraud
, you know.
Hmmmm ..let's see if I understand you correctly. It appears that when
everyone thought they were buying lunch, they were buying sh*t sandwiches.
So the problem wasn't that they were being sold sh*t under another name, the
problem was that they weren't willing to buy that sh*t? So if they'd have
been willing to eat sh*t instead of what they thought they were going to
get, everything would have been hunky dory? Ah ..lunch, sh*t, but it's all
the same, huh? Anything for a buck?
This is not correct. I wrote about this in sordid detail in ECONNED, with
the details of the structures, the amounts, and who was exposed.
Subprime CDOs (more accurately, asset backed CDOs, which at the time
happened to consist heavily of BBB- RMBS exposures) were a significant
portion of repo collateral. They went almost without exception to zero.
Those exposures wound up disproportionately at heavily leveraged,
systemically important, and tightly coupled financial institutions. The
Eurobanks loaded up on ABS CDOs because their trader bonus formulas highly
incentivized it (see discussion of "negative basis trade"). AIG and the
monolines were as we know heavily exposed. US investment banks were heavily
exposed by virtue of either being stupidly heavily involved in subprime CDOs
at the worst moment (Citi and Merrill, I explain why/how), Lehman and Bear
by simply being weakly capitalized second tier investment banks that tried
getting to be first tier by going way overweight in total risk terms in RMBS
and doing a bad job of risk management (Bear by extending too much in its
warehouse lines to originators like IndyMac and New Century as well as being
a large CDS player; Lehman by taking on too much risk everywhere, witness
its obvious balance sheet problems in 2008). Morgan Stanley also had a weak
balance sheet and big CDO/RMBS exposures, see AIG trial for details; Goldman
was heavily exposed to ABS CDOs by having too cleverly trying to pick up
extra margin by brokering them to Middle Eastern investors, leaving them
exposed when their AIG hedge was gonna fail.
Yes. repo was the proximate cause, but contrary to your claim, a lot of
the collateral was no good and that was why the repos were not rolled.
People who advocate reindustrialization and manufacturing are out of their
minds. Manufacturing margins are shrinking everywhere. China and Germany are
going to be in deep trouble. Bruce Greenwald, of Columbia Business School, says
that in fifty years most of the things that you buy will be made within fifty
miles of your home. Actually, they may be made in your garage, by you, and you
may not 'buy' them, per se, so much as buy the raw materials and make them.
What's that likely to do for manufacturing jobs?
That 50 mile radius is not only true; it's obvious. Fifty years from
now, all of our roadways and bridges will have crumbled, and so the
transport of finished goods beyond 50 miles of their manufacture will be
nigh on impossible.
Of course the transport of raw materials from their origins to their
points of refinement will also be similarly limited, which means that
most of what most of us use will be made out of sticks.
I'm sitting in my kitchen looking at all the things that are
manufactured, from my fridge, to my clothes, to my car, to my floors, to the
farm equipment I can see outside my window, etc. And heaven knows none of
these things last as long as they used to, so yes, I am going to have to
replace all this some day as is the farmer ..
So yes, there will be manufacturing jobs in the future, and not just within
a 50 mile radius. Perhaps when the actual economy gets better for people in
the lower 90%, they will be more willing to spend money on manufactured
products. But in order for their economy to get better, they are going to
have to be the ones doing the manufacturing, aren't they?
Derivatives are the biggest threat to the financial system.
James Rickards in Currency Wars gives some figures for the loss
magnification of complex financial instruments/derivatives in 2008.
Losses from sub-prime – less than $300 billion
With derivative amplification – over $6 trillion
It was the derivatives that really did the damage; derivatives were the
mechanism that allowed a housing bust in one nation to infect the global
economy.
Derivatives were used as leverage to increase bonuses on the way up and
losses on the way down.
The derivatives market is now bigger than ever, no sensible regulations have
been put in place since 2008.
Where does the real danger come from with derivatives?
Jim Rickards was at the top of LTCM when it collapsed in 1998 and saw how the
collapse in a link of the derivative chains turns losses, from nett to gross
within the system.
Everyone panicked as it was impossible to gauge the size of the losses.
When Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, everyone panicked as it was
impossible to gauge the size of the losses.
The same problem ten years later and the same problem will happen next time
as no regulations are in place. Everyone still believes the risk with
derivatives only comes from their nett value as they have learnt nothing from
experience.
Credit Default Swaps are an unregulated insurance product that bought down
AIG in 2008, the largest insurance company in the world. They took the
insurance premiums and didn't put anything aside in case these insurance
policies had to pay out as they weren't regulated.
CDSs are the most dangerous of the derivative products, they bought down AIG
and it all happened in a division in Curzon Street, Mayfair in the UK.
They are zero sum bets, so why do bankers love them?
Both sides think they are taking the right side of the bet and both sides can
post profits until that future bet is realised. They are great for bonuses.
They don't incur any costs up front and allow for enormous leverage, they
are great for bonuses.
Derivatives are the transmission mechanism for crises in one part of the
world to infect the whole global economy.
They interconnect the major banks in a way that has devastating consequences
should one of them fail, this has already been demonstrated by LTCM in 1998 and
Lehman Brothers in 2008.
The nett losses turn to gross losses within the derivatives chains and the
losses are incalculable as these chains are opaque and hard to trace.
We know the biggest threat to the financial system; will anyone do
anything about it?
First of all, there should have been a much bigger stimulus, one along
the lines of Cristina Romer's proposal of $1.8 trillion.
I was just reading accounts of the events leading up to the stimulus
package, and it seems Ms. Tomer was told time and time again that her stimulus
proposals were politically impossible. Is there actual evidence that Obama ever
saw that 1.8 trillion figure? According to Scheiber's book, Summers kept
brushing off Romer's numbers.
If so, the important economic advisors never wanted to fight for what was
necessary at a time when a majority of the US public would have gone along with
anything. They really are just a bunch of careerists.
I have a hard time taking anything said by Christina Romer seriously.
After all, she was one of the authors of the infamous ARRA justification
report that predicted a 10% peak unemployment rate without the stimulus and
a 8% peak unemployment rate with it. That prediction assumed $800 billion in
spending and tax cuts, and
we got
that $800 billion. The
unemployment rate shot past 10% anyway. [Additionally, the return to a 6%
unemployment rate took twice as long as predicted and only reached that
level because of a plummeting labor force participation rate.] The failure
of the predictions in the ARRA justification report were truly
epic
.
Competence matters. The economists working for the White House (Romer
among them) didn't have it.
This is part of why Trump won. The ARRA justification report promised a
glorious V-shaped recovery with 300k to 500k jobs per month. We didn't even
average 200k per month. The ACA promised cheaper health insurance by $2000
per year. Premium rose sharply instead. When you implement grand new plans,
those plans need to ACTUALLY WORK!!
It sounds like Ms. Romer wrote a report which matched the exact amount
that her bosses were going to get from Congress. So she was giving cover
for something that was already decided.
And the ACA is a pile of crap that anyone being involved with should
be ashamed of. Unfortunately since the Federal government is completely
captured by the renter's there is zero chance of reform without a
complete political revolution.
Summers agreed that Romer's analysis was correct, and Summers is the
last person to say that sort of thing. It's in Ron Suskind's book
Confidence Men. He nixed it for political reasons, not economic ones.
Is it not hard to imagine that Romer was pressured to create a model
to sell the deal? Why would her second model be so different from her
earlier one otherwise? That happens all the time in the private sector.
If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.
People keep forgetting that a large portion of that $781 billion was in the
form of tax credits weighted towards the usual suspects.
And since the MOTU never let an emergency go to waste, the scrum at the
trough resulted in the actual stimulus being even more anemic than it is
portrayed.
Here in Illinois, which received the second or third highest amount of
stimulus dollars, most of the money was spent on bridge and road repairs.
Yes, those repairs provided some construction jobs, but, otherwise hardly
served to promote the economy for ordinary people. The only really large
project to receive stimulus money here was the destruction of a massive,
abandoned Outboard Marine plant sitting right on the shores of Lake
Michigan. The building was dangerous–and an eyesore–and occupied prime real
estate. Unfortunately, what remains on the site is a low level of rubble.
Apparently, there isn't enough money, or interest, in developing the land to
provide jobs, recreational space, new living accommodations–anything that
might improve people's lives. In other words, the stimulus was used to
repair the old and crumbling, but not to generate new opportunities.
Here's a conundrum which baffles me: Bello writes (as have many before):
"These developments acted in synergy, first to produce a speculative boom in
the housing and stock markets, then feeding on one another to accelerate an
economic nose-dive during the bust."
So we did have our bust in the real estate market, here in California. My
own property, purchased in 2005, dropped about 30% in value in 2008 from its
market high in 2007.
It's nine years later - and my property value is now back up to its 2007
value. So is Los Angeles (and other cities no doubt) back in a "boom" that is
inevitably headed again for a "bust"? It seems to me the economy is worse now
than it was in 2007, and if these prices were an unsupportable boom then, why
wouldn't they be now? And yet we are (so I'm told) in a period of rising
interest rates and tight credit, two things absent the last "boom." I'm
befuddled.
I think Picketty Capitalism has been going on so long that the GFC was
caused by the labor classes being deprived too long, then the banksters
realized it and tried to resuscitate them but it was too late and because
the stimulus was too small even the cure got caught in the implosion
All of the desirable neighborhoods in LA are now well above their 2007
valuations. It seems like pure madness. The way-out exurbs of the Antelope
Valley and the Inland Empire are still lower but almost everything in LA
city limits is considerably higher now than in 2007. Median income for
normal Americans is still lower than in the year 2000, but yet no one seems
to think the market is in another bubble? I share your befuddlement. I
live/rent in LA and I am sitting on a good chunk of cash I would like to put
towards purchasing a home, but I can't bring myself to pay $600k for a 2
bedroom, 1 bath, 1200 square foot, 1950's shit box that some jerk is trying
to flip for a $200,000 profit. I'm still hoping for another housing crash.
The fundamentals of this market are rotten and prices need to come down
before I consider tethering myself to a large, long period mortgage.
Housing is not just about fulfilling our basic human need for security
and warmth, but also our innate powerful tendencies toward aspiration and
speculation.
Sure it is our house, our home, our security etc but for most of us mere
mortals it is our biggest financial outlay and has increasingly come to be
seen in investment terms.
Thus over time property has gradually displaced gold as the major store
of wealth, and this fixation has clearly been exploited accordingly.
Crucially it is also one of the biggest and most effective means for the
debt creation, through mortgages and their numerous spin offs, that
underwrites and drives most modern economies.
So apart from its obvious practical uses, property fulfils many other
functions within economies, many of which used to be filled by gold ie asset
backed promises to pay, but without its numerous obvious limitations. We
can't keep finding or creating more gold to keep up with debt/credit
expansion, but we can keep building more houses, or creating or exploiting
more desirable environments for them for example.
Equally as important, and unlike gold, government can regulate supply.
This ensures that demand ideally outstrips supply to pump the sometimes
apparently illogical price inflation that keeps people chasing the horizon
and thus keep feeding debt/money into the system.
Seems like there should be the discussion that there are two competing
theories running simultaneously here in the US and much of the EU. My
understanding of JMK's theory is that after the expansion of debt and other
financial stimulus to get us out of a recession, that after the recovery Keynes
called for paying off debt through generating surplus that we retire debt in
the form of higher taxes until we reach equilibrium. But that never happened.
You overlay the Neoliberial macro ideology and voila we get tax cuts to the
wealthy instituted by Reagan and Bush43 and austerity for everybody else,
exactly the wrong medicine. Compound the growth of debt by trillions of dollars
spent on never ending wars. The partial embrace of supply-side policy for 35
years accelerated growing government debt, thus causing subsequent economic
crisis.
It is as if our economic policy leaders are bipolar or schizophrenic.
Between this mishmash of conflicting policy and accelerating the uncoupling of
labor from capital and wealth creation, inequality has become endemic and
without change will become much, much worse. Just wait till the BLS U-6
participation number drops to 40% as millions of jobs cease to exist in the
next 20 years while 80% of the wealth will be held by a handful of people. In
this "free market" casino capitalist system with its insider trading, zero sum
wars, and disregard for collateral damage, survival will only happen for a few.
It will be ugly for those trapped in the Kansas silo. Little did George Miller
realize in the late 70's that his Mad Max movie would be a documentary.
Let's see – A gambling addict makes reckless bets using credit and loses
big. His Uncle Sam bails him out and admonishes him to never do it again but
does nothing else to deter future bad behavior.
The casino is still open for business, offering unlimited chips on credit.
Is Walden Bello an Argentinian by any chance? He sounds like my ancient
boyfriend Ezekiel who was the smartest, funniest guy I ever. And he always made
fun of me, my idiocy, and the USA for thinking we were the only answer for
humanity. I loved him, but I was a dummy and I loved him too late. As for this
delightful article, it's better than butter dumplings, I loved it too. I won't
elaborate all the points. It was great. I'm pondering how wise it seems to
demand a post capitalist society which uses the market to achieve democracy and
environmental justice – but I definitely do think it's time has come and we are
ready to go forward with this idea. Thank you for posting this. (versus both
financial and industrial capitalism which both fail to address the shitstorm we
are facing).
Another excellent, very succinct and up to the point expose of Keynesianism,
a condemned by corporate economists, out of fashion economic theory with plenty
of experimental foundations. Mostly the so-called " direct government
investments into the mainstream economy as a methods of increasing an aggregate
economic demand was hypocritically criticized as detrimental to free markets
and free trade, while the same investment in Wall Street financial instruments
was welcomed.
Here is another interesting unique, take what is or may be so-called demand
side economics in the context of Keynesianism which only deals with a fraction
of the issues of the economy in a deflationary spiral.
IS THE END GAME FOR THE SSE RADICALISM NEAR? MAY BE.
"The Supply Side Economics (SSE) did us all. Yes. Under this benign name the
SSE represent an extreme radical and dangerous ideology based on the unfounded
(or rather borrowed) believe that "If we build, they will come" supply side
fantasy that implicitly assumes that the real demand (nominal demand minus
weighted debt incurred while producing the demand) does not need not be of any
concern to the economic, financial and political decision makers, spelling the
decades of doom to the people who work for living and created a paradise for
the parasitic rent seekers, financial oligarchs and their government cronies.
The SSE (Supply Side Economic) was presented in the early seventies as an
alternative to the Keynesian Theory that supposedly was concerned about the
Demand Side Economics (DSE) but in fact it was not [only tangentially]. It
cared mostly about the so-called aggregate demand stimulation initiated
generally through the government investment policies leaving the task of "real
demand" creation on the shoulders of the working people through the organized
labor actions and leftist political movements lobbying the government and
imparting on the government fiscal policies in a way beneficial to the labor
and restricting the power of economic elites.
For the true demand side economic we would need a set of fiscal and economic
and trade policies that would build up the institutional support for completely
different, non financial, assets classes such as: the labor asset class (LAC)
and the natural environment assets class (NRAC) [and more]. The economic,
fiscal and monetary policies of the government in the DSE are [suppose to be]
dedicated to maintain the fair value and stable growth of the above asset
classes while leaving the other financial assets classes exposed to the global
free markets. The true DSE guaranties demand and adjust the supply to fit the
real demand hence no deflationary death spiral is ever possible, and if
value-based [not debt based] monetary system is imposed, no inflationary
pressures may ever develop."
"The non-transparent derivatives market is now estimated to total US$707
trillion, or significantly higher than the US$548 billion in 2008."
Wow! Is this figure real? Not that 548 billion is small sum but I thought
the derivative market in pre-crash '08 was in the neighborhood of 8 trillion?
It's now 707 trillion? That's nearly a hundred-fold increase in 9 years.
Anyone knowledgeable enough on the world derivative market to comment?
$548 trillion – the billion is likely a transcription mistake.
Note the fatuous accuracy, down to the trillion where in the next
paragraph is this.
>As one analyst puts it, "The market has grown so unfathomably vast, the
global economy is at risk of massive damage should even a small percentage
of contracts go sour. Its size and potential influence are
difficult
just to comprehend, let alone assess
."
Basically, no one knows. It could be over a quadrillion (1000 X 1
trillion) or a 1 followed by 15 zeros.
To give these figures a faint wisp of reality, I like using Nimitz class
aircraft carriers as coins of the realm.
$707 trillion would buy 153,420 of them at their original cost of $4.6
billion each, and were they placed end to end would stretch 31,707 miles.
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
What an ironic fate for the ever elegant Czar of style and the chief chair
of the blue blooded aristocracy of Bloomsbury Lord Keynes to be first turned
into 'keynesianism' and then as if it is not enough, to be 'discussed' by low
caste nincompoops in crude English. Alas. The author should not call Trump
opportunistic, pray tell me which capitalistic harlot is not one? He is
constitutionally elected please.
Edward Dodson
10
months ago
The first presenter (Professor Skidensky?) has
described very clearly my own experience as a
student and subsequently as a teacher. Decades ago
when I began my work on a master's degree I
initially chose economics but soon became very
disillusioned by the reliance on mathematics and the
absence of investigation into historical experience
and societal norms. Nor was there any serious
investigation into the validity of propositions put
forward as economic theory. At once time in class I
engaged my economics professor in a long exchange
over the impact of land hoarding and land
speculation in the U.S. economy. After about twenty
minutes he simply ended our exchanged exasperated
because he could not counter the observations made
by evidence offered by real world observations.
Fortunately, my university offered an
interdisciplinary alternative, a Master of Liberal
Arts degree and I switched programs. My course of
study permitted me to read and study the great
political economists, who were all historians and
all moral philosophers. They examined markets,
market forces, and government as a primary
externality, and they reached moral judgments based
on the principles of justice they embraced. Along
the way, I was introduced to the writings of the
great French school of political economists, the
Physiocrats, and to the American Henry George.
George's theory of the business cycle, based on the
classical three factor model of how economies and
societies function, provided to be quite useful in
my later work as a market analyst in the real estate
sector. When I retired from my professional work in
the mid-2000s I gave some thought to entering a
doctorate program in order to acquire the
credentials for college instruction. The very low
probablility of ever securing a full-time teaching
position pushed me in a different direction.
Instead, I developed two courses to teach to senior
adults in a non-credit environment. One is titled
"Understanding our Political Economy." The other is
"The History of Economic Thought." Although I do
introduce basic economic concepts, such as factor of
production and wealth distribution in these two
courses, my students are not required to know or use
mathematics in order to understand such concepts. I
found an introductory economics textbook written by
Professor Harry Gunnison Brown used to teach basic
economics without even one equation in the book.
Each course is two semesters in length is discussion
oriented. My view is that the more I am required to
lecture, the less the students are learning. I am
more than happy to share this course material with
any teacher who is attracted to the
interdisciplinary approach offered by the study of
political economy and by reliance on the classical
three factor model of wealth production and
distribution. I can be reached by email at
[email protected].
"... This article was originally published by INSURGE INTELLIGENCE , a crowdfunded investigative journalism project for the global commons. ..."
"... it vindicated what is routinely lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and decline of global oil production. ..."
"... INSURGE intelligence ..."
"... "Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are realistically looking at global demand peaking." ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... "If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030 and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply flat, before demand growth is taken into account." ..."
"... " the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what could be significantly higher decline rates in the future." ..."
"... will have to ..."
"... " declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment] for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st century." ..."
"... "The chance of future economic growth matching the current trajectory of the human population is inextricably bound to the wide and growing availability of highly concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability to energy end uses." ..."
"... "Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005. All the following supply increase was due to unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around March, 2015. ..."
"... What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which 'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the vanishing oil share." ..."
"... "Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the economic growth can only deteriorate further and further." ..."
"... Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is an award-winning 15-year investigative journalist, noted international security scholar, bestselling author, film-maker, and creator of INSURGE intelligence , a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. His new book, ..."
"... (Springer, 2017) is a scientific study of how climate, energy, food and economic crises are driving state failures around the world. Please support independent journalism for the global commons for as little as a $1/month via www.patreon.com/nafeez . ..."
This article was
originally published by
INSURGE INTELLIGENCE
, a crowdfunded investigative journalism project
for the global commons.
New scientific
research suggests that the world faces an imminent oil crunch, which will
trigger another financial crisis.
A report by HSBC shows
that contrary to the commonplace narrative in the industry, even amidst
the glut of unconventional oil and gas, the vast bulk of the
world's oil
production has already peaked
and is now in decline; while
European government scientists show that the value of energy produced by
oil has declined by half within just the first 15 years of the
21st century.
The upshot?
Welcome to a new age of permanent economic recession driven by ongoing
dependence on dirty, expensive, difficult oil unless we choose a
fundamentally different path.
*****
Last September, a
few outlets
were reporting the counter-intuitive findings of a new
HSBC research report on global oil supply. Unfortunately, the true
implications of the HSBC report were largely misunderstood.
The HSBC research
note - prepared for clients of the global bank - found that contrary to
concerns about too much oil supply and insufficient demand, the situation
was opposite: global oil supply will in coming years be insufficient to
sustain rising demand.
Yet the full, striking
import of the report, concerning the world's permanent entry into a new
age of global oil decline, was never really explained. The report didn't
just go against the grain that the most urgent concern is 'peak demand':
it vindicated what is routinely
lambasted by oil majors as a myth: peak oil - the concurrent peak and
decline of global oil production.
The HSBC report
you need to read, now
INSURGE intelligence
obtained a
copy of the report in December 2016, and for the first time we are
exclusively publishing the entire report in the public interest.
(Read and/or download the
full HSBC report by
clicking here
.)
Headquarted in
London, UK, HSBC is the world's sixth largest bank, holding assets of
$2.67 trillion. So when they produce a research report for their clients,
it would be wise to pay attention, and see what we can learn.
Among the report's most
shocking findings is that "81% of the world's total liquids production is
already in decline."
Between 2016 and 2020,
non-OPEC production will be flat due to declines in conventional oil
production, even though OPEC will continue to increase production
modestly. This means that by 2017, deliverable spare capacity could be as
little as 1% of global oil demand.
This heightens the risk
of a major global oil supply shock around 2018 which could "significantly
affect oil prices."
The report flatly asserts
that peak demand (the idea that demand will stop growing leaving the
world awash in too much supply), while certainly a relevant issue due to
climate change agreements and disruptive trends in alternative
technologies, is not the most imminent challenge:
"Even in a world of slower oil demand growth, we think the biggest
long-term challenge is to offset declines in production from mature
fields. The scale of this issue is such that in our view rather there
could well be a global supply squeeze some time before we are
realistically looking at global demand peaking."
Gas shortage.
Getty Images
Under the current
supply glut driven by rising unconventional production, falling oil
prices have damaged industry profitability and led to dramatic cut
backs in new investments in production. This, HSBC says, will
exacerbate the likelihood of a global oil supply crunch from 2018
onward.
Four Saudi
Arabias, anyone?
The HSBC report
examines two main data sets from the International Energy Agency and
the University of Uppsala's Global Energy Systems Programme in Sweden.
The latter, it should
be noted, has consistently advocated a global peak oil scenario for
many years - the HSBC report confirms the accuracy of this scenario,
and shows that the IEA's data supports it.
The rate and nature of
new oil discoveries has declined dramatically over the last few
decades, reaching almost negligible levels on a global scale, the
report finds. Compare this to the report's warning that just to keep
production flat against increasing decline rates, the world will need
to add four Saudi Arabia's worth of production by 2040. North American
production, despite remaining the most promising in terms of
potential, will simply not be able to fill this gap.
Business Insider,
the
Telegraph
and other outlets
which covered the report last year acknowledged the supply gap, but
failed to properly clarify that HSBC's devastating findings basically
forecast the long term scarcity of cheap oil due to global peak oil,
from 2018 to 2040.
The report revises the
way it approaches the concept of peak oil - rather than forecasting it
as a single global event, the report uses a disaggregated approach
focusing on specific regions and producers. Under this analysis, 81%
of the world's oil supply has peaked in production and so now "is
post-peak".
Using a more
restrictive definition puts the quantity of global oil that has peaked
at 64%. But either way, well over half the world's global oil supply
consists of mature and declining fields whose production is inexorably
and irreversibly decreasing:
"If we assumed a decline rate of 5%pa [per year] on global
post-peak supply of 74mbd - which is by no means aggressive in our
view - it would imply a fall in post-peak supply of c.38mbd by 2030
and c.52mbd out to 2040. In other words, the world would need to
find over four times the size of Saudi Arabia just to keep supply
flat, before demand growth is taken into account."
A 'Pumps Closed' sign in the window of a petrol station on 42nd
Street and 11th Avenue, New York during a fuel shortage, 19th June
1979. The Mobil Pegasus logo is visible on the right.
Getty Images
What's worse
is that when demand growth
is
taken into account - and the report notes that even the most
conservative projections forecast a rise in global oil demand by
2040 of more than 8mbd above that of 2015 - then even more oil
would be needed to fill the coming supply gap.
But with new
discoveries at an all time low and continuing to diminish, the
implication is that oil can simply never fill this gap.
Technological innovation exacerbates the problem
Much trumpeted
improvements in drilling rates and efficiency will not make things
better,
because they will only accelerate production in the short term
while, therefore, more rapidly depleting existing reserves. In this
case, the report concludes
:
" the decline-delaying techniques are only masking what
could be significantly higher decline rates in the future."
This does
not mean that peak demand should be dismissed as a serious concern.
As Michael Bradshaw, Professor of Global Energy at Warwick
University's Sloan Business School, told me for
my previous VICE article
, any return to higher oil prices will
have major economic consequences.
The HSBC report
takes the position that prices
will have to
rise eventually, because the drop in investment
due to declining profitability amidst the current glut will make a
supply squeeze inevitable. Better and more efficient drilling
creates a glut now: but it also accelerates depletion, meaning that
the lower prices and oil glut today is a precursor of tomorrow's
higher prices and supply squeeze.
There's another
possibility, which could mean that prices don't rise as HSBC
forecasts. In this scenario, the economy remains too weak to afford
an oil price hike. Demand for oil stays low because economic
activity remains tepid, while consumers and investors continue to
seek out alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. In that case,
the very inertia of a weakening economy would pre-empt the HSBC
scenario, and the industry would continue to slowly crush itself
out of the market due to declining profitability.
Price
spikes, economic recession
But what if the
HSBC supply forecast is correct?
Firstly, oil price
spikes would have an immediate recessionary effect on the global
economy, by amplifying inflation and leading to higher costs for
social activity at all levels, driven by the higher underlying
energy costs.
Secondly, even as
spikes may temporarily return some oil companies to potential
profitability, such higher oil prices will drive consumer
incentives to transition to cheaper renewable energy technologies
like solar and wind, which are already
becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuels
.
That means a global
oil squeeze could end up having a dramatic impact on continued
demand for oil, as twin crises of 'peak oil' and 'peak demand' end
up intensifying and interacting in unfamiliar ways.
May 1938: An oilfield of rotary derricks in the USA.
Getty Images
The demise of fossil fuels
The HSBC
report's specific forecasts of global oil supply and demand,
which may or may not turn out to be accurate, are part of a
wider story of global net energy decline.
A new scientific
research paper authored by a team of European government
scientists, published on Cornell University's
Arxiv website
in October 2016, warns that the global economy
has entered a new era of slow and declining growth. This is
because the value of energy that can be produced from the
world's fossil fuel resource base is declining inexorably.
The paper –
currently under review with an academic journal – was authored
by Francesco Meneguzzo, Rosaria Ciriminna, Lorenzo Albanese,
Mario Pagliaro, who collectively conduct research on climate
change, energy, physics and materials science at the Italian
National Research Council (CNR) - Italy's premier government
agency for scientific research.
According to
HSBC, oil prices are likely to rise and stabilize for some time
around the $75 per barrel mark due to the longer term decline in
production relative to persistent demand. But the Italian
scientists find that this is still too high to avoid
destabilizing recessionary effects on the economy.
The Italian
study offers a new model combining "the competing dynamics of
population and economic growth with oil supply and price," with
a view to evaluate the near-term consequences for global
economic growth.
Data from the
past 40 years shows that during economic recessions, the oil
price tops $60 per barrel, but during economic growth remains
below $40 a barrel. This means that prices above $60 will
inevitably induce recession.
Therefore, the
scientists conclude that to avoid recession, "the oil price
should not exceed a threshold located somewhat between $40/b
[per barrel] and $50/b, or possibly even lower."
More broadly,
the scientists show that there is a direct correlation between
global population growth, economic growth and total energy
consumption. As the latter has steadily increased, it has
literally fueled the growth of global wealth.
But even so, the
paper finds that the world is experiencing:
" declining average EROIs [Energy Return on Investment]
for all fossil fuels; with the EROI of oil having likely
halved in the short course of the first 15 years of the 21st
century."
The sunset fades beyond the Hillhouse A, left, and Hillhouse
B oil and gas platforms near the Federal Ecological Reserve
in the Santa Barbara Channel near Santa Barbara, CA.
Getty Images
EROI is
the total value of energy a resource can generate, calculated
by comparing the quantity of energy extracted, to the
quantity of energy put in to enable the extraction.
This means
that overall, despite total liquids production increasing, as
the energy value it generates is declining, the overall costs
of extraction are simultaneously increasing.
This is
acting as an increasing geophysical brake on global economic
growth. And it means the more the economy remains dependent
on fossil fuels, the more the economy is tied to the
recessionary impact of global net energy decline:
"The chance of future economic growth matching the
current trajectory of the human population is inextricably
bound to the wide and growing availability of highly
concentrated energy sources enjoying broad applicability
to energy end uses."
The
problem is that since the 1980s, the share of oil in the
global energy mix has declined. To make up for this, economic
growth has increasingly had to rely on clever financial
instruments based on debt: in effect, the world is borrowing
from the future to sustain our present consumption levels.
In an
interview, lead author Dr. Francesco Meneguzzo explained:
"Global conventional oil peaked around the year 2005.
All the following supply increase was due to
unconventional oil exploitation and, since 2009, basically
to US shale (tight) oil, which in turn peaked around
March, 2015.
What looks like to be even more important, anyway, is
the fact that global oil supply has failed to keep the
pace with the increase in total energy consumption, which
'natural' growth requires to be approximately proportional
to population increase, leading to the decline of the oil
share in the energy mix. While governments have struggled
to fuel their economies with ever increasing energy
supply, other sources have steadily replaced oil in the
energy mix, such as coal in China. Yet, no other
conventional source has proved to be a valuable substitute
for oil, hence the need for debt in order to replace the
vanishing oil share."
On a
business as usual trajectory, then, the economy can quite
literally never recover - unless it transitions to a truly
viable new energy source which can substitute for oil.
"In order to avoid the [oil] price affordable by the global
economy falling below the extraction cost, debt piling
(borrowing from the future) becomes a necessity, yet it is a
mere trick to gain some time while hoping for something
positive to happen," said Meneguzzo. "The reality is that
debt, basically as a substitute for oil, does not work to
produce real wealth, as apparent for example from the decline
of the industry value added as a percentage of GDP."
Where will
this end up?
"Recently, debt has started shrinking, basically
because it has failed to generate real wealth. Assuming no
meaningful (and fast) transition to renewable energy, the
economic growth can only deteriorate further and further."
Basically, this means, Meneguzzo adds, "delocalizing
manufacturing to economies using local, cheaper and dirtier
energy sources (such as coal in China) as well as lower
wages, further shrinking domestic aggregate demand and
fueling a downward spiral of deflation and/or debt."
Is there a
way out? Not within the current trajectory: "Unless that debt
is immediately used to exploit renewable sources on a massive
scale, along with 'accessories' such as storage making them
as qualified as oil, social and political derangements, even
before an economic crash, look to be unavoidable."
What an economic crash might look like.
Getty Images
Crisis convergence
Seen in this
broader scientific context, the HSBC global oil supply report
provides quite stunning confirmation that for the most part,
global oil production is already in post-peak. That much is
incontrovertible, and derived from industry-validated data.
HSBC believes
that after 2018, this is going to manifest in not simply a
global supply shock, but a world in which cheap, high quality
fossil fuels is increasingly hard to find.
We don't need
to accept this forecast dogmatically - the post-peak oil
market, which HSBC confirms now exists, may function
differently than what anyone can easily forecast.
But if HSBC's
forecast is accurate, here's what it might mean. One possible
scenario is that by 2018 or shortly thereafter, the world
will face a similar convergence of global crises that
occurred a decade earlier.
In this
scenario, oil price hikes would have a recessionary affect
that destabilizes the
global debt bubble
, which for some years has been higher
than pre-2008 crash levels, now at a record $152 trillion.
In 2008, oil
price shocks played a key role in creating pre-crisis
economic conditions for consumers in which rising living
costs helped trigger debt-defaults in housing markets, which
rapidly spiraled out of control.
In or shortly
after 2018, economic and energy crisis convergence would
drive global food prices up, re-generating the contours of
the
triple crunch we saw ravage the world from 2008 to 2011
,
the debilitating impacts of which we have yet to recover
from.
2018 is
likely to be crunch year for another reason.
1 January 2018
is the date when a host of new regulations
are set to come in force, which will "constrain lending
ability and prompt banks to only advance money to the best
borrowers, which could accelerate bankruptcies worldwide,"
according to Bloomberg. Other rules to come in play will
require banks to stop using their own international risk
assessment measures for derivatives trading.
Ironically,
the introduction of similar well-intentioned regulation in
January 2008 (through Basel II) laid the groundwork to
rupture the global financial architecture, making it
vulnerable to that year's banking collapse.
In fact, two
years earlier in July 2006, Dr David Martin, an expert on
global finance,
presciently forecast
that Basel II would interact with
the debt bubble to convert a collapse of the housing bubble
into a global financial conflagration.
Just a month
after that prescient warning,
I was told
by a former senior Pentagon official with
wide-ranging high-level access to the US military,
intelligence and financial establishment that a global
banking collapse was imminent, and would likely occur in
2008.
My source
insisted that the event was bound up with the peak of global
conventional oil production about two years earlier (which
according to
the UK's former chief government scientist Sir David King
did indeed occur around 2005, even though unconventional oil
and gas production has offset the conventional decline so
far).
Having first
outlined
my warning of a 2008 global banking collapse in
August 2006, I re-articulated the warning in November 2007,
citing Dr. Martin's forecast and my own wider systems
analysis at a lecture at Imperial College, London. In that
lecture, I specifically predicted that a housing-triggered
banking crisis would be sparked in the context of the new era
of expensive fossil fuels.
I called
it then, and I'm calling it now.
Some time
after January 2018, we are seeing the probability of a new
crisis convergence in global energy, economic and food
systems, similar to what occurred in 2008.
In the end, I
might be wrong. The crash might not happen in exactly 2018.
It might happen later. Or it might be triggered by something
else, something unexpected, that the model outlined here
doesn't capture.
The point of
a forecast is not to be right - but to imagine a potential
scenario based on the data available that one can reasonably
prepare for; and to adjust the model accordingly in light of
new data.
Whether or
not a crash takes place in precisely the way suggested here,
what's clear from the new research is that the economy is
hugely vulnerable to a financial crisis for reasons that
conventional economists don't talk about - reasons relating
to the energy system on which the economy is fundamentally
dependent.
Today, we are
all supposed to quietly believe that the economy is in
'recovery', when in fact it is merely transitioning through a
fundamental global systemic phase-shift in which the
unsustainability of prevailing industrial structures are
being increasingly laid bare.
The truth is
that the cycles of protracted economic crisis are symptomatic
of a deeper global systemic process.
One way we
can brace ourselves for the next crash is to recognise it
broadly for what it is: a symptom of global system failure,
and therefore of the inevitable transition to a post-carbon,
post-capitalist future.
The future we
are stepping into simply doesn't work the way we are
accustomed to.
The old,
industrial era rules for the dying age of energy and
technological super-abundance must be re-written for a new
era beyond fossil fuels, beyond endless growth at any
environmental cost, beyond debt-driven finance.
This year, we
can prepare for the post-2018 resurgence of crisis
convergence by planting seeds - however small - for that
future in our own lives, and with those around us, from our
families, to our communities and wider societies.
"... The biggest complaint of the "left" is that Obama could be handing over the surveillance state to someone truly bad like Trump. That was the complaint of libertarians like Edward Snowden. But the moderate establishment types didn't care. They were too busy slandering Wikileaks. ..."
"... There is no evidence so support any of the months of "the Russians coming" screed; there is immense evidence in that screed that the GOP was tapped! To listen on a US citizen who is not an object of investigation is covered by the 4th Amendment etc. If they recorded a call from a Russian diplomat to someone not in an order from that special judge the tape should be sealed. It appears no taps were done legally and none of the illegal taps were kept from becoming innuendo in congressional hearings. The coincidental collection is an assault on US Bill of Rights! In many years in the pentagon bureaucracy I have NEVER seen coincidence where malice could be implied. ..."
"... This fake news hysteria over "Russian contacts" might well be a smoke screen explicitly designed to cover illegal wiretapping. They never expected Trump to be elected (neither did I ) and made some major mistakes hoping the Hillary will cover everything up. ..."
"... That actually might help to explain strange behavior of James Clapper. As if he felt that he is sitting on a hot stove. ..."
"Donald Trump Claims Barack Obama Ordered Wire Tap On Trump Tower Before Election"
'But he offered no evidence to back up the claims'
By Lee Moran...03/04/2017...07:16 am ET...Updated 1 hour ago
"President Donald Trump has accused former President Barack Obama of "wire tapping" Trump Tower
before the 2016 presidential election.
Trump made the claims in a series of tweets that he posted early Saturday, although he offered
no evidence to back his allegations up ― and a former adviser to Obama pointed out that presidents
cannot order wiretaps.
"Terrible!" Trump wrote at 6.35 a.m. E.T. "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in
Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
I'd have to go with PGL. You'd think if they were going to tap a Presidential candidate, they'd
have to get Presidential authority.
We just don't know. Probably they'd have to get a judge to sign off on it but the FISA court
is pretty much rubber stamp.
When is the last time the NSA or FBI go in trouble for overstepping their bounds? Never. If
they had flimsy reasons to tap Trump it's probably still legal strictly speaking.
Maybe Trump will reform the way the spies spy on private citizens?
HAHAHAHAA
The biggest complaint of the "left" is that Obama could be handing over the surveillance state
to someone truly bad like Trump. That was the complaint of libertarians like Edward Snowden.
But the moderate establishment types didn't care. They were too busy slandering Wikileaks.
There is no evidence so support any of the months of "the Russians coming" screed; there is immense
evidence in that screed that the GOP was tapped! To listen on a US citizen who is not an object of investigation is covered by the 4th Amendment
etc. If they recorded a call from a Russian diplomat to someone not in an order from that special
judge the tape should be sealed. It appears no taps were done legally and none of the illegal taps were kept from becoming innuendo
in congressional hearings. The coincidental collection is an assault on US Bill of Rights! In many years in the pentagon bureaucracy I have NEVER seen coincidence where malice could
be implied.
This fake news hysteria over "Russian contacts" might well be a smoke screen explicitly designed
to cover illegal wiretapping. They never expected Trump to be elected (neither did I ) and made some major mistakes hoping
the Hillary will cover everything up.
"... Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis to the charge. ..."
"... "We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health." ..."
Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, has
issued the following statement after President Trump accused former President Obama of wiretapping
his phones in 2016 and Obama's spokesman said that was false.
Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand
to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public
at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally
tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the
president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis
to the charge.
"The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic
requires deserve more information.
If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either
with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization.
If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It
is possible that he was illegally tapped.
On the other hand , if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application for surveillance
exists that the Court found credible.
The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives
or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the U.S. Senate.
Sasses then concludes:
"We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations
today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth,
rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and
health."
It appears that the Trump admin may already be working on Sasse's recommendations: as
the NYT reports ,
" a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president's
chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document
issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his
associates. The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such a document exists; any
such move by a White House counsel would be viewed at the Justice Department as a stunning case of
interference ."
Alternatively, it would be viewed as a case president seeking to determine if his predecessor
was actively plotting to interfere with the election via wiretapping, also a quite "stunning" case.
Former President Obama on Saturday denied President Trump's accusation that Obama had Trump Tower
phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.
"Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.
Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.
Trump made the claim in a series of early Saturday morning tweets that included the suggestion
that the alleged wiretapping was tantamount to "McCarthyism" and "Nixon/Watergate."
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory.
Nothing found. This is McCarthyism," Trump tweeted.
"Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election?
Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!" he said in another tweet.
Trump also tweeted that a "good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama
was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"
"How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process.
This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!" the president continued.
Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration's alleged wiretapping.
However, he could be referencing a
Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the administration made two Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server
in Trump Tower, related to possible links with Russian banks.
No evidence was found.
The article was based on a segment by radio host Mark Levin.
However, the timelines for each seems to draw from a range of news reports over the last several
months, including those from The New York Times and Heat Street.
Lewis also said Saturday: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House
official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."
wouldsmash
REOPEN CLINTON EMAIL SERVER INVESTIGATION
encorezzzzzzz
GOP lawmaker calls to investigate Obama's $418 million arms deal with Kenya.
Fox News reported: A North Carolina congressman is calling for a probe into a potential $418
million contract between Kenya and a major U.S. defense contractor announced on President Obama's
last day in office -- a deal the lawmaker claims reeks of cronyism. Republican Rep. Ted Budd wants
the Government Accountability Office to investigate a deal between the African nation and New
York-based L3 Technologies for the sale of 12 weaponized border patrol planes.
He said he wants to know why a veteran-owned small company in North Carolina – which specializes
in making such planes – was not considered as the manufacturer. IOMAX USA Inc., based in Mooresville
and founded by a U.S. Army veteran, offered to build Kenya the weaponized planes for roughly $281
million – far cheaper than what its competitor, L3, is selling them for.
"Something smells wrong here," Budd told Fox News. "The U.S. Air Force bypassed IOMAX, which
has 50 of these planes already in service in the Middle East." "They were given a raw deal," Budd
said of Kenya, which had requested from the U.S. 12 weaponized planes in its fight against terrorist
group Al-Shabaab near its northern border. "We want to treat our allies like Kenya fairly," he
said. "And we want to know why IOMAX was not considered."
ricochetdog
"Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme.
Andrewmag16
Why are democrats always meeting and dealing with us and then act like its bad if anyone else
speaks to Russians?
evolutionmyths
Coming from an ... that never spoke any kind of truth . If he said false it means True
SheSayEh
Obama was community organizer of Chicago. Look at the mess he left behind there.
MrChainBlueLightning
The so called United States experiment should end. It was ultimately a failure. Red and Blue
states should merge and form their own countries.
CLUTCHCARGO1
DON'T STOP INVESTIGATING. OBAMA NEEDS TO MEET INMATE BUBBA
wouldsmash
Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL
MickeyQBitskoIII
Soros would certainly have it done, and Obama and Hillary would be in on whatever "intel" is
gathered, but there is NO WAY Soros would allow his favorite Kenyan lap dog to be directly involved
in the operation.
frdm399
Tucker Carlson exposed Politifact, New York Times, and Washington Post fact checkers as liars
last night. You just can't believe anything a democRAT says...
jconnelly
The US Govt was spying on Trump during the election. The Russians were spying on Clinton during
the election. Which is worse?
Funny now Obama and Clinton need to be afraid the Trump will wiretap them ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath ..."
"... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation. ..."
"... I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it. ..."
"... Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower ..."
Following Trump's stunning allegation that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower in October of 2016, prior
to the presidential election, which may or may not have been
sourced from a Breitbart story , numerous Democrats and media pundits have come out with scathing
accusations that Trump is either mentally disturbed, or simply has no idea what he is talking about.
The best example of this came from Ben Rhodes, a former senior adviser to President Obama in his
role as deputy National Security Advisor, who slammed Trump's accusation, insisting that " No President
can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you."
He also said "only a liar" could make the case, as Trump suggested, that Obama wire tapped Trump
Tower ahead of the election.
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from
people like you. https://t.co/lEVscjkzSw
It would appear, however, that Rhodes is wrong, especially as pertains to matters of Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance, and its associated FISA court, under which the alleged wiretap of Donald Trump would
have been granted, as it pertained specifically to Trump's alleged illicit interactions with Russian
entities.
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance
without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the
Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at- (i) the acquisition of the contents of
communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers,
as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical
intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under
the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)
of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any
communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition
of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports
such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date,
unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately
of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
While (B) seems to contradict the underlying permissive nature of Section 1802 as it involves
a United States person, what the Snowden affair has demonstrated all too clearly, is how frequently
the NSA and FISA court would make US citizens collateral damage. To be sure, many pointed out the
fact that Fox News correspondent
James Rosen was notoriously wiretapped in 2013 when the DOJ was investigating government leaks.
The
Associated Press was also infamously wiretapped in relation to the same investigation.
As pertains to Trump, the
Guardian reported as much in early January, when news of the alleged anti-Trump dossier by former
UK spy Chris Steele broke in January:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance
(Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular
contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence
investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant
in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full
investigation.
Furthermore, while most Democrats - not to
mention former president Obama himself - have been harshly critical of Trump's comments, some
such as former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau was quite clear in his warning to reporters that Obama
did not say there was no wiretapping, effectively confirming it:
I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that
neither he nor the WH ordered it.
Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely
that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower, only
that Obama himself and the Obama White House did not approve them if they did exist.
The Obama statement does not say there was no federal wire tapping of Trump Tower. It only says
Obama and White House didn't order it.
Further implying the existence of such a wiretap was David Axelrod, who tweeted today that that
such a wiretap could exist but would have "been OK'ed only for a a reason."
If there were the wiretap @realDonaldTrump
loudly alleges, such an extraordinary warrant would only have been OKed by a court for a reason.
Yet ironically, it was none other than the Trump administration which just earlier this week announced
it supports the renewal of spy law which incorporates the FISA court,
without
reforms :
"the Trump administration does not want to reform an internet surveillance law to address
privacy concerns, a White House official told Reuters on Wednesday, saying it is needed to protect
national security. The announcement could put President Donald Trump on a collision course with Congress,
where some Republicans and Democrats have advocated curtailing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, or FISA, parts of which are due to expire at the end of the year."
"We support the clean reauthorization and the administration believes it's necessary to protect
the security of the nation," the official said on condition of anonymity.
The FISA law has been criticized by privacy and civil liberties advocates as allowing broad, intrusive
spying. It gained renewed attention following the 2013 disclosures by former National Security Agency
contractor Edward Snowden that the agency carried out widespread monitoring of emails and other electronic
communications.
In any event, the bottom line here appears to be that with his tweet, Trump has opened a can of
worms with two possible outcomes: either the wiretaps exist as Trump has suggested, and the president
will use them to attack both the Obama administration and the media for political overreach; or,
there were no wiretaps,
which as Matthew Boyle writes , would suggest the previous administration had no reason to suspect
Trump colluded with a foreign government.
Senator Ben Sasse said as much in his statement issued earlier today:
The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic
requires deserve more information. If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization
or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization. If without,
the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that
he was illegally tapped. On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application
for surveillance exists that the Court found credible.
But what is perhaps most important, is that we may know soon enough. As the
NYT reported on Saturday afternoon , a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn
II, the president's chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official
described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance
of Mr. Trump and his associates.
If and when such a document is made public - assuming it exists of course - it would be Trump,
once again, that gets the last laugh.
"... The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump's assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump's phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement. ..."
"... The White House showed no indication that it would back down from Mr. Trump's claims. On Sunday, the president demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama had abused the power of federal law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election. In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called "reports" about the wiretapping "very troubling" and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia's meddling in the election. ..."
"... Mr. Comey's behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to. ..."
"... In his demand for a congressional inquiry, the president, through his press secretary, Sean Spicer, issued a statement on Sunday that said, "President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016." ..."
"... Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, "Not to my knowledge, no. ..."
The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to
publicly reject President Trump's assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr.
Trump's phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged
claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter,
has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates
that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice
Department, also declined to comment.
Mr. Comey's request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation's top law
enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump's truthfulness. The confrontation between
the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump's weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores
the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of
a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump's young administration.
The White House showed no indication that it would back down from Mr. Trump's claims. On Sunday,
the president demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama had abused the power of federal
law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election. In a statement from his spokesman,
Mr. Trump called "reports" about the wiretapping "very troubling" and said that Congress should examine
them as part of its investigations into Russia's meddling in the election.
Along with concerns about potential attacks on the bureau's credibility, senior F.B.I. officials
are said to be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public's expectations
that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the Trump campaign in colluding
with Russia's efforts to disrupt the presidential election.
One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at
the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation
into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey's behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last
year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department
entreaties not to.
It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue the statement himself. He is the most senior law enforcement
official who was kept on the job as the Obama administration gave way to the Trump administration.
And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants, the F.B.I. keeps its
own set of records and is in position to know whether Mr. Trump's claims are true. While intelligence
officials do not normally discuss the existence or nonexistence of surveillance warrants, no law
prevents Mr. Comey from issuing the statement.
In his demand for a congressional inquiry, the president, through his press secretary, Sean
Spicer, issued a statement on Sunday that said, "President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as
part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise
their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused
in 2016."
... ... ...
On Sunday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, said the president
was determined to find out what had really happened, calling it potentially the "greatest abuse of
power" that the country has ever seen.
"Look, I think he's going off of information that he's seen that has led him to believe that this
is a very real potential," Ms. Sanders said on ABC's "This Week" program. "And if it is, this is
the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that I think we have ever seen and a huge
attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place."
... ... ...
Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have
said there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant
existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC's "Meet the
Press" program, "Not to my knowledge, no."
"... Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped, saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false ." ..."
"... Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from having given the order. ..."
"... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. ..."
"... For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election. ..."
"... Analyzing Obama's own statements over the years on the illegal wiretappings, one does not come to the conclusion that he can be trusted ..."
"... Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome. ..."
"... Obama, "The Russians did it" ..."
"... He says of course: "I am not a crook " R. Nixon. Give me a break the dickhead even tapped Angela Merkel's phone and half of Europe. ..."
Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped,
saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise
is simply false ."
Follows the statement from Kevin Lewis, spokesman to former president Barack Obama
"A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation
led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance
on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White
House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have
speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian
interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from
having given the order.
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer
in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned
down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally
granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election.
You have to appreciate the way he puts things out there that cause them to issue carefully worded denials that sound more like
confessions than anything else.
Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded
over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome.
neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, "ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise
is simply false."
Obama has taken credit for ordering the drone strike which killed US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Now we are being told that no
surveillance preceded that strike. Obama apparently ordered the strike and a drone was launched blindly into the heavens but it
still managed to find and destroy al-Awlaki entirely by chance.
http://theduran.com/obama-replies-trumps-wiretap-charge/
" This statement is classic Obama. It appears on its face to be clear and complete, but in reality it is nothing of the sort.
.. We are at a very early stage in this matter. There are multiple investigations underway, some launched by the outgoing Obama
administration against the incoming Trump administration, and some launched by the current Trump administration against the preceding
Obama administration. ... Obama's highly legalistic statement today – which reads very much like a defence statement – however
gives a good flavour of the direction some of these inquiries are taking. " ...
" The statement hints than any order to wiretap ... was the work of officials in the Justice Department ... This too is almost
certainly true. However it neglects to say that some of these officials were people whom Obama himself appointed, and who were
therefore part of his administration. "
Or he found out about it when his owners told him to make a statement & provide the msm more distraction from the great things
Trump is already accomplishing in this his 7th week on the job , despite the backstabbing congress, senate, spooks, crisis actors,
paid protestors and moochers.
The fanatics who did this are the the same fanatics who bombed London mass transit during a drill, and conducted the 911 heist
and mass execution during a drill.
Is anyone naive enough to think that Loretta Lynch and Obama were unaware that the Republican candidate for POTUS was being
wiretapped the month before the actual election?
This is Hillary like legal speak where Obozo is trying to keep his neck out of a legal sling. Sorry...Nixon tried that.
"A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation
led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered
surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false
When Obama says he did not order the wiretapping, he is probably telling the truth. Obama had no power at all -- he took the position knowing that he was only a cat's paw. He was content to be a facade and he knew it, and so did his wife. He was not smart enough to be a President, but he was egotistical enough to take the position and all the bennies in exchange
for taking orders from his handlers without question.
Does anyone really think he was smart enough to plan all the Middle East attacks for 8 years? Of course not -- the logistical planning for those events were far beyond his intelligence.
For that matter, has anyone seen his Columbia and Harvard transcripts? Of course not -- he was a dummy and a fake and the records would show that.
He was editor of the HLR but has anyone seen a sample of his writing? Of course not -- if it exists at all it is unimpressive.
It is doubtful that the Deep State would allow Obama access to such critical wiretapping. That sort of power is reserved for our tax funded, invisible slavemasters.
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit. Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid. ..."
"... Each diagnosis code has to be coded to the highest level of specificity , so the insurance company knows exactly what the patient's diagnosis was. ..."
"... I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for management. ..."
"... A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep. ..."
"... Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt - Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little choice but to live in bankruptcy. ..."
"... thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average was rising. ..."
"... More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade. Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical groups deny that. ..."
"... The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic medical records and billing software. ..."
"... eight of 10 bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors. ..."
"... It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion – is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. ..."
"... Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf, including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75 or 80 percent. ..."
"... Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used for facility services (such as the room charge in image). ..."
"... ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims. ..."
From my review of Akerlof and Shiller's Phishing for Phools ,
November 25, 2015 :
As businesspeople choose what line of business to undertake - as well as where they expand,
or contract, their existing business - they (like customers approaching checkout) pick off the
best opportunities. This too creates an equilibrium. Any opportunities for unusual profits are
quickly taken off the table, leading to a situation where such opportunities are hard to find.
This principle, with the concept of equilibrium it entails, lies at the heart of economics.
The principle also applies to phishing for phools. That means that if we have some weakness
or other - some way in which we can be phished for fools for more than the usual profit - in the
phishing equilibrium someone will take advantage of it . Among all those business persons
figuratively arriving at the checkout counter, looking around, and deciding where to spend their
investment dollars, some will look to see if there are unusual profits from phishing us for phools.
And if they see such an opportunity for profit, that will (again figuratively) be the "checkout
lane" they choose.
And economies will have a "phishing equilibrium," in which every chance for profit more than
the ordinary will be taken up.
We might summarize Akerlof and Shiller as "If a system enables fraud, fraud will happen," or,
in stronger form, "If a system enables fraud, fraud will already have happened."[1] And as we shall
see, plenty of "opportunities for unusual profits" exist in medical coding.
Successful medical coders learn and follow coding guidelines and use them to their benefit.
Often if a claim is denied incorrectly, medical coders and billers use coding guidelines as a
way to appeal the denial and get the claim paid.
Hmm. "Their" benefit. Here are the guidelines:
The specificity of the diagnosis code: Each diagnosis code has to be coded to
the highest level of specificity , so the insurance company knows exactly what the
patient's diagnosis was.
The correct reporting of procedure codes: There are too many rules and regulations
to go into here. There are specific ways to code each visit , which help identify
the service that was provided to the patient.
Reasonable and customary charges: Regulating bodies also suggest that providers
charge only "reasonable and customary" rates for their services. This prevents over-inflation
of medical fees.
Procedure code modifiers: When certain procedure codes are sent on the same claim
form, they sometimes require medical billing modifiers , which help differentiate
between the codes that were charged on the date of service.
I've helpfully underlined places where an "unusual opportunity for profit" might be spotted
and amplified; after all, it's not the coder's job to set policy in borderline cases; that's for
management. The
Denver Post gives a horrific example:
Miscoding Fictions, frauds found to abound in medical bills
A pair of transposed digits in a medical identification number was the difference between
insurance coverage for Mike Dziedzic and the seemingly never-ending hounding for payment by the
hospitals that cared for his dying wife. The astute eye of a medical billing advocate who Dziedzic
hired for help caught the innocuous mistake - the sole reason his insurance company had refused
to pay more than $100,000 in claims that had piled up and why collectors were now at his doorstep.
Had it remained unnoticed - as often happens to patients faced with daunting medical debt
- Dziedzic said, he most surely would have lost his Rifle home, his way of life and had little
choice but to live in bankruptcy.
But the Center's analysis of Medicare claims from 2001 through 2010 shows that over time,
thousands of providers turned to more expensive Medicare billing codes, while spurning use of
cheaper ones. They did so despite little evidence that Medicare patients as a whole are older
or sicker than in past years, or that the amount of time doctors spent treating them on average
was rising.
More than 7,500 physicians billed the two top paying codes for three out of four office
visits in 2008, a sharp rise from the numbers of doctors who did so at the start of the decade.
Officials said such changes in billing can signal overcharges occurring on a broad scale. Medical
groups deny that.
The most lucrative codes are billed two to three times more often in some cities than in
others, costly variations government officials said they could not explain or justify. In some
instances, higher billing rates appear to be associated with the burgeoning use of electronic
medical records and billing software.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I can't quantify the impedance mismatches, the miscoding,
and the upcoding. Regardless, medical coding is
the key dataflow in the healthcare system :
"Roughly $250 billion is moving through those codes," [says Steve Parente, professor of finance
at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota]. On top of that, about 80%
of medical bills contain errors, according to Christie Hudson, vice president of Medical Billing
Advocates of America, making already-expensive bills higher. Today's complex medical-billing system,
guided by hundreds of pages of procedure codes, allows fraud, abuse and human error to go undetected,
Hudson says. "Until the fraud is detected in these bills the cost of health care is just going
to increase. It's not accidental. We've been fighting these overcharges they continue to happen
and we continue to get them removed from bills." These errors, which are hard to detect because
medical bills are written in a mysterious code, can result in overcharges that run from a few
dollars to tens of thousands.
Experts say there are tens of thousands more like Dziedzic across the country with strangling
medical debts.
Medical Billing Advocates of America, a trade group in Salem, Va., says that eight of 10
bills its members have audited from hospitals and health care providers contain errors.
It's estimated that at least 3 percent of all health care spending – roughly $68 billion
– is lost to fraud and billing errors annually. Some say new reform laws will only make things
worse." Others say that errors occur largely because of "the complexity of deciphering bills and
claims weighted down by complex codes."
Accounts of medical billing errors vary widely. While the American Medical Association
estimated that 7.1 percent of paid claims in 2013 contained an error, a 2014 NerdWallet study
found mistakes in 49 percent of Medicare claims. Groups that review bills on patients' behalf,
including Medical Billing Advocates of America and CoPatient, put the error rate closer to 75
or 80 percent.
Gee, I wonder if the errors are randomly distributed?
Neoliberal "Consumer"-Driven Solutions
My guts have started to gripe, so I won't go into detail about how you too, the citizen
, can learn medical billing codes if you want to dispute your bill. See this cheery post from
NerdWallet
on "How to Read Your Medical Bill :
Once you have the itemized medical bill for your care, you're ready to analyze it for mistakes
and overcharges.
Your medical bill is going to be chock-full of codes and words you may not understand, so the
first step is gathering resources that will translate them into plain English.
One useful adjunct to the coding discussion concerns other billing details such as meds. There
is wide variability in prices charged, and when you see $160 for a single pill (e.g., Hexabrix)
or $26 for a single Tylenol, then something is not right. Of course, that does not include any
allocation for nurses, pharmacy or other potential costs, since those are rolled into other line
items to decipher. When hospital billing reps are asked about the reasonability and basis of their
charges, they spout the canned line about being in line with their local competitors.
Why not have some program with mutual insurance companies, removing in theory some of the profit
that is driving the typical health care insurers?
Most services don't get paid based on ICD, they get paid based on HCPCs/CPTs (healthcare
procedure codes) which is what is shown in the nerdwallet image. Also revenue codes will be used
for facility services (such as the room charge in image).
ICD-Diaganosis codes just tell you what conditions the provider diagnosed you with. ICD-Procedure
codes are sometimes used for payments but usually only on inpatient claims.
_________________________________
Additionaly, coding also affects "risk adjustment" in Medicare Advantage and ACA payments and
this form of payment does use ICD codes. They use the codes on the claims to determine how "sick"(has
conditions that will cost more) each member is and give insurers more or less money based on the
average risk scores of their members. Since it relies on coding this system is also subject to
gaming.
In Medicare Advantage this is done relative to non-Medicare Advantage population, so if the
MA plans are upcoding they get more money from Federal government. In 2010 CMS was given the ability
to use some adjustment factors to MA payments to address the issue but I don't really know how
effective it is.
In ACA this is done relative to all the other insurers in the individual/small group market(so
all the money is changing hands between the insurers). More established plans generally do better
since they have more data on members from before ACA to make sure they get coded in addition to
resources they probably built from Medicare Advantage. This ends up disadvantaging smaller and
newer plans like co-ops.
_____________
"... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good
start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful
fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including
some sort of "deep state" coup.
Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death),
which appears to be where we're headed at this point.
The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
As I wrote about
in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission
through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has
WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic
"fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.
This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either
completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who
could forget The Washington Post 's
"Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite
think tank), or their
"Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's
"Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll),
or Slate 's
"Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the
hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's
"Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?
Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling
classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of
democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing
to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman
who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.
These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries)
are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than
that.
Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly
paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures
where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media,
and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the
folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities."
Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence
officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent
members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising
the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network,
it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving
the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.
I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves
is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism.
The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary
concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every
other developed nation.
And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's
discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty
and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for
"European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash
their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give
billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the
capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people
who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them
or their families.
But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and
analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support
democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever
measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible
reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him
by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on
the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment,
as he did in the
wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's
convicted and dying in jail
, triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they
did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according
to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I
don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and
Love, of course, throughout the nation.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury
Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.
Not every globalist is a (((globalist))), but an important globalist is usually a (((globalist))).
Thank you if you are really fighting globalism and not being just another controlled opposition.
+Jake Coughlin People like Clinton and Merkel don't truly believe in globalism either, they
are just opportunists. I like to look at them as just pawns in this game. Clinton could never
be an independent politician, since she is receiving so much money from very controversial sources.
I really like Ron Paul too, he is awesome and he is addressing some very important subjects.
Thanks to globalism, The Rebel has media outlets that can transmit to other countries. Thanks
to globalism, they can buy high performance cameras to film their anti-globalism videos.
Thanks to globalism, you can buy a vast variety of products at a cheap price. Globalism is
what makes free markets possible.
In other words globalism is the very definition of freedom of businesses. Thanks to globalism,
you don't have to live in a primitive, nationalist, isolated, 1800s society where you have Kings
and Queens who rule like conservative tyrants and keep the population ignorant as peasants. Globalism
is capitalism, the very value that made America so notorious.
Nationalism is feeling that one's country is superior to another. That's not pride in one's
country, don't get it twisted. Patriotism is pride in one's country and its values. Don't let
the nationalist confuse you with their twisted definitions of globalism.
Nationalism is what tyrants during WW1 and WW2 fed to the people in order to make them sign
up for a war that would only benefit those monarchies. Nationalism appeals to a very primitive
feeling of pride instead of logic and progress. Nationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism
which prevents small businesses to grow and limits the country to a very small group of overpriced
home products. Nationalism is regressive thinking. It opposes development and growth.
Technological progress is not globalism. Trade agreements between countries are not globalism.
You don't have to destroy all independent countries to have free markets. Poor kid... this is
how severe case of globalist brainwashing looks like.
"... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold
Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.
At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well
with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory
with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as
receptive an audience.
Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but
I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry
and there is a different public sentiment.
I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could
be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our
current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could
get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude
such as partnering with China on solar energy.
So what should egalitarian activists do in terms of future elections if and when the issues,
circumstances, and candidates seem right? First, they should form Egalitarian Democratic Clubs.
That gives them an organizational base as well as a distinctive new social identity within
the structural pathway to government that is labeled "the Democratic Party." Forming such clubs
makes it possible for activists to maintain their sense of separatism and purity while at the
same time allowing them to compete within the Democratic Party. There are numerous precedents
for such clubs within the party, including liberal and reform clubs in the past, and the conservative
Democratic Leadership Council at the present time.
This strategy of forging a separate social identity is also followed by members of the right
wing within the Republican Party. By joining organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian
Coalition, they can define themselves as Christians who have to work out of necessity within
the debased confines of the Republican Party. That is, they think of themselves as Christians
first and Republicans second, and that is what egalitarians should do: identify themselves
primarily as egalitarians and only secondarily as Democrats.
After forming Egalitarian Democrat Clubs, egalitarian activists should find people to run
in selected Democratic primaries from precinct to president. They should not simply support
eager candidates who come to them with the hope of turning them into campaign workers. They
have to create candidates of their own who already are committed to the egalitarian movement
and to its alternative economic vision of planning through the market. The candidates have
to be responsible to the clubs, or else the candidates naturally will look out for their own
self interest and careers.
Yes it is. Your excerpt zeroes in on the mechanism of How.
"clubs within the party" : Turchin writing on the Price Equation makes something clear. If
the within-group co-operators can be successful and reproduce, and then sequester non-co-operators
into a separate group, the chances of co-operator success increase. Put 'em on a committee.
That mechanism is what makes Zuck's presidential bid dangerous. As groups use Fcbk to organize,
a malevolent administrator can introduce
FBU
's that disrupt social cohesion within the group. An advanced form of voter suppression.
Clubs within the Party was how the Communist Party of the USSR operated. They were called factions.
They were unable to challenge the ruling elite and if they became too strong they were simply
purged from the Party.
Nothing new here. Cooptation of those who deviate left or right from the party platform and
party oligarchy can be effectively used within "game of clubs" framework due to the iron law of
oligarchy. Those who can't be coopted can be purged or excommunicated.
For all practical purposes two party system behaves as an improved version of one party system.
Iron law of oligarchy essentially guarantees the upper hand for the leadership within the interparty
struggle for power. And provides for the leadership the opportunity to pursue their own agenda,
different from the wishes of rank and file members. Like was the case with Bill Clinton selling
Democratic Party to Wall Street and turning it into yet another neoliberal party - soft neoliberals,
like sometime Clinton's "third way" neoliberalism is called.
Only parliamentary system when parties are allocated seats due to votes they got with some
"passing" threshold can provide the opportunity of the third party to emerge as the major political
force outside a single election cycle or two.
It is important to understand that the "first after the post" system virtually guarantees the
elimination of any contenders to both major parties. Unless there is a revolutionary situation
when the ruling elite is so discredited that can't rule "as usual". Then winners are usually incorporated
into the party framework and partially emasculated somewhat later, when they face the challenges
of governing the system which is totally against them. Like now the situation developed in case
of Trump.
You can say anything about British elite but this was pretty ingenious political invention.
In other words, the main task to two party system in to prevent any possibility for the challengers
of status quo to obtain political power via elections. Reforms should be approved by party oligarchy
to be viable. And there are powerful internal mechanisms like DNC which help to block advances
of anybody who want to challenge the status quo.
Also the emerging leaders can be simply bought. This is another way how the iron law of oligarchy
operates.
From a rhetorical point of view, however, lesser evilism involves more than just the logical
principle behind it. The reason is plain: except in a trivial sense, better choices are less bad
only when the alternatives are bad or, more precisely, regarded as bad. Less bad choices are less
evil only when the alternatives are or are thought to be bad indeed.
This is all that the "evil" in "lesser evilism" implies. Strictly speaking, evil is a religious,
not a political, notion. But lesser evilism in politics is a secular phenomenon, and the force
of the word is rhetorical only. Its religious origins and connotations are useful for giving the
word a resonance that "bad" and even "very bad" lack; not for making any theological or otherwise
portentous point.
Although the logic behind lesser evilism is impeccable, the principle seldom applies directly
in real world circumstances. In political contexts especially, there are too many complicating
factors, and there is too much indeterminacy.
This is why lesser evilism in politics – especially, electoral politics - can be, and often
is, a bad idea.
Myopia is a chronic problem in electoral contests because voters tend to focus on candidates'
personalities or on what they believe they are likely to do if elected, neglecting other pertinent
considerations.
Suppose, for instance, that Obama truly was less disposed than McCain in 2008 or Romney in
2012 to expand the wars he inherited from George Bush and Dick Cheney or to extend the range and
intensity of the Bush-Cheney "Global War on Terror."
Of course, war making is not the only thing Presidents do, but even if we focus only on that,
we can still wonder whether voters favoring peace who voted for Obama served their cause well.
Unofficially, but most assuredly, America has a duopoly party system – in consequence of deeply
entrenched practices and traditions, and thanks to laws that make ballot access difficult for
candidates who are neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Therefore, in Presidential elections and most others as well, Americans face straightforward
X versus Y choices. Independent or third party candidates have no chance of winning. They seldom
even have a chance of affecting the outcomes in more than negligible ways.
Some of the problems this raises have nothing to do with the comparative merits and shortcomings
of the candidates themselves; they are problems with lesser evil voting itself.
This is because elections in the present affect elections in the future; among other things,
they can and often do initiate or continue trends.
As a general rule, but especially when the choices voters face remain above the threshold beneath
which talk of lesser evil voting becomes rhetorically appropriate, choosing the better candidate
is no guarantee that the choices will be better still the next time around or the time after that.
But once the lesser evil threshold is crossed, it does seem that the choices keep getting worse.
There is no inherent reason why this must be so, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that bears
out the suggestion that, in our time and place, lesser evil voting encourages a downward spiral,
"a race to the bottom."
To be sure, America's deteriorating political culture cannot be blamed entirely, or even mainly,
on the pervasiveness of this practice. The corruptions of money undoubtedly play a larger role.
Still, lesser evil voting does seem to feed upon itself – hastening a downward trend.
The consequences are especially damaging in a duopoly party system like ours, where choosing
the lesser evil means choosing a Democrat or (in very rare instances) a Republican, further diminishing
the already meager prospects of breaking free from the duopoly's stranglehold.
For those of you who are interested in a brief, but quite penetrating introduction to Marx's overall
project (I realize this may seem like an acquired taste), as understood and elaborated upon by Harvey,
might I suggest watching this lecture? It includes a (newly developed) visualization of how capital
circulates through its various moments (resources, labor power, commodities that then have to be
sold, etc.), analogous to how water goes through the various stages listed in the water cycle: David
Harvey, Visualizing Capital
.
Main problem with it: 'taxes funds govt spending' - he should really talk to Michael Hudson about
this.
"... ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
From a logical point of view, the case is unassailable: when, for any reason,
choosing between X and Y, anyone who, again for any reason, believes that X is
better than Y, ought to choose X.
The argument is perfectly general: X and Y
can stand for anything, and because "better than" means better all things
considered, it always applies; contextual and other pertinent considerations
are already taken into account. The availability of other alternatives, if any,
does not alter the calculation.
The reasoning that supports lesser evil voting – and lesser evil politics
generally – boils down to this argument.
From a rhetorical point of view, however, lesser evilism involves more than
just the logical principle behind it. The reason is plain: except in a trivial
sense, better choices are less bad only when the alternatives are bad or, more
precisely, regarded as bad. Less bad choices are less evil only when the
alternatives are or are thought to be bad indeed.
This is all that the "evil" in "lesser evilism" implies. Strictly speaking,
evil is a religious, not a political, notion. But lesser evilism in politics is
a secular phenomenon, and the force of the word is rhetorical only. Its
religious origins and connotations are useful for giving the word a resonance
that "bad" and even "very bad" lack; not for making any theological or
otherwise portentous point.
Although the logic behind lesser evilism is impeccable, the principle seldom
applies directly in real world circumstances. In political contexts especially,
there are too many complicating factors, and there is too much indeterminacy.
This is why lesser evilism in politics – especially, electoral politics -
can be, and often is, a bad idea.
* * *
An American example, still fresh in the mind, illustrates some of these
points:
It is intuitively obvious to anyone to the left of, say, Rachel Maddow that,
on the face of it, Barack Obama was a better choice for President than John
McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012. Anyone to the left of Cokie Roberts
would probably agree as well.
Maddow, the star of the evening lineup at the cable news channel MSNBC, is a
liberal idol and a Democratic Party – or "Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party" - cheerleader. Roberts is the doyenne of conventional wisdom,
representing the dead center on network television and National Public Radio.
The 2008 and 2012 election results show that quite a few Americans,
including some whose views are surely to the right even of Roberts', also
thought Obama the better choice. After all, he won handily both times – even in
2012, after a miserable first term.
In 2008, many of those voters saw candidate Obama as a Rorschach figure upon
whom they projected their hopes. To them, he was not a lesser evil; just the
better choice.
This view of Obama is now nearly extinct - except perhaps on weekday
evenings at MSNBC.
By 2012, the blinders had already been off for a while. Hardly anyone still
harbored illusions about Obama.
Therefore the people who voted for him, the vast majority of them, were
opting for the lesser of two evils.
Were they right? Was Obama truly the lesser evil? Perhaps; but the answer is
not as obvious as it seemed to Obama voters back then, or as many people still
believe.
For one thing, lesser evil Obama voters may have been looking at their X
versus Y choice near-sightedly.
Myopia is a chronic problem in electoral contests because voters tend to
focus on candidates' personalities or on what they believe they are likely to
do if elected, neglecting other pertinent considerations.
Suppose, for instance, that Obama truly was less disposed than McCain in
2008 or Romney in 2012 to expand the wars he inherited from George Bush and
Dick Cheney or to extend the range and intensity of the Bush-Cheney "Global War
on Terror."
Of course, war making is not the only thing Presidents do, but even if we
focus only on that, we can still wonder whether voters favoring peace who voted
for Obama served their cause well.
With Obama in the White House, Congressional Democrats have felt obliged to
back continuations of the Bush-Cheney wars, and the additional under-the-radar
wars that America is now waging throughout the Muslim world. Were a President
McCain or a President Romney in charge of the empire, they would likely now be
more oppositional.
Democratic acquiescence in the Age of Obama was predictable; Democrats may
not be good for much, but when one of their own is in the White House, they,
like Hillary Clinton, stand by their man.
How many lesser evil voters for Obama factored this likely consequence of an
Obama victory into their calculations? There is no way to know for sure, but a
good bet would be – not many at all.
By 2012 especially, the evidence was plain: between 2006 and 2008,
Congressional Democrats offered at least milquetoast resistance to the
Afghanistan and Iraq wars; they would have offered yet more had not the
Pelosiite leadership of the Party reined them in. When Obama took office, they
became meeker than lambs.
Obama was seemingly the lesser evil in matters of war and peace but, even
confining attention only to that, he may not have been the lesser evil all
things considered. This, of course, is what matters in the end.
The kind of problem lesser evil voters in the United States faced in 2008
and 2012 is hardly unique, to the United States. But it is especially salient
in American elections where there are effectively only two candidates with any
chance of winning.
Unofficially, but most assuredly, America has a duopoly party system – in
consequence of deeply entrenched practices and traditions, and thanks to laws
that make ballot access difficult for candidates who are neither Democrats nor
Republicans.
Therefore, in Presidential elections and most others as well, Americans face
straightforward X versus Y choices. Independent or third party candidates have
no chance of winning. They seldom even have a chance of affecting the outcomes
in more than negligible ways.
However the logic behind lesser evilism applies even in the more democratic
(less undemocratic) electoral systems of other so-called democracies, where
easy ballot access is assured and where not all electoral contests are decided
on a first-past-the post, winner-take-all basis.
Strategic voting is usually a more front-and-center issue in those
circumstances, but the principle – if X is better than Y, choose X – is
compelling everywhere.
* * *
Even so, its applications are often problematic – thanks to the level of
abstraction from real world voting situations at which it is pitched. Voter
myopia is not the only complication.
Myopic voters focus narrowly on personalities and policies, and therefore
fail to take all pertinent considerations into account. Another danger is not
looking far enough ahead.
Some of the problems this raises have nothing to do with the comparative
merits and shortcomings of the candidates themselves; they are problems with
lesser evil voting itself.
This is because elections in the present affect elections in the future;
among other things, they can and often do initiate or continue trends.
As a general rule, but especially when the choices voters face remain above
the threshold beneath which talk of lesser evil voting becomes rhetorically
appropriate, choosing the better candidate is no guarantee that the choices
will be better still the next time around or the time after that.
But once the lesser evil threshold is crossed, it does seem that the choices
keep getting worse. There is no inherent reason why this must be so, but there
is ample anecdotal evidence that bears out the suggestion that, in our time and
place, lesser evil voting encourages a downward spiral, "a race to the bottom."
To be sure, America's deteriorating political culture cannot be blamed
entirely, or even mainly, on the pervasiveness of this practice. The
corruptions of money undoubtedly play a larger role.
Still, lesser evil voting does seem to feed upon itself – hastening a
downward trend.
The consequences are especially damaging in a duopoly party system like
ours, where choosing the lesser evil means choosing a Democrat or (in very rare
instances) a Republican, further diminishing the already meager prospects of
breaking free from the duopoly's stranglehold.
* * *
Is lesser evil voting itself an evil?
To say Yes would be to overstate the point – not just because the principle
behind the practice is sound but, more importantly, because sometimes worse
really is worse.
The problem, though, is that there is often no way to tell. There is too
much indeterminacy.
Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that, all things considered, there
has been less peace under the rule of Nobel laureate Obama than there would
have been had the war-mongering McCain or the War Party pandering Romney
defeated him in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Lets suppose, in other words,
that the increased pusillanimity of Democrats in Congress swamped the
advantages of electing a less bellicose leader.
It might still be the case that Obama's nominations for the Supreme Court
and for other seats on the federal judiciary have been better, less retrograde,
than McCain's or Romney's would have been. We can never know, of course, but
there are no plausible grounds for doubting that this is the case.
Then how are we to apply the lesser evil principle, taking both
considerations into account? How can voters make considered judgments that
involve comparing apparently incomparable considerations?
And if the problem seems disabling with only two factors taken into account,
what can we do when all the many respects in which X can be better or worse
than Y must also be factored in?
Yet voters take the lesser evil route apparently without anguish or effort.
How is this possible? How can they ignore so many complexities?
For those who voted for Obama, the answer is plain: it reduces to one word –
Republicans.
As the 2016 election takes shape, it is looking like this will happen again,
notwithstanding the effects of the race to the bottom. Once again, Republicans
will be the reason why liberals will turn out in droves to vote for – God
forbid! – Hillary Clinton.
However awful Democrats become, however Clinton-like, and however plain it
may be that, where Democrats and Republicans are involved, worse can be and
often is better, Republicans are there to make voting for the Democrat seem the
clear lesser evil choice.
It is as if the Republican motto were: we will not be out-eviled. Bring on
your Clintons and Bidens and, yes, your Obamas – and we will raise the ante a
hundred, a thousand, fold.
This may have more to do with appearance than reality. But where Republicans
are concerned, appearances tend to overwhelm. Even voters who expect the worst
cannot help but be amazed at how awful Republicans sometimes are.
In just the past week, for example, there was the unmitigated, oh so
Christian, nonsense pouring forth out of the mouth of Texas Senator and
declared candidate for the GOP nomination, Ted Cruz.
His audience of evangelicals at Liberty University reportedly loved it; so,
it seems, did a gaggle of viciously Zionist donors in New York. One would think
that nothing could make Hillary Clinton look good – but they do.
And then there is Scott Walker, and others even more risible. As Al Jolson,
used to say: "you ain't heard nothin' yet."
Tea Party Republicans – are there any other kind? – probably think about
Democrats in much the way that sane people think about the Tea Party.
Some of their reasons are even worth listening to because, as the Germans
say,
der Hass sieht scharf
(hatred sees sharply).
But, in the end, when dealing with whack jobs or worse (like those Zionist
donors falling in behind Cruz), the wisest course is to ignore them, as best
one can. It is either that or stack up on blood pressure meds.
Unfortunately, ignoring them isn't always possible – because of the power
they wield.
This is where Democratic Party cheerleaders like Rachel Maddow have a use.
They are good for spreading the word when Republicans embarrass themselves – in
other words, when they do anything at all.
What a dreary prospect the impending lesser evil election will be, what, as
Chester A. Riley would say, a revolting development!
But we can always hope for a silver lining: we can hope that, with Hillary
Clinton for the lesser evil, the American electorate may finally wake up from
its acquiescent slumber.
The downward spiral is bound to bottom out eventually. If not with Clinton,
who? And if not now, when?
* * *
Incomparability is not the only source of indeterminacy; sometimes it is
hard to get a purchase on just how bad or good an alternative is.
Obama voters in 2008 and 2012 could be reasonably confident that McCain's or
Romney's judicial appointments would be worse than their candidate's, but by
how much? Who knows!
Yet the lesser evil voters who fell in behind Obama must have had some idea.
Otherwise, how could they factor this consideration in with all the others?
Of course, they weren't exactly weighing plusses and minuses; they were
making choices based on informed intuitions, as voters characteristically do.
Therefore, at least to some extent, their vote for Obama reflected a
considered judgment. But with all the indeterminacies involved, it was a
judgment made in conditions of uncertainty – and it may well have been wrong.
Indeterminacy is an even more disabling problem the more remote one is from
the scene.
What, for instance, are Americans (or anyone living far away from the
quotidian politics of the Promised Land), who care about peace and justice, to
make of the recent election in Israel?
Was it best, all things considered, that Benjamin Netanyahu won? His victory
does make the true face of Israeli intransigence harder to deny; and this, in
turn, makes it harder for the leaders of the countries that make Israel's
colonial project possible – the United States, especially - to justify enabling
Israel's continuing predations.
Many Palestinians and a few Israelis on the scene, along with informed
observers from abroad, have argued – seemingly cogently – that, Netanyahu's
sheer awfulness notwithstanding, his victory was a good thing.
Some have even argued that the daily lives of Palestinians in Israel and the
Occupied Territories would be no better under Isaac Herzog than under
Netanyahu. If they are right about that, then, at least from a Palestinian
perspective, there is no doubt that it is better that Netanyahu won.
Of course, there are also cogent arguments on the other side.
And if we take other relevant perspectives into account – among others,
those of Israeli Arabs and Jews - the situation becomes murkier still.
What then is the lesser evil conclusion?
Especially from the outside looking in, it is difficult to say. It is
difficult from within as well. There is just too much indeterminacy involved.
* * *
One final point: we should be careful not to confuse lesser evil thinking
with the kind of strategic maneuvering that is the heart and soul of politics,
or with a political line based on what Lenin called "the concrete analysis of
concrete situations."
Greek voters in last January's election, the ones whose highest priority was
to end, or at least mitigate, the effects of, the brutal austerity regime that
the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund had imposed on Greece, had two choices.
They could vote, as many did, for Syriza, the party now in power; or they
could vote for Antarsya, a party to its left. Both parties seek an end to
austerity politics. But Syriza is pledged to try to keep Greece in the Eurozone
– at least until it becomes clear that the situation is hopeless. Antarsya
favors immediate withdrawal.
Most anti-austerity voters chose Syriza. For some, this may have been a
strategic choice; they may have thought that the more "moderate" of the two
anti-austerity parties had a better chance of scoring enough votes to form the
next government; or they may have thought that, were it to come to power,
Syriza's chances were better than Antarsya's for winning over necessary public
support in Greece and throughout Europe.
Others may have agreed with Syriza's analysis of the situation: that because
fascism is a live threat in Greece today, and in other parts of Europe as well,
that now is not a good time to risk causing increased financial instability in
Greece and throughout Europe or otherwise to put the fragile economies of the
continent in jeopardy.
Some of those Syriza voters might, under different circumstances, have
preferred Antarsya's program. But in the circumstances they faced, they opted
for Syriza instead.
These voters were not choosing the lesser evil or even the less good choice
among acceptable alternatives. It might look like they were, but the
similarities are superficial.
They were engaging in real politics.
This is what is supposed to happen in democracies, where, in theory, the
demos
, the people (in contrast to social and economic elites) rule.
Elections are one way democratic politics gets done.
In actually existing democracies – our own and, until recently, Greece's –
the opposite is the case. Social and economic elites do the politics, and then,
when election time comes, they sell the voting public on the results they want
– calling on the people to legitimize the outcomes with their votes.
Elites do not always get the candidates or parties they favor – indeed, they
disagree among themselves - but they always win.
This is what our elections are about; and this is not about to change
between now and November 2016.
At this point, it seems clear – let's say 85% likely - that Hillary Clinton
will be the Democratic candidate. If she is, then it is maybe 90% likely that
she will be the lesser evil candidate with the most votes. What is 100% likely
is that the
demos
will lose again.
If we do indeed have another President Clinton in our future, then it is
also extremely likely that, this time, the true lesser evil will be the one who
has the honor of doing the
demos
in.
In retrospect, Obama may not have been the lesser evil all things
considered. But Clinton, if she runs, surely will be - not because voters now
are less myopic than they used to be or because she is a better choice than
Obama was. In fact, she is a worse choice – by far.
But she will be the real lesser evil because the Republican candidate,
whether Jeb Bush or somebody even more ludicrous, is sure to seem utterly vile
– even from the most far-sighted vantage point available.
And she will win because that Republican will scare even right-wing voters
away – either because he will be so retrograde that even voters far to the
right of Cokie Roberts' dead center will not be able to abide him, or because,
like Mitt Romney in 2012, he will be so phony that Tea Partiers will refuse to
jump on board.
Plutocrats will fuss – and spend – to keep that from happening, but their
efforts will be in vain.
And so, one likely election result will be that there will be less evil than
there might otherwise have been. But the downward trend of our politics will
not change; quite the contrary, it will continue unabated.
And, needless to say, the election will have nothing to do with changing the
world for the better.
For that, what is needed is the kind of politics that is now taking shape in
the land where the idea of democracy first emerged – and in other countries on
Europe's periphery, where finance capitalism's predations have been more than
usually intense.
If it can happen in those places, under those conditions, it can happen
anywhere.
It can certainly happen here. The indignation that gave rise to the Occupy
movement cannot remain repressed forever. And it is surely not beyond our
capacity to find ways to seize that energy, and use it to transform the
economic and political conditions that make it both possible and necessary.
The Greeks are on to something, the Spaniards too – and the Portuguese, the
Irish, the Italians and more. Even in Germany and other redoubts of finance
capitalism, the idea is dawning that the same old, same old cannot go on much
longer.
There must be a way for us too to ride the wave– even with a more than
usually dreary electoral distraction looming in the months ahead.
ANDREW LEVINE
is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for
Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge)
and
POLITICAL
KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in
political philosophy. His most recent book is
In
Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People
. He was a Professor
(philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor
(philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor
to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion
(AK Press).
"... and Haim Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money. ..."
"... The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. ..."
"... "We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result." ..."
"... The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal. ..."
"... Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than 50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office. ..."
"... But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama. The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed homeowners. ..."
"... Your friend should share her script for success w/ the DNC leadership. ..."
Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic
National Committee Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a
moment when its grass roots wing is insurgent.
Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates
in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts
in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Perez fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for
chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind him. The four second-tier
candidates then dropped out of the race before the second ballot. On the
second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
Somehow, I think most people knew that this was going to happen.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president and
that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of 2010,
2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and especially the
left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
I think that we should keep in mind that the US is a plutocracy and that at
this point, the Democrats aren't even pretending to be a "New Deal" party for
the people anymore. Perhaps its existence always was an outlet to contain and
co-opt the left. At least now, the message is naked: the left is expected to
blindly obey, but will never be given leadership positions.
In other words, the left is not welcome. I think that it is time for people
to leave.
The only question at this point is, how hard is it going to be to form a
third party? I don't see the Left as being able to reform the Democrats very
easily. It may be so corrupt as to be beyond reform.
At least 1993, although the ideal time would have been after the
Coup of 1963, but unfortunately too many were still clueless than.
(Had more than five people and Mort Sahl ever bothered to read the
Warren Commission Report - where Lee Oswald was "positively ID'd by a
waitress for the murder of Officer Tippit:
W.C.: So you went into the room and looked at the lineup, did you
recognize anyone.
Helen Louise Markham: No, sir.
And there you have it, gentlement, a positive ID! And the rest of
the so-called report was even worse . . . .)
(Patting self on back) That's when I left it. God, was it really
that long ago?
And responding to the earlier part of the string: no, it isn't easy
to form a "3rd" party; and yes, there already is one. Just might be
time to stop nit-picking about it and help. (In Oregon, there are
about 6, two of them right-wing.)
Kshama Sawant, who is a socialist not a Green, is hoping (I think
that's the exact word) to put together a Left coalition. I think the
Green Party could be sold on that – for one thing, we would be much
the largest portion. Certainly I could, as I'm pretty tired of
spinning my wheels.
Remember, according to Gallup, the Dems are now down to 25%
affiliation (Reps at 28 – the first time they've been higher, I think
because they won the election.) Independents are the plurality by a
wide margin. Something's going to give, and we should try to get ahead
of the parade. It could easily get really nasty.
The problem with third parties is the same with the math of this
ballot. If Perez was one vote shy the first time, that means he
only picked up 18 votes the second time. So all the other
candidates mostly split the opposition. I'm sure if the democratic
establishment felt the need, they would form a few front parties.
People, you are just going to have to wait for it to blow up and
after that, coalesce around one cause; Public banking and money as
a publicly supported utility.
It took a few hundred years to recognize government is a public
function and drop monarchy.
Beats me how anyone thinks "public banking" will change
anything. In a capitalist system, banks are banks. They chase
the highest return. That's not where the public interest (qua
people) lies and never will be. And "government is a public
function" so long as it serves its mandate: to make return on
capital investment function smoothly.
For those of use who never were in the Democratic Party, this choice
ensures that many of us will be looking for another party. The DNC just
gave us the same choice as the last election – Corrupt establishment or
Fascism. The distinction these days is not worth pondering.
What people are doing right now with Donald Trump's
GOP - forcing town halls, making a ruckus, holding everyone
accountable - has to be the model for progressive change in
American politics. Doing this stuff inside the system
isn't
going to wor
k. Forming a party around ideology or ideas
isn't going to wor
k. Wearing the system down
is all that
works.
Before this gets turned into another thing where the establishment
Democrats posture as the reasonable adults victimized by the assaults
of those left-wing baddies, let's just be very clear about what
happened here. It was the establishment wing that decided to recruit
and then stand up a candidate in order to fight an internal battle
against the left faction of the party. It was the establishment wing
that then dumped massive piles of opposition research on one of their
own party members. And it was the establishment wing that did all of
this in the shadow of Trump, sowing disunity in order to contest a
position whose leadership they insist does not really matter.
The establishment wing has made it very clear that they will do
anything and everything to hold down the left faction, even as they
rather hilariously ask the left faction to look above their
differences and unify in these trying times. They do not have any
intent of ceding anything - even small things they claim are mostly
irrelevant - to the left wing.
Reform may become possible only when the money spigot dries up.
At some point, the oligarchs may simply decide its not cost effective
to finance such losers. With no money, there are no rice bowls and so the
professional pols and their minions will either wither away or seek a new
funding
model which may make possible a different politics.
I think it will take well under a decade to see how this plays out.
What is the cheapest way for oligarchs to maintain power in a
pseudo-democracy?
If there is enough conflict among them, I suppose they'll continue
to put money into both parties. Otherwise, why not just let one of the
two slowly die? Electoral theatre is expensive.
The scary thing is that it's NOT expensive, compared to the size
of the economy. As long as there's enough at stake for large
companies and ultra-rich individuals, they can very easily buy two
or even several parties.
(This is not to disagree with your main point, which is that
they may let the Democrats die.)
But why bother with that extra bit, if it can instead be
spent on a second or third bolt-hole?
But I suspect you are correct because the citizenry will
revolt fairly quickly after the illusion completely dissolves.
It's worth something to put that off for as long as possible.
Yes it is when a very competitive Senate race is now $50M as
a starting price tag and to run a viable Presidential campaign
will likely be $1B as a floor in 2020.
There'd still be 'choice' since we plebs would continue
quixotically financing this/that with our cashless dollars
(while they filter, oh say .30 of each, for the privilege).
At least, perhaps, until we finally get our sh*t together and
genuinely revolt. How long will that take?
The farce willl go on. After all, while the actual popular
sovereignty expressed in voting might be minimal, and the
information environment itself largely a corporate
construction, its gives a concrete, personal, representation
of popular sovereignty, and in so doing – and whatever the
despondency of its voters and the emptiness of their choice –
legitimates or "mandates" whatever it is the government does,
and however corporate friendly it might be. And it may be –
with its Private Public Partnerships, and revolving door from
the corporate to public office (and back) – very corporate
friendly indeed.
If this is the case, then the "China Model" is not, as
some think, the ideal neoliberal political model. Explicitly
authoritarian rule is, from the start, problematic in terms
of popular sovereignty. If a corporate-friendly authoritarian
regime is to avoid this, it has but one option. It must
deliver economic growth that is both noticeable and
widespread, and so do what neoliberal theory claims, but
neoliberal practice isn't much, if at all, interested in
providing.
We may well be in the midst of making a choice here
At least the China model provided growth unreal living
standards from the desperate poverty that most Chinese
were living in a generation ago.
It is certainly not without flaws. Corruption,
inequality, and pollution are big problems.
That said,the US is following the corruption and
inequality pretty well. With the Republicans and other
corporations in control, they will surely make sure that
pollution follows.
Actually it will be worse. The Chinese model ensured
that China built up a manufacturing sector. It followed
the economic growth trajectory of Japan after WW2 and
later South Korea. The neoliberals won't do that.
By "revolt" what do you actually mean? Armed overthrow of
the existing power structure? Or political revolt, forming a
new party? Breaking the US up into smaller countries?
I'm having hard time imagining a radical restructuring of
power in the US. Nor does it strikes me as particularly
desirable, as my observation is that the new power structure
is often just as bad as the existing one. But now has to deal
with governing a fractured society.
Whatever would be required to create necessary change.
A series of actions emerging from a plan,
ever-intensifying until the system-as-it-is has no more
power.
Do you think hundreds of millions of people should
continue to let themselves be trashed? That sort of thing
never lets up but only increases over time.
This situation is not unlike spousal abuse. The most
dangerous time for the abused is when the she/he decides
to leave. And the after-effects usually land her/him in
poverty but also peace and self-respect.
Yep, in a duopoly it is necessary to own and control both
halves–even a perpetually losing one. That is cheap insurance against
nasty surprises. American political parties and politicians are cheap
as hell to buy in any event. Gazillionaire couch change can control
entire parties.
Oh, c'mon. The money spent to provide an illusion of democracy is
chump change compared to the billions they are reaping from having
bought the government. The plutocrats are not trying to effect change
really, they like it pretty much as it is now. The purpose of the two
parties is to distract us from what is really going on. The only
plutocratic interest in what they do is fueled by perverse curiosity
of what their new toy can do.
Anon, I hope you are right. Somewhat lost in the news was the vote NOT
to ban corporate donations to the DNC. To me, that is at least as telling
as Ellison's loss. The Clintons may be gone, but their stench remains.
I think we need to accept the strong likelihood that there will be a
corporatist-dominated Constitutional Convention by 2025. First on the
agenda: a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced federal budget.
The globalist elites will slam on that lever to destroy what remains of the
economic safety net. "Balanced budgets" are very popular with the deceived
public but such an amendment will end general prosperity in this nation
forever. Imagine what else they'll outlaw and ban and 1860 doesn't feel so
far away.
What surprises me is that Establishment Ds make no effort to defend
themselves from attacks from the Left. It's like they don't care: no
leftward movement on policy. They just call Bernie and the Brodudes
names. What Sanders did to Hillary is a proof of concept. The most
powerful Establishment D is mortally wounded by an attack from a no name
senator from Vermont. This can be used against any Establishment D. The
Brodudes initially may not have wanted to burn it down, but they now know
they can. So what are the Establishment Ds doing to defend themselves?
Closer and closer it comes as the Democrats have let state after state
come under one-party Republican rule while unjustifiably preening
themselves for their "moral rectitude" (while yet continuing to assist in
looting the joint for a small percentage of the take ). That party has
come to play their part in cementing the injustices and inequalities into
place. Witness Obama, not only sitting on his hands when action against
palpable injustice was needed, but actively collaborating in rigidifying
the rotten structure. The quintessential globalist, authoritarian,
war-loving Democrat, the only kind permissable,
vide
Perez.
There's a good chance that Trump will end up being a 2 term president
and that 2018 will be a disaster for the Democratic Party on the scale of
2010, 2014, and 1994. Meanwhile, they will surely blame the voters and
especially the left, which is what they always do when they don't win.
If Trump doesn't deliver the manufacturing jobs to the "undesirables"
like he promised, if he dismantles ACA and leaves poor and working class
"undesirables" to the wolf of some sort of privatization scheme health care
w/ vouchers or tax breaks, if backtracking on financial sector reform leads
to another economic meltdown, and if he and Bannon get another war, which
metastasizes into asymmetrical warfare all over Western Europe and the US,
then Trump's ability to get reelected is in serious jeopardy to say the
least, no matter how lame the democratic challenger is. Bush's meltdown gave
us a Black President for christs sake.
On the other hand, the down ticket races could continue to be the usual
disaster for the dems unless they do a major reshift in their campaign
strategies outside the blue states that includes strong populist economic
messaging and pushing a strong safety net w/ a public option for health care
(assuming the GOP wipes out ACA.)
There are a lot of "ifs" there that are looking like "wills" at the
moment. He is playing true to type and delegating policy to whomsoever
flatters him best whilst jetting off to Mar-a-Lago for a game of golf
with his business buddies. With the exception of killing TPP (maybe?) and
no immediate European conflicts with Russia, this is what I would have
expected from him and, more importantly, Pence. The true believers seem
to be getting their way, thus far.
That said, I wouldn't discount the power of his ability to deflect
blame for the consequences of his actions. For the most part, those who
voted for him truly believe that everything is someone else's fault, and
I don't see that changing any time soon.
This is true, but don't you think the standards are different?
At the moment nothing is either Parties fault, according to their
leadership, but the reactions of both Party's base has been far
different to date. Dems have been comparatively unsuccessful
blaming Muslims, leftists and Russians for their problems whereas
that is, and always has been, red meat for Republicans. Any stick
to beat someone with just doesn't work as well for the Democratic
Party. Claire McCaskill calls Bernie a communist and is vilified
for it at the time, so now she is whining because her seat is at
risk in '18? What did she expect when she knew, at the time, that
she was alienating half the Party by so doing?
Dems are losing because they have the misfortune of not having
more Republicans in their electoral base, however hard they have
tried to include them in their "Big Tent" leadership. Republicans
actively fear their base, and would never make such an egregious
political mistake.
I thought all of the candidates for the DNC Chair were really
bad. Even the ever so popular Keith Ellison. This guy once
advocated for an entire separate country to be formed comprising
of only African Americans. Just curious, how "tolerant" and
"inclusive" would the immigration policy be for that country if
it were ever created? What would the trade policies be in that
country? Would they let a white owned business like Wal-Mart
move into a black neighborhood and put the local black owned
businesses out of business? Keith Ellison is nothing more than a
hypocrite every time he criticizes Donald Trump's policies and
advocates for his impeachment.
The entire Democratic party is falling apart. They are trying
to get elected because of their race, sex, and/or religion.
Instead of trying to get elected based on the content of their
character and their message. I truly believe the main reason
Keith Ellison was even considered for the DNC Chair is because
he is black and a Muslim.
The party rigged the primary against Bernie because they felt
it was time that a woman became president instead of a man. Some
democrats even called Bernie a white supremacist.
"@realDonaldTrump: The race for DNC Chairman was, of
course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie
himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!" –
Twitter
LMFAO
How about that new Clinton video, sure looks like she
is going to run again in 2020 – please, Hilary, you go,
girl!
The corporatist "third way" democrats are hoping for Trump to implode
so that they can get back into the White House. They really don't think
that they need progressives since it is undoubted in their opinion that
Trump will certainly be fail on his promises and be unelectable in 2020
and they will be back in power. And they may be right but the dems still
will have lost most of the states and many localities. It will be more of
the Obama/Clinton wing at the top with all the "professional" hangers on
facing down a Republican congress until the system collapses.
That's clearly what the Perez/Nate Coln Dems are banking on.
Metro-suburban class alliance of multicultural service workers and their
secular Republican employers nonplussed by Bush-style Trump clusterfark.
Heard no "strong populist message" out of Perez's mouth in the DNC
debates. Anything the Dems do there will be to elect more Blue Dogs to
strengthen the conservative wing of the party and push the Sanders people
back to the margins. That's all they care about right now.
But it's a completely passive strategy that is at the mercy of the
Republicans. For "what if" President Bannon lays off the coke and, like
Obama, doesn't do stupid?
The only real hazard the Trumpistas face is the timing of the next
recession. And that will depend on part on the Fed. The rest is: don't
start a war, just leave ACA sit there.
The Fed, the Fed, it all comes down to the Fed in the next 4 years.
Has Bannon studied up on Jackson's Bank War?
I was just at a "Community Meeting" with Rep. Peter DeFazio – one of
the more progressive Dems. Huge turnout, again. Questions were more
challenging than the ones to Wyden. Amazingly old audience – where are
all the Bernie millennials?
Toward the end, I asked him (1) what he thought had happened to the
Democrats over the last 8 disastrous years; and (2) whether he saw motion
to fix the problem.
He responded with a passionate statement of progressive ideas, so I
guess that answers #1; but he didn't answer Pt. 2 at all, really, which
is a negative answer. He had actually been pretty critical of the party
in earlier answers, and we had just learned that Perez would be chairing
the DNC.
I was wearing a Green Party T-shirt, which I'm sure he recognizes.
Oddly, both the first and last questions were from local Greens: the
first, from the former city councillor who runs against him on a regular
basis; and the last from my wife, about the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions
movement. Time was limited, and we lined up for the microphones.
The wars won't matter to people as long as the propaganda is good
enough (perhaps a helpful false flag incident as well) and as long as
there is no draft. It's all about whipping up the patriotism we'll see
if that still works.
The Democratic Party has always about "left containment." Their entire
existence isn't about winning at all. It's about allowing establishment
rule, which is why even when Democrats are elected the forward march into
corporate rule continues unabated.
Neither party is worth a bucket of warm spit – and both parties pay no
attention what so ever to the vast majority their members, or the vast
majority of the citizens. And neither party can be reformed. IMHO, the only
question is if any new party constituted would be infiltrated and undermined
from within before it could do anything.
This seems very much like a kneejerk reaction. Your assuming the economy
doesn't go into recession by then which increasingly seems less and less
likely as well as the GOP Congressional leadership or Trump showing much
skill in executing their legislative agenda. A lot easier being the guy who
chants out about how the guy in charge sucks and another entirely when they
suddenly become the person in charge.
Unless Trump starts to deliver on jobs and meaningful wage growth, there
will be inevitable backlash in 2018 at him and the GOP. It is going to be
increasing when the rank and file American realizes that the GOP House tax
plan goes for essentially a 20% VAT to be implemented on imported goods
while they get a whopping income tax cut of 1-2%. Average American is a rube
but eventually this will start to sink in as to just how short changed
they'll be if it largely passes wholesale.
What if they do tax cuts for the rich without Social Security /
Medicare cuts? What if they don't do much about Obamacare and don't lose
votes that way either? And if the recovery continues, the labour market
will tighten.
Yes, and what if they *do* continue to put on a big show against
"illegals" and allegedly unfriendly Muslim immigrants? And tinker just
enough with NAFTA to claim a symbolic "win" against Mexico? This could
be potent stuff.
If the Democrats haven't managed to come up with a candidate people
can really get behind, it will be even easier for incumbency to pull
Trump over the finish line again. Many Republicans who wouldn't vote
for Trump this time "because Hitler" will have observed by then that
the country survived Term I, and they'll get back in line, because
Republicans always come home. The Democrats seem to think that since
the election was close, all they need to do is run Obama V2 (Booker),
thereby re-juicing the lagged African American turnout and putting a D
back in the Oval Office. I think that ship has sailed now. If Trump
truly bombs, then sure anyone will beat him. But as of now I'm not
confident that he will simply fail and the numbers may only be more
difficult for the Ds in 2020.
I seriously doubt Trump will be a one term president. DNC elections
notwithstanding. If there's no "there" there in the, according to Trump,
utterly nonexistent Russia scandal, why hide from the press? Take the
questions. Call for an investigation himself. Nothing to hide? Quit hiding.
Given very recent history, this is no surprise. Unfortunate, and I expect to
see "resistance" activities nudged even more toward the same weary mainstream
DNC tropes.
This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party. It's
time to board the ship and start a mutiny. And if that doesn't work, sink the
ship and build a new one.
"This is just another big fuck you to the progressive wing of the party."
The message is undeniable: You're not welcome here. Thank you for your
votes, thank you for your money, shut up, no you do not get to pick the
candidate, Debbie and Donna did nothing wrong, no we are not getting rid of
superdelegates, no we are not refusing corporate money, no you cannot have
even a Clinton-endorsing kinda-progressive as Chair, no to free college,
'never ever' to universal health care, 'we're capitalists here', and Haim
Saban's opinion matters more than millions of BernieCrats because money.
In March 2008, Saban was among a group of major Jewish donors to
sign a letter to Democratic Party house leader Nancy Pelosi warning
her to "keep out of the Democratic presidential primaries."The donors,
who "were strong supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
presidential campaign", "were incensed by a March 16 interview in
which Pelosi said that party 'superdelegates' should heed the will of
the majority in selecting a candidate."The letter to Pelosi stated the
donors "have been strong supporters of the DCCC" and implied,
according to The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Pelosi could lose
their financial support in important upcoming congressional elections.
Poor ol' Haim must be soooo pissed that Clinton lost again. Hahaha.
I wasn't planning on commenting for a while but ended up leaving a
comment here a few minutes ago and it disappeared into the ether.
Probably something to do with the one of the links I included. No big
deal.
I stopped being a Democrat a few years ago. And I have not donated for some
time. Yet I still receive constant requests for money to keep the consultants
in airline miles. Every so often I think that perhaps it might be time to "come
home" or at least that they aren't so bad anymore.
Then they go and do this.
At this point I see no reason to keep the ossified corpse of the
Clinton Machine
Democratic party going. It is clear that the last
thing they want to do is listen to actual voters to decide their direction. All
they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that everyone will
love them again.
But then that was Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy
If your state requires you to register as a Democrat in order to vote in
the Democratic primary, I recommend doing so. Then you can vote for
outsiders in the 2018 and 2020 primaries. If your state has an open primary
system, you don't have to taint yourself with official membership - just
request the appropriate primary ballot and vote.
This is my dilemma. In CT, you have to be R or D to vote in primary. I
left the D's after the CA primary b/c I was so disgusted. I'll see what
candidates are looking like when the time comes and make my decision
then.
I deregistered as a Democrat in CA today after 17 years (though I
was already pretty much out over the past few years, I let this be the
final straw opposite inertia). The CA "top two" system for general
elections only puts the top two vote-getters from any party during the
primary on the ballot, ostensibly switching the election to one
largely determined during the primary, by primary voters.
The California Democratic party allows those voters registered as
not specifying a political preference to vote in the Democratic
primary, so I might still end up voting among the various options,
especially if someone like Brand New Congress puts up a real candidate
here or there. During the 2016 primary, the D-party anti-Sanders
shenanigans were evident even in CA. In some areas, unaffiliated
voters who wanted a D-party ballot were misled or required to very
strictly repeat a specific phrase, or they were given ballots with no
effect on the D-party primary. I expect to have to be very careful to
request and obtain the correct ballot in advance. (Let's hope that the
slow takeover at lower levels within the state makes this less
necessary).
It's going to be a long, hard slog on the left, whether
occasionally peeking inside the tent or building something cohesive,
not co-opted and effective outside the tent (where it seems the
D-party has necessarily pushed many).
But whatever you do, make sure you know your state's election law in
advance, especially deadlines for registration changes, which may be
earlier than you expect.
"All they have is the faint hope that Trump will be so godawful that
everyone will love them again."
Well, that and Nancy "we know how to win elections" Pelosi promising the
Earth for votes to regain their majorities,
again,
only to then
take all of that off of the table and start the cycle over again.
I really don't know how many times one can go to that well; we have seen
this play before. Seems like an awful lot of people have caught on to the
tactic at this point. Were that not the case, HIllary would probably be
happily bombing Russia by now.
The Dems are set up pretty well for 2018. Both Trump and Hillary are
deeply unpopular and Hillary won't be a vote driver for the GOP in 2018
and Trump will be for the Dems. There are a bunch of important States
with Gov races and whatever happens the next 20 months Trump and the GOP
will own completely, they wont even have a recalcitrant legislative
branch to point the finger at.
I always figured whoever won in 2016 was set up to be a one term POTUS.
Best case scenario for Trump is that we tread water for the next 2-4
years and I don't think that will be enough get him a 2nd term although
it might be enough to staunch GOP losses in 2020. If he gets gets into a
messy hot war, fumbles a major natural disaster or sees an economic
downturn in 4 years we'll be talking about the impending death of GOP.
Those scenarios sound a little rosy considering the types of people
we are talking about. They can take a lot of pain as long as someone
else is feeling it more .and there is always someone else. If they
cannot find a demographic to blame they will invent one; see the
historic hatred for ObamaCare and the raucous town halls now defending
the ACA; they don't have to make sense.
Also, too, Dems are defending more incumbencies in '18 than are the
Reps., and the Republican Party has the machinery already in place to
reduce the voting public down to just those that are more likely to
vote for them. Just create a riot at a voting precinct, for example,
jail whomsoever you want and take their stuff as is now foreshadowed
in Arizona. They would love that stuff; "Beat those hippies!" And,
after the Democratic Primaries, the Democratic Party will be in no
position to take the high ground.
No, even if all that happens, I think the predicting the death of
the GOP is way premature.
His fans will vote for him, a lot of the the people who voted
for him as the lesser of two evils will be demotivated to vote or
will vote Dem as a check on him and this who voted for HRC as the
lesser of two evils will be motivated. At best his popularity right
now is about where GWB's was after he tried to privatize SS and
just before Katrina and the public's view on Iraq flipped for good.
I think 2018 will look a lot like 2006. Hate and spite will be on
the Dems side in 2018 and those are great motivators.
Trump may have deep support, but it isn't very broad. He didn't win
an 84 or even an 08 sized victory.
There is a reason the party in power does poorly in off year
elections and Trump is the least popular newly elected POTUS in
modern history.
It would be helpful to know, also, how many who normally vote
Republican abstained or went 3rd party rather than vote for
Trump. Maybe it wasn't that many (since Trump did get more votes
than Romney after all), but many of these people will be voting
for Trump in 2020 unless he completely tanks. It's never a good
idea to underestimate the party loyalty of GOP voters. Beating
Democrats is the Prime Directive.
I think the problem is that Republicans are much better at actually
winning elections. How many seats can the Democrats actually regain?
Keeping in mind that midterm voters skew older/Republican in any case.
"We lost this election eight years ago," concludes Michael Slaby, the
campaign's chief technology officer. "Our party became a national movement
focused on general elections, and we lost touch with nonurban, noncoastal
communities. There is a straight line between our failure to address the
culture and systemic failures of Washington and this election result."
The question of why-why the president and his team failed to activate
the most powerful political weapon in their arsenal.
Obama's army was eager to be put to work. Of the 550,000 people who
responded to the survey, 86 percent said they wanted to help Obama pass
legislation through grassroots support; 68 percent wanted to help elect state
and local candidates who shared his vision. Most impressive of all, more than
50,000 said they personally wanted to run for elected office.
But they never got that chance. In late December, Plouffe and a small
group of senior staffers finally made the call, which was endorsed by Obama.
The entire campaign machine, renamed Organizing for America, would be folded
into the DNC, where it would operate as a fully controlled subsidiary of the
Democratic Party.
Instead of calling on supporters to launch a voter registration drive or
build a network of small donors or back state and local candidates, OFA
deployed the campaign's vast email list to hawk coffee mugs and generate
thank-you notes to Democratic members of Congress who backed Obama's
initiatives.
Republicans, on the other hand, wasted no time in building a grassroots
machine of their own-one that proved capable of blocking Obama at almost every
turn. Within weeks of his inauguration, conservative activists began calling
for local "tea parties" to oppose the president's plan to help foreclosed
homeowners.
https://newrepublic.com/article/140245/obamas-lost-army-inside-fall-grassroots-machine
Thomas Frank: "The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic
complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that
tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing
really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people
at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and
no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these
Democrats are the "last thing standing" between us and the end of the world. It
is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has
failed on its own terms of electability."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals
And so it goes, unless. The ruling class, the professional class D&R, the
upper 10%, those who make more than $150 thousand, win no matter who sits in
the Oval Office or controls all 3 branches, both look down on their respective
bases, the deplorables. Taking a page from the TParty to fight harder, tougher,
longer, louder and make Perez move left.
"The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no
role to play "
And so far, they're right. At least, very few are going there. A lot are
staying home, but that doesn't accomplish much.
Take heart. One of my friends is a long-time progressive Democrat. She ran
as a Clean Elections candidate and was elected to the Arizona legislature last
November. She has never held office before.
Agree, Big River Bandido. She should share with progressive
Democratic primary challengers to those sorry Democrats only. Not that
anyone at the DNC would ever listen anyway.
Kudos to your friend! I think progressives fighting for places in the
state legislatures has to be our first step, especially with the
census/redistricting looming
Where do you live? 2/3'rds of the states have Republican governors and
66-70 percent Republican state legislatures. They have already been
gerrymandered and are very likely to remain this way for AT LEAST a
generation.
I live in Ohio. Democrat state legislators can do absolutely nothing.
Not that this particularly bothers them. They collect their $60,000
salaries - not bad for a VERY part-time position– regardless.
I'm guessing that you failed to mention - in addition to salary -
per diem, plus payments into the state retirement system? I'm guessing
that $60,000 is only the top part of the iceberg; best to look under
the waterline to get the whole picture?
They had Howard Dean, and a script for 50 state success and tossed it.
Yeah, I guess they at least should hold Perez's feet to the fire to make
him go lefty populist on the ground, if he doesn't, toss him and fight
them.
Brand New Congress just got out their fundraising email in response to the
election:
The DNC just elected a chair who is pro-TPP, against single-payer,
against tuition-free state universities and has no desire to transform our
economy in meaningful ways. A chair who thinks the status quo is ok. It's a
clear indicator that they're confident in their agenda, a confidence
exemplified in the words of Nancy Pelosi who believes that Democrats "don't
want a new direction".
Elect a Brand New Congress that works for all Americans.
We're running 400+ candidates in a single campaign to rebuild our
country.
Add Your Name
Join us if you believe it's time to reset our democracy.
Email
Please enter a valid email.
Zip
Please enter a valid zip code.
80% of Americans agree: Congress is broken. Both major parties have
proven time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to
deliver results for the American people. But we have an alternative. We are
recruiting and running more than 400 outstanding candidates in a single,
unified, national campaign for Congress in 2018. Together, they will pass an
aggressive and practical plan to significantly increase wages, remove the
influence of big money from our government, and protect the rights of all
Americans. Let's elect a Brand New Congress that will get the job done.
This list of sponsors DOESN'T:
Washington Post
Wall Street Journal
Wired
The Huffington Post
The Daily Beast
Slate
The Nation
The Frisky
Salon
Bustle
Boing Boing
Roll Call
Well I for one am relieved he's the new chair. I won't have to think there
might be hope and change in the corp. owned demodog party. I'll celebrate with
a glass of whine later.
Arizona Slim, Thanks for the good news in AZ. It was tried in my part of
Calli but dnc did everything they good to elect repug instead of a real
progressive.
In order for real representative government to appear on the American scene,
two things have to happen:
1. Corporations have to be declared non-persons.
2. Money is declared not equal to speech.
Why do we have the situation we have now?
Two decisions by the Supreme Court. Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific RR and
Buckley vs. Valeo. So, who is the real power in our Government? The Judicial.
Thank you so much for this post!! I saw a video on the 1886 case in high
school and was disgusted. In passing time I forgot the specifics and have
been trying to locate that decision since. I kept thinking it was in the
1920s/30s
I'd add No. 3: Ranked preference voting. (Majority wins or run-offs do
not cut it.)
In this case, if choosing among 4 candidates, and I rank all 4 of them, my
first choice gets 4 points, my second choice gets 3 points, etc. If I only
rank 2 of them, my first choice gets 2 points, my second choice gets 1
point. If I only rank 1 person, they get 1 point.
Try this out on anything where you've got 3 or more options, in a group
of any size. It's amazing how much better the group consensus will be
reflected in the results.
You can vote your genuine preference without concern for "spoilers" or
dividing the opposition.
Seriously though, I kind of like this little game we play here, where we
act surprised or shocked or something at the Democratic Party's complete
lack of integrity. Like there was ever any question that 'they' might do the
right thing. I honestly don't know about you guys, but I decided a
long
time ago that the Democrats and Republicans were just two tentacles of the
same vampire squid or whatever, so.. why the outrage and/or disdain? cause
it's diverting I suppose.
The Democratic Party will never let the Republican Party go down. Haven't
we figured that out yet?
The only way to get rid of the Republican Party is to get rid of the
Democratic Party.
"He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual," pronounced Saban
about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: "Keith Ellison would be
a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic
Party."
"I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel," he told the New York Times
in 2004 about himself
he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and
said: "On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk."
We're not welcome anywhere it seems – and that has to be flippin'
ridiculous in a country of this size and diversity! Could there be a better
time for the Democratic Socialists to expand and come forth ? Cornel West at
the helm, to begin – perhaps persuading Bernie to join him.
From what I see already around the interwebs and comment sections, it
will be blamed on the lefty radicals who are fracturing the party by
resisting the borg. And Sanders. And Cornel West. Etc Etc
You know – it almost doesn't even matter. The Dems will get corporation
donations just in "case" they win. They really aren't terribly motivated.
It's like being a salesperson with no sales goals.
On another note – The Turks guy (Cent? can't remember his name) said that
it was time for a third party on his twitter account. Nina Turner "liked"
it. I found that a little hopeful.
The Democrats obviously can't wait for that constitutional convention by the
sadist wing of the Republican Party. The sooner it can no longer have any
loopholes that cause any interpretation outside of corporations rule, the
easier it will be for Democrats. No more worrying about doing good things for
those pesky people.
The United States already has third parties. There is no real need to start
another one. The Libertarian party is the radical antiauthoritarian center. The
Green Party ought to be adequate for progressive Democrats. There is also a
far-right christian theocrat Constitution Party.
I've voted forJill twice now (and contributed moderately). She seems
intelligent, well-spoken, progressive, passionate, everything we would
want a candidate to be and nothing. If there was EVER a year to have
broken through 5% sigh. So what's the problem?
The problem is that there's widespread election fraud. You could
see it in the Wisconsin and Michigan GE recounts and the Illinois
Democratic Party Recount. The reality is that we don't have any
trustworthy vote totals. Maybe Jill did a lot better (or maybe she
didn't), maybe Hillary actually beat Donald (or maybe she didn't),
maybe Bernie won the primary (okay, that one really isn't a maybe to
me since it's very clear that Hillary used tricks to move IA and NV
into her corner- which would have been fatal if she didn't, the CA,
NY, AZ, PR, and RI primary debacles, DNC collusion etc).
Here are two videos that really helped me understand that this
fraud is likely widespread:
Long video on the Illinois recount:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&sns=em
–>The "good" part starts at minute 24. The underlying point becomes
clear really quickly if you want to just watch a small portion, but
the speaker who comes on around the hour mark is excellent.
Election Justice USA also had a great summary. There's a reason
many places in Europe still do manual, verifiable counting. Voting
security, even more than money in politics, is the biggest barrier to
having a legitimate Democracy. Unfortunately, that may be even more
difficult than money in politics, which at least could theoretically
be altered by Congress to cover the whole country at once.
What Carla said about the greens. Also, the Libertarians are basically
into neoliberalism. Theyre ok on social issues, but they aren't a real
answer either.
My hope is that the #Notmypresident millennials take the next steps from
Trump needs to be resisted and work for longer term gains and political
power by getting active in local politics/down ticket races and local
democratic party organizations to in effect bum rush the dems and make it
the party that it wants the country to be.
Love doesn't conquer all, Corporate lobbyists do. Organize for power, win
elections, work for change.
I think most people here are seeing what happened, but wrong about the
impact.
Head of DNC is not a good place to organize primary challenges, and that is
what is needed. DNC head is mostly just bag man for corporate money. Not that
much power but some visibility. Bernie guy gets in, and there are constant
questions about loyalty to the party and big tent and being fair to blue dogs.
And then questions of competence if not enough money is raised or not enough
elections won. No winning likely.
Losing suits us better. Establishment is against Progressives. Fine. The war
is on. Find primary challengers, and get them elected.
In my view, that has always been the only way forward.
Find primary challengers, even if they have no chance of winning. Even in
districts stacked against them turn money in politics into the wealthy's
biggest weakness. Make the ROI in elections too expensive to achieve.
I agree with you that losing this worthless race serves our long-term
interests better. This is war and clarity is always an advantage. Easier to
fight them from a clear outside position.
However, we have not the resources or the power base (within the Democrat
Party) to mount effective primary challenges. If that party is to be a
vehicle for change, we will have to take it away from them starting at the
lowest levels - local party offices - and gradually work our way up.
As we move up the chain, we purge all the deadwood.
At this point, perhaps progressives would have more luck joining the
Republican Party in hopes of "reform" or "changing the platform". They would
probably have more luck than with the Democrats. As for 2018 and 2020, the
congressional Republicans will have no incentive to defend congress or the
Presidency. They would rather have Democrats to blame things for than have to
deal with President Trump (whom they detest).
Einstein's definition of #Insanity immediately comes to mind.
We'll see what #BernieCrats, #DSA and others can do at the grassroots level.
Their (continued) #Resistance to the #corporatistDem structure is even more
important now.
That's just what Rep. DeFazio just said – even though he himself wins
by ridiculous margins in a "swing" district (the closest win for Hillary
inthe country, he said) by being a progressive's progressive.
I was a card-carrying member of DSA when it was DSOC! Long time ago. Time
to start paying dues again, even from the political wilderness in which I
find myself. Way past time, actually. The problem with waiting for the
Democrat Party to hit bottom is this: There is no bottom to this abyss.
As someone doing DSA organizing I'll say that we will be thrilled to
have you on board again. Interest is quite high among the Bernie youth,
so the seats are full but experience, generational diversity, and gas
money are in relatively short supply!
Perhaps from lack of organization on their part? After the election
my husband registered to join the DSA, and sent them money. Three
months later, no acknowledgement of any kind, not even a dumb
membership card. Not that the Democrats ever sent anything but
requests for cash, but we expected better.
It's OK. They let Ellison be play chairman. The Identities are pleased.
BTW: Perez was born in Buffalo, NY, and Wikipedia lists his nationality
as American. The WaPo headline is bullcrap, intended to distract readers
from the real issues, and promote the Clinton wing to Latin Americans, an
identity group that certainly would benefit more from the Sanders wing.
Bush's meltdown did give us a Black President - but after 8 years, not 4
years. During the election I too thought whichever candidate won was poised to
be a one-term President, but there's a big condition: there absolutely
must
be a compelling competing narrative, and a defined counter-platform. It doesn't
matter what calamity results from a Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal
government if they still dominate the narrative and the opposition is still
just "resisting" (or has an incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to
think the Rs will own bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do
(if that were so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
I'll hand it to the dems, I thought they'd string things out. I didn't think
they'd let it be this obvious, this quickly, that the counter force won't come
from the democrat party. None of us thought it would, but maybe we thought
they'd at least throw some dust in the air to try keep us guessing for a while.
The challenge for the Left remains organization and focus. The clarity
delivered by the democrat party is helpful. No need to debate reform, that's
been answered (at least for now). The democrat establishment has nothing to do
with the Left. It is not the opposition per say but might as well be (think of
it this way: an opponent would refute your work, try to tank or sabotage it;
the democrats invite you over to steal it, mess it up, fail, blame you, and
invite you over again, huffing that their own work is "essentially the same
anyway" but insisting that they be in charge).
It's time to own the Realignment. One part of that is making a clear break
from the democratic establishment in terms of agenda, priorities, solidarity,
identity. Not just a quibble among the like-minded; a divorce. We are only
serving its interests if we don't. Case in point, the linked article echoes the
common refrain that between Perez and Ellison "ideological differences are
few ". No, no, a thousand effing times no. That is wrong, and attempts to fit
in or make common cause with the dem establishment only validate the
self-serving Unity/Look Forward narrative whose purpose is obscure what's
really at issue and at stake.
And the corollary to cutting losses on the dem establishment is the second
part - building the realignment, which means finding and creating common cause
where it's been latent or non-existent. A compelling, competing narrative must
be a counterweight not just to Trump's blame-deflections, but to the drivel
spewing (at least as subtext) from the establishments of both parties. The key
is not to try make the Rs own the outcomes on their watch; it's to make the
Establishment own them, and to make Trump own that he
is
the
Establishment (or that he caters to it).
Everything else is secondary. Elections up and down the ballot (local, state
and federal) may force decisions on voting for a party, but which party
prevails is not important - it is incidental, relevant only if it serves the
cause, not vice versa. The Left needs to be clear on the realignment, stop
talking to and about parties, and take up common cause and concern where we can
find it. I have a feeling that the Left is less defined and determined than we
imagine, because we aren't really testing it yet. Illusions about the
democratic party are gone. And that's a good thing.
It doesn't matter what calamity results from a
Trump-led-monopoly-republican federal government if they still dominate
the narrative and the opposition is still just "resisting" (or has an
incoherent laundry list). It's overly-optimistic to think the Rs will own
bad outcomes, or that those in power ever necessarily do (if that were
so, neither Bush nor Obama would have been re-elected).
If Trump owns a narrative on a brick and mortar foundation of higher
unemployment in the battleground states, devastation of lives from another
financial meltdown (Bush had already stolen the second term prior to it),
devastation and death from a potential free market solution to health
care–"here's a voucher, go chose the best deal cause it's all about giving
you your freedom", and war that may end up being brought to the shores of
Western Europe and the United States killing a whole bunch more than 9/11,
it would be pretty difficult to come back and sell the medicine show elixir
a second time. Promising a whole lot and delivering less than zero, I don't
know if the "deplorables" will get fooled again by his fake populism when he
comes back for their votes in four years when they're still unemployed,
underemployed and in greater debt and or bankruptcy from increased medical
care costs. I'm not saying this as a affirmation of neoliberal democratic
people running for the presidency, but that a whole lot of nothing incumbent
running on a world of shit that he's created is vulnerable to a candidate
who may be a whole lot of nothing with less baggage.
And Trump would potentially be running on a bigger pile of poop that he's
added to the domestic and foreign fronts of Obama and Bush. O and B brought
us to the precipice of the cliff, but Trump incompetence GOP ideologue
arrogance can drive us off the cliff.
We may be pointing at different parts of a continuum - how bad things
are in four years relative to Trump promises, and why people believe
things are so bad. We are likely closest on how bad things could be - I
agree, the stuff Trump ran and won on is likely to be much, much worse -
but I think I'm less inclined to see that as handing him electoral defeat
in 2020. Of course it's always easier/better to be able to run on
something delivered. And less-than-zero can and by logic
should
tank a President. But the
why
is important - especially when the
electorate basically doesn't trust any of these clowns. No one really
expects anything from Washington, and is used to things getting worse. If
Trump can deflect and maintain his message - cast blame on various faces
of the establishment, the democrats, media, eventually even the
republicans - I don't think he's inevitably or even likely undone. I'm
not saying nothing will ever catch up with . just saying it's not
guaranteed. There are a lot of factors, but I think here's actually my
main thing: it depends less on "holding him to account" or pointing at
failures or making him own things, and more on advancing a coalition with
a compelling voice, coherent platform - and not about party. In the end,
pinning failures on Trump only succeeds if there's a concrete and
appealing answer to "compared to what." Trump just won against The
Establishment, and the classic establishment move is to point giddily at
failures and mis-steps, and say here's where you can donate, and thanks
for your vote. A successful opposition has to do better.
Is it too late to change my mind and support a Syrian no fly zone? I want
this country to fail. I want it to stop existing. I absolutely hate everything
about america. I want Both Clinton's and Obama's heads on a plate. If Bernie
doesn't announce he's creating a new party then I'll just be sitting around
thinking about the best way to undermine this shit hole of a country.
The Democratic Party no longer stands for anything at all (witness its
recent conversion to McCarthyism). Its actions are motivated by no purpose save
its leaders' self-enrichment.
A political party without a raison d'ˆtre is little more than a walking
corpse and there is nothing to be lost by leaving it.
Though sad about the outcome of the DNC chair race, I think PH is right, DNC
chair is probably just about raising the corporate $$. I'm sticking with the
Tip O'Neil strategy, "all politics is local."
I joined the D party in 2014, mostly because I thought I had to get involved
and help remove Scott W from the governor's mansion. What I saw was lethargic
and not very welcoming. Couldn't get anyone to train me on how to canvas. I
offered over and over to do data entry, web, social media.
In the summer of 2015, I got involved with a local issue and we WON. 8
people (no other Dems) and we stopped a bad deal the city was about to make. We
did petitions and spoke at council meetings. Wrote op eds, did radio
interviews, put up yard signs.
Through that I met an organizer from a progressive group and I told him that
I was thinking of running for local office. He introduced me to the bare facts
of how to run a campaign and put me in touch with another progressive group
that runs candidate training seminars. I went to one of those seminars. I was
listening to Bernie too:) His positive voice was a great inspiration. By the
end of 2015, I knew I would run for the county board. All our local races are
non-partisan and often uncontested. The incumbent would be running for her
third term.
The local election is held during the spring Presidential primary. I live in
Wisconsin. My area is completely red. The election I could best model from was
the 2012 and Rich Santoruim won my district. I had access to the VAN as well
and could see that Republicans dominated my district in this election. (It
voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012) I planned my campaign based completely on
meeting the voter at the door and listening. Turnout is usually pretty low,
30%. I figured 50 hrs at the doors would do it. Interestingly, almost every
person I talked with didn't even know who represented them on the county board.
It was surprisingly easy, the only stress was the heat of the Presidential
primary and how that would bring unpredictability to my race.
Happy news, I won. More Happy news, I got involved with recruiting and
helping people run for local office. We're at it right now. School board, city
council. This is where it begins and this is where the ball has been dropped in
Wisconsin. The Republican party has used the local offices very effectively to
build their bench. What the Dems didn't do was build the bench.
In Wisconsin, this is so easy because the vast majority of the local offices
are non-partisan. When someone asked me what party I was with, I would just
say, "this is a non-partisan race." That was the end of that part of the
conversation and we were on to something else. The other thing about the local
elections is that very few people actually run a campaign, so if you do, you
will win. Your name is the only name they will know.
I now have connected with other people in the state who are working on this
strategy. It is going to take a while, but we will build the bench and take
back the state. It isn't going to happen overnight.
I went to the first local Our Revolution meeting today. I was impressed. The
organizer had exactly the same thought – we are going to fill the county board
with progressives. Stuff is going to happen. We've got the people, that is what
we need locally, not $$.
If only the Democratic party could see, they need to train up and use their
people. Forget the big $$$.
This is an inspiring story. The "silver lining" in these times is that
people are taking their anger and disappointment and doing something about
it at an actionable, local level. I went to a local assemblyman's town hall
meeting yestesrday that had hundreds more attendees than were planned. The
natives are restless.
I, too, am in WI and running for city council. The only reason I'm
willing to do so is *because* the local offices are nonpartisan – I am quite
disillusioned with national politics and both parties. At least locally some
good can be done. DC is irredeemable.
I will likely be using the WI open primary to vote for whichever
candidate the DNC opposes, not that it will matter. If nothing else, I will
feel better.
Taking over the dem party, starting with local races, will be a very long
struggle. Generations. Particularly considering candidates trying for dem nom
will be attacked by corp dems tooth and nail.
The greens are very disorganized. So What? Take them over and organize them.
This is doable, and with somebody like Bernie leading the charge you could pull
in half the dem party plus indies and win elections in 2018 doesn't take that
much support to win elections in three way races, look at GB.
and then be viable for pres in 2018.
Bernie has to give up on dems if he wants to move the needle. Perez win
might just be that extra middle finger that gets him off the dime.
The forces of capital own both parties in a two party system. They will
never give up either of them. Socialists, Social Democrats, Democratic
Socialists, even progressive liberals and .must look elsewhere. Anything else
is fruitless.
St. Bernard had his chance. He blew it. Time to move on from him and MoveOn
and the like.
And so the DNC has learned nothing from the past election cycle and the
repudiation of neoliberalism here and abroad. Confirms my decision to leave the
party.
Observations from the western border of the Granite State:
I decided to attend a local democrat meeting because the candidate I
supported in the D primary for governor (Steve Marchand – he lost) was the
keynote speaker. When I received my copy of Indivisible, and saw that one of
the working groups for the night was focusing on "Fake News," I almost decided
to stay home.
But I didn't. Steve was great. He, counter to the message of "we must play
defense; we cannot offer positive alternatives," in Indivisible, repeatedly
told us that "we cannot beat something with nothing." He spoke extensively
about local organizing, and about appealing to all voters on the issues. He got
a very enthusiastic response from the 100 or so people who turned out for the
meeting. Our governor has a two year term, and while Steve said that he was not
running for anything at the moment, he's clearly laying the ground for a 2018
run. He's getting out in front of every local Dem group, and doing meet and
greets all over the state. Good for him.
We have a Berniecrat, Josh Adjutant, running for state party chair. He may
not win, but he too, is out meeting with groups all over the state and getting
his name out there. He narrowly lost a bid for state rep in a deeply republican
district to a Free Stater, who hasn't shown up for a single vote since being
elected. Last week the Free Stater resigned, and now there will be a special
election. Josh is running again. He's likely to win this time.
After hearing that Perez won the DNC chair, my knee jerk reaction was to say
the hell with it. However there are no viable third party options here, and the
people who voted for Perez all come from the state party.
What I noticed among our Dem group, was a real desire to work on issues and
develop a positive counter message.
So I'm going to get more involved and fight from within. I joined the "fake
news" group, pushed to focus on policy, and volunteered to chair the group
going forward.
Great report, Jen. That's encouraging. Thanks for what you are doing.
We can support good individual Democrats and office holders and good
primary candidates, but with absolutely illusions about sorry sorry party
and its resolute determination to continue hippie punching.
Makes me sick when they go on about Russians and conflict of interest and
ignore things that affect everyone's lives, and that's what they plan to do.
As I have been saying for years now, the
ONLY
purpose of the
Democratic Party today is to crush its own left wing. Denying this at this
point is a fool's errand.
Given this, how can any member of this same left ever justify another vote
for any candidate this Democratic Party sponsors? You do not overcome such
hostility by electing its representatives.
Does that mean you has to vote for people like Donald Trump? Unfortunately,
it does. If you don't, you are not playing at the same level they are, and they
will beat you until the cows come home. These are the people who do not cede
power. These are the people it must be taken from.
"What all people have to realize," said Stuart Appelbaum, a labor leader
from New York and Perez supporter who brought the chair process to its end
Saturday afternoon by calling for the results to be accepted by acclamation,
"is the real form of resistance is voting."
"... In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject 'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.) ..."
"... Listen, Liberals ..."
"... Strangers in Their Own Land ..."
"... I live in a district shaped like a banana ..."
"... "If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?" ..."
Do we need any further proof that the Democratic Party is more interested in
reconciling with the corporate elite than with its populist base? Its core
party leadership is against populist ideas. Liberalism of the rich having
failed the middle and working classes, fails on its own terms of electability.
It helped create today's shockingly disillusioned and sullen public.
Did the Charlie Brown left really believe that this time that Lucy wouldn't
pull the football away and they wouldn't land on their kiesters? But the
Democratic Party always pulls the ball away. It's their nature.
"The crucial tasks for a committed left in the United States now are to
admit that no politically effective force exists and to begin trying to create
one. This is a long-term effort, and one that requires grounding in a vibrant
labor movement. Labor may be weak or in decline, but that means aiding in its
rebuilding is the most serious task for the American left. Pretending some
other option exists is worse than useless. There are no magical interventions,
shortcuts, or technical fixes. We need to reject the fantasy that some spark
will ignite the People to move as a mass. We must create a constituency for a
left program - and that cannot occur via MSNBC or blog posts or the New York
Times. It requires painstaking organization and building relationships with
people outside the Beltway and comfortable leftist groves. Finally, admitting
our absolute impotence can be politically liberating; acknowledging that as a
left we have no influence on who gets nominated or elected, or what they do in
office, should reduce the frenzied self-delusion that rivets attention to the
quadrennial, biennial, and now seemingly permanent horse races. It is long past
time for us to begin again to approach leftist critique and strategy by
determining what our social and governmental priorities should be and focusing
our attention on building the kind of popular movement capable of realizing
that vision." – Adolph Reed Jr., "Nothing Left, The long, slow surrender of
American liberals," Harper's Magazine, March 2014 issue
Don't waste any time pissing and moaning - organize!
It is time to revisit "Fighting Bob" LaFollette's Wisconsin tactics of the
early 1900s.
If the soul of the nation is to be saved, I believe that we must become its
soul.
"There never was a higher call to greater service than in this protracted
fight for social justice." – Robert M. La Follette Sr.
There is a liberal propaganda state of the 10%. It is dogmatic and thus
unfalsifiable.
Arguing with them is like arguing atheism to a fundamentalist. They cannot
hear arguments that violate the structure of their religion. They simply do not
parse.
I must say I really appreciated your analogy of neoliberalism and
religion.
To extend it, if I may, religions cannot exist and persist without faith
ie a conviction without the need for proof, or worse sometimes despite
overwhelming personal or widespread evidence to the contrary.
Most established religions, unsurprisingly are rigidly hierarchical,
controlling and equally require a self-serving, venal priesthood to act as
conduits to interpret and explain (away?) the finer points, gross injustices
and glaring contradictions thrown up by the current 'natural order' and
structures it demands and imposes on its potentially questioning or
waivering followers.
The 'religion's' arcane nature is maintained at all costs, and this is
facilitated by a deliberately impenetrable jargon (to a credulous, often
fearful laity whom mostly endure its harshest edicts), and all tied together
by an over arching fallacious narrative predicated on fear that demands
unconditional obedience and compliance or facing severe, lasting
consequences for apostacy.
In much the same way Blair's catastrophic prime ministerial terms as leader
of the UK's mainstream 'Left' will be justifiably viewed unkindly through the
lens of history, so too will corporate place man Obama's two abject
'Democratic' presidencies (although to be fair it was Billy boy who saw $ signs
in his eyes and who really first started the rot proper for the Democrats.)
Let's be realistic, really successful politicians are rarely shrinking
violets, and are mostly to a man or woman sociopathic narcissists, but it is
only in the modern age that these apparently credible, flag of convenience,
self-serving, ideologically bereft personalities not only have the power to
lead and dominate these long-established political parties during their
relatively brief tenure, it appears they now also have the power to profoundly
undermine or even possibly destroy them in the longer term.
Is it just a shame or coincidence that these once proud and powerful parties
of waning influence happen to traditionally represent the interests of working
people I wonder?
What a frustrating situation. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the
corporate Democrats really do have a death wish. I agree with many comments
that it is incredibly destructive and stupid to double down on their losing
strategies instead of embracing the Sanders wing of the party. I partly agree
w/ Glenn Greenwald that electing Ellison would have been an easy way to welcome
in the Sanders wing, but unlike him, I'm not sure the Dem chair really is just
a symbolic position. It certainly is symbolic–and the corporate Dems have
chosen potent (and loathesome) symbols in Debbie W-S and Donna B. But I
disagree w/ Greenwald that it is only symbolic. I think the position does
matter in many ways. In any case, in this election which came to be seen by
Dems as a battle for control over the direction of the party, it is clear now
who runs the show and is determined to continue running the show: the corporate
shills of the Clinton/Obama Dems.
But I also see this as a failure of Ellison and the progressives. We have to
play hardball if we're going to win. Ellison had the endorsement of many Dem
stalwarts; he has a relatively strong record for a Democrat; emboldened with
party authority, I believe he could have done a lot; and yes, he would have had
great symbolic value. But he did not make a strong case for his leadership, as
far as I can tell. He didn't declare loudly and clearly why the Dems have been
losing and make a powerful case for why, now, the Dems need desperately to
change. Instead he was having dinner with Perez, cutting side deals, and making
a great effort to smile and please everyone. Haim Saban and the corporate Dems
came after him with hateful islamophobic slanders; Ellison stepped back, spoke
softly, praised Israel, and vowed to work closely with corporate Dems. And he
still lost. These conciliatory positions will not cut it. Unless and until
there's a vigorous position articulated within the party on the desperate need
for drastic changes, we'll lose.
One reason why this is so frustrating is that across the country, I believe
the landscape looks very promising for a progressive agenda–at least as
progressive, or more so, than what Sanders articulated. The energy is there,
and growing. But we still lack the organization. Where will it come from? Not
from the Greens, I'm afraid. As much as I agree with Stein and the Greens
positions on many issues, the Greens have over the decades proven that this is
not a party interested in building grassroots power. For that you need broad
and sustained efforts over time at the level of school boards and city
councils, building toward winning candidates to positions at the county level,
and mayors, and state representatives, and so on. You have to build a name for
yourself and prove through smaller campaigns what you stand for and that you
can win victories for your voters. And voters need to feel that it is their
party, our party. The Greens have not done any of this. It's not enough to just
have good ideas or be able to win a policy debate.
There's the Working Families Party, which has done some of this organizing
and has some victories. But it's still woefully short of what is necessary. But
I believe there's a lot of talent and potential on the left–and a growing and
restless energy now under Trump. We have to be strong and clear that this
corporate Dem program is unacceptable. We need to field local candidates on
issues people care about, from city banking and municipally owned power and IT,
to police violence, more community control in schools, and so on. Whether the
people carrying out these potentially popular programs are Dems, Greens,
Working FP or Socialists, matters less, it seems to me. But if people are
convinced that only a reinvigorated Dem Party will be able to do it, then there
needs to be a hostile takeover. The Clintonites & the Obama people, Haim Saban
and their ilk: they're not our friends and must be denounced and opposed. These
people are at best wishy-washy and mealy-mouthed when it comes to advocating
for us; they continue to compromise rightward and adopt unpopular conservative
agendas and to kick us in the teeth. Fuck them. We must articulate a positive,
winnable agenda around issues we care about.
See the comment above about local clubs. A good place to start.
Change is not going to come top down, even if that sounds like the
easiest way. Too much ego and money invested in the old ways.
Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We must
prove them wrong.
Blue Dogs do not believe we can find credible primary challengers. They
think we are just a bunch of whining idealists. We must prove them wrong -
not on blogs - at the polls.
It is not only clubs. It's the party structure itself at the municipal
and county level, which is generally occupied by a combination of
well-meaning 10% liberals, eager corporate acolytes who see politics as a
path of personal advancement but find the Republican social positions
icky and whoever just shows up.
In many places it's mostly the latter. So, form your own club, yes,
and go to local party meetings, yes, but more than anything else, work.
Organize. Knock on your neighbor's door, listen to them and talk with
them. Then do that again, and again, and again. Recruit your friends and
colleagues to do the same. When the moment is right, get someone whose
values you really trust to run for office, and if there's resistance from
the existing party apparatus, well, run a contested primary. The people
who do that work - registering, persuading and turning out voters, can
take over the local structure of a party and win from the left.
And btw, if you're struggling to persuade others, don't give up. Get
your egalitarian club together, and instead of complaining about how
others don't get it, role play conversations with different types of
voters, put your beer down, and go back out on the doors.
"Blue Dogs are confident Progressives cannot win in rural states. We
must prove them wrong."
That's just been done, in Texas, of all places. Local organizing,
person to person contact, and no TV money led to success. The exact
opposite of HRC's campaign, of course.
American citizens are at the bottom of the bucket; shut up, stay poor, and
forget the "myth" of a middle class.
These are some very simple truths, which Usian's seem loathe to accept or
understand.
The evidence is clear with almost every comment offering nonsense solutions;
year after precious year; ad infinitum
If there is a solution; I have no idea what that would be. But knowing and
understanding the reality on the ground, gives a firm place to stand.
It's a place to start
There is no better sign of the contempt that the Democratic leadership has
for its constituents t
han the way Donna Edwards was treated in the primary for the open Senate seat
from Maryland.
Maryland being Maryland, whoever won the Democrat primary was going to win the
general.
The two leading candidates were Chris van Hollen, a slick fundraiser
high in Pelosi's train wreck House leadership,
and Donna Edwards, an African-American who was one of the most progressive
House members.
Almost the entire Dem power structure (and, of course, the WaPo) went after
Edwards guns blazing.
Oddly, Edwards critics were never accused of sexism or racism by Clinton
supporters. Weird.
The DNC is important, but only part of the story. The DSCC and DCCC have
been horror shows for years,
led by incompetent clowns, corporate fronts, or (in the case of Jon Tester, who
ran the DSCC this past cycle),
sock puppets for people like Schumer.
And yet it seems to be impossible to discuss this stuff rationally with many
Democrats.
Far easier for them to blame the party's woes on BernieBros.
Jeepers, you don't think some YOOJ, classy K Street "social networking
advocacy solutions" firm will now be tasked to slap together a grassroots,
Cumbaya warbling Democratic Socialist lemming forking oh, that's right been
there, dun did that? We can't mock Trump's craven churls, spoon-fed C & K
Street's große Lüge without turning the selfie-cam around on our geriatric
children's crusade, awaiting some canny carny barker messiah?
Ha! I lost a good friend because I told him in November 2015 that if it
comes down to Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump, she will lose the state-by-state
contest while winning the popular vote, notwithstanding polls to the contrary.
I didn't let up on that obviously correct assessment through all of 2016, and
he finally told me my intellectual arguments rank down there with some of his
fundamentalist relatives. Another was still predicting a Hillary landslide
until 10:00 pm EST on Election Night. She is big on the "Stupid Trump Voters"
meme, while blaming "me" for the outcome. Everyone needs to face the truth. The
national Democrats only care about their membership in the Establishment, even
if they are relegated to "inconsequential" as they are overtaken by events due
to their abject fecklessness.
So be it. From 1974-2008 I voted for the Democrat as the "Left Wing of the
Possible," in Michael Harrington's phrase, and for at least 20 years too long.
Never again. As my brief colloquy here with a reader last night concluded, it's
time to rejoin DSA as an elder and raise even more hell with the "kids"!
I will continue to evaluate candidates on their merits, not their party
affiliation. I can't stop donating to the party organization, since I did
that years ago, but I can certainly tell it where to get off, whether in
phone calls or using its reply-paid envelopes. I realize what travels in
those may never be read by anyone but a data-entry clerk, if indeed they
bother to enter the data, which I've always doubted.
Well, I have to say that the volume of DNC et al. mail I receive has
fallen to a trickle since I spent the past year returning their pre-paid
donation envelopes with nasty comments. The pleading e-mails are gone as
well. So
someone
is entering data.
If a Hillary or Obama supporter has an open mind (yes, a few of them do
have open minds - a Hillary supporter in my family admitted to me that
Bernie would have been a better choice), these two articles can help them to
understand what's been happening.
Vatch: Let me try this again; first reply disappeared Beginning in
early 2016 I tried to convince my liberal friends with facts such as
those in your links, with no success whatsoever. Most of them stick to
the "Stupid Trump Voter" meme, even when confronted with the work of
Thomas Frank in
Listen, Liberals
and Ellie Russell Hochschild in
Strangers in Their Own Land
, which perfectly describes my many
cousins in Louisiana, not one of whom is stupid to my knowledge.
Different, yes, and for damn good reasons. Stupid, no. You can't be
stupid and survive on an offshore oil rig. My particular liberals go no
deeper than Rachel Maddow, whose Stanford-Oxford/Rhodes Scholar pedigree
is all the authority they need. It goes without saying that
Wellesley-Yale was/is just as authoritative, now and forevermore. Their
epistemic closure/confirmation bias is simply the opposite side of the
same coin the Tea Party or Alt-Right uses to explain markets or climate
change or liberal fascism. As the president would say, "Sad!"
Well, you tried. As Yves pointed out in her introduction, there are
aspects of cultish thought processes here.
Of course the Obots and Hillaristas aren't the only cult members.
Limbaugh's ditto-heads. some of the tea-partiers, and some of Trump's
more enthusiastic supporters also fit that mold. I don't like to say
this, but some of Bernie's supporters probably also qualify. Open
mindedness can require a lot of effort.
I became a more active commenter on PoliticalWire during the primary season
and was subject to considerable vitriol due to my lack of enthusiasm for HRC,
which only increased in amount after the election when I refused to vote for
her (going 3rd party instead). I hung on for a little while, trying to make my
points re where I thought the country needed to go, but have simply stopped
participating in the discussions as I realized that the system has to run its
course and I am not going to be able to change that. And slamming one's head
against a brick wall repeatedly does begin to hurt after a while. I think I'll
just use my vote to support those I policies I think are good, or at the very
least to block any candidates supported by the establishment. It isn't much,
but it is something.
I used was a regular reader of Kevin Drum for probably 10 years or so,
back to the CalPundit days. The commentariat there became really hostile to
any outside ideas as the primary wore on. The Closure is now complete,
although some of the the really hostile commenters have disappeared (their
David Brock paychecks stopped, I suppose) but still reality can't come into
play. Even Drum himself was changing weekly about the loss (It's BernieBros!
It's Comey! NO, it's the Russians! NO Wait, it's Comey)
Sad, he's done great work on lead and violent crime. I check in there
once in a while just to take the temperature of the Delusion of the
TenPercenters.
Self reflection still hasn't penetrated for any of the real reasons for
Trump
A Paul Street quote from his excellent piece in CounterPunch entitled,
'Liberal Hypocrisy, "Late-Shaming," and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump,'
should serve as an adequate riposte to the introspection and self-criticism
averse Mr Doe,
'Arrogant liberals' partisan hypocrisy, overlaid with heavy doses of
bourgeois identity politics and professional-class contempt for working class
whites, is no tiny part of how and why the Democrats have handed all three
branches of the federal government along with most state governments and the
white working class vote to the ever more radically reactionary,
white-nationalist Republican Party. Ordinary people can smell the rank
two-facedness of it all, believe it or not. They want nothing to do with snotty
know-it-all liberals who give dismal dollar Dems a pass on policies liberals
only seem capable of denouncing when they are enacted by nasty Republicans.
Contrary to my online rant, much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd
seems to feel if anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the
awfulness of Herr Trump. It exhibits no capacity for shame or self-criticism,
even in the wake of their politics having collapsed at the presidential,
Congressional, and state levels.'
"much of the liberal Democratic campus-town crowd seems to feel if
anything validated – yes, validated. of all things – by the awfulness of
Herr Trump."
I've noticed the same. My guess is that, imo, the Dem estab has spent
years teaching it's more left-ish base to accept losing – veal pen, 'f*cking
hippies', Dem estab suggest marching for a cause then fail to support cause,
march to show numbers and get nothing, elect Dem full control in 2008 and
lose single-payer, end of Iraq war, roll back Bush tax cuts, renegotiate
Nafta, etc. Lucy and the football. The left-ish part of the party has been
groomed over 30 years to accept losing its fights. When Trump wins it just
confirms "the way things are." No introspection required since it confirms
the trained outlook. imo.
This opinion masquerading as news appeared in The Sun:
Both Perez and his leading opponent, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, had
rejected the left-versus-centrist narrative that developed around the race,
and close observers agreed it was overblown.
People often have an emotional commitment to their candidate. Upon losing,
all Hillary supporters will not go "oh well." Many will be upset.
Better to focus on issues going forward.
Also, if you want to build a majority party, probably best not to devote ALL
your energy to screaming what clueless assholes most ordinary Americans are.
Most ordinary Americans do not agree with commenters here. One reason Blue Dogs
are so willing to ignore you.
You can come up with lots of reasons. There are lots of reasons. But bottom
line is that you not only have to be right; you have to convince.
And no, collapse of the world will not convince. It may make you feel like
there is proof you were right, but that is a hollow victory.
We have to win elections. To do that, we need a generous and positive
message. And we need the votes of many Democrats that will not agree with you
on some things - perhaps many things.
It can be done. It will be difficult. But it can be done.
Most people with ridiculous political ideas are nice people. There are
positive appeals that will work over time.
It is amazing how many people are still incapable of acknowledging how bad a
candidate HRC was and how far they reach to come up with other reasons for her
loss. I grew up in Midwest and have many friends and family who voted for Trump
not because they liked him but because they found Clinton even more unappealing
and even less trustworthy.
They looked at how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars, Bill
Clinton's decades of predatory behavior towards women, the hubris, lack of
responsibility and poor decision making related to the Email issues and HRC's
unwillingness to even minimally tend to her health and physically prepare for
the months of campaigning. Her candidacy was based on years of amassing money
and power and entitlement. Other than the potential to elect the first female
president, there was absolutely nothing about HRC that was inherently
appealing.
It was an extraordinary challenge to field a candidate even more unappealing
than Trump to millions of swing voters, but the Democrats managed to do it. The
Clintons are finished, over and have tarnished themselves for history. Anyone
who could even imagine a 2020 HRC candidacy is delusional.
Pretty much everything you claim drives people away from Clinton applies
just as well to Trump. Look at how Trump made millions of dollars: sticking
investors with losses, tax law arbitrage, and above all inheriting then
failing to keep up with major equity indexes. Look at his hubris, and
decades of predatory behavior towards women, e.g. behaviors related to the
pageant he finances. Look at his history of poor decision making in business
resulting in numerous bankruptcies. One thing is true, he did make deals
that were good for himself: even as business ventures collapsed and other
investors lost money, Trump personally usually had very limited losses. To
my mind that's exactly the wrong kind of behavior we want for a president
though.
I readily agree that HRC ran a flawed campaign with little to draw
undecided voters, but even so there's a deep Clinton hatred in this country
I've never understood. A large fraction of the population appears to view
both Bill and Hillary as the coming of the anti-christ, for no good reason.
That is, the Clintons seem to be pretty much garden-variety politicians with
all the usual skeletons in the closet, but nothing that seems to stand out
from the rest of the Washington ilk. If the hatred came from leftists
betrayal could explain it, but most Clinton-haters seem to be deeply
conservative. Maybe I was too young during the WJC years to understand the
source.
Gonna beat a belabored dead horse: "Superpredators" + "bring them to heel" +
a campaign devoted to the identity politics of undocumented migration and not
the plight of lower-class whites and African-Americans.
African-Americans have Facebook accounts and access to Youtube.
The 30,000-feet pundits glossed it and declared everything A-OK over but
that 1996 archive footage left a viscerally bitter taste at street level.
"it's remarkable to see how childish and self-destructive the posture of
the orthodox Dem backers is. It isn't just the vitriol, self-righteousness, and
authoritarianism, as if they have the authority to dictate rules and those who
fail to comply can and must be beaten into line.
Sounds kinda like a cult.
I've run into this. My response is a blank stare followed by a vocally flat
"oh" to whatever nonsense I'm hearing. I have the same response to very young
children who are trying to tell me something. Although, with little children I
try to smile and stay engaged.
adding:
per Jeff – "It seems that my friends, my friends' friends, and I are
exclusively to blame for the Trump Presidency and the Republican takeover of
government."
Hillary was wooing the suburban GOP voters, not the working class
industrial belt voters. Really, it's the suburban GOP voters' fault Trump
won. /s
I appreciate two posts on this subject, which given the presumed
insignificance and technocratic nature of the position (!), aroused a lot of
ire on both sides of the Demo divide. (Anyone interested in real ire can just
head over to LGM, where iirc four threads and about 2,000 comments have now
been devoted to this topic of "nothing to see here, let's move on").
What is left to say, I wonder? What's the way forward for progressives who
are genuinely interested in supporting possibly-radical new approaches to
addressing economic inequality?
It occurred to me while reading the comments on this and the previous post
that perhaps after all, it's not that ways forward are unknown to the legacy
party members, but that they're unacceptable, because they would genuinely
lessen the gap between rich-poor.
If so (and I'm starting to feel that this is the case), then working within
the party could be quite difficult, although the arguments against 3rd party
start-ups are compelling. There was a great quote from Bill Domhoff on this
subject upthread with a powerful argument for continuing to work within the
existing structures.
Apropos of Domhoff, I was thinking that one way might be to continue to work
within the party, but to distinguish the progressive wing clearly, perhaps with
a new name – I like Domhoff's Egalitarian Democratic Party, it sort of reminded
me of Minnesota's DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) party. As others have noted on
both threads, this would need to be purely grass-roots, local-to-state level
work, and as Domhoff wisely notes, candidates need to be identified and
encouraged to run for, well, everything. They would need to caucus with the
Dems at the state level, but eventually could force Dems, if they gain
sufficient numbers, to shift their positions on economic issues, thereby
creating momentum.
These past few days, I've most enjoyed reading comments from people who are
getting involved at the local level – that's so heartening. And also, I've
watched a good number of Town Hall meetings – the crowds are also heartening,
even if I wouldn't always have chosen the issues individual constituents
addressed. This massive awakening and interest in political life across the
country – I want to believe something positive will come of it.
I kind of wonder if a "Working Democrats" title would have a shot at
catching on, coupled with a heavy focus on strong, universal economic
policies: Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, some kind of student loan debt
forgiveness, Glass-Steagall reinstatement, a constitutional amendment
removing corporate personhood.
Hell, couldn't that seriously catch on in today's environment?
Not to be that guy, but the problem is the perception the Democratic
Party cares about those things and nostalgia.
The black guy with the Muslim sounding name became President while
promising higher taxes, fair trade, and universal healthcare (perception
matters) while running against a war crazy veteran and a war crazy
lunatic who claim so to have dodged bullets.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the problem with such a
move is it would be too easily co-opted due in part to too many people
thinking the Democrats actually stand for these policies, despite the
fact that the majority of them and the party apparatus actively works
to undermine any movement in these directions?
Fair point if so. I think any such work via a faction within the
party, so to speak, would have to make itself clear to those who have
lost faith in the Democratic Party by taking active stances against
the establishment and exhibiting some level of hostility toward a good
faction of Democrats.
I would be all for a third party coalescence, but I'm sympathetic
toward the idea that third parties simply don't get traction in our
political system. So I lean a bit more toward an attempted hostile
takeover of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, party's die; it
may be that a third party route could work as a replacement for the
Democrats once they die from actively abusing and thus hemorrhaging
their base.
Alternatively, both approaches could work. A wing of the party
actively hostile toward the establishment could jump ship to a third
party if the Democrats were dying, joining forces to establish the
replacement party. Or the vice versa could happen; if a progressive
wing appeared to truly be winning and taking control of the Democrats,
a sympathetic third party movement could jump in for the final push to
clean house and reinvent the party from scratch.
I think it still comes back to the need for active movements and
organizing around clear policies and principles, then taking the
opportunity to gain nationwide traction whenever and however it
presents itself. Personally, I just wish I had a clearer idea of where
such efforts on my part would be best focused. (It's somewhat
complicated by being in Portland, Oregon and having some decent Dems
here, though there's still a lot of terrible ones and even the good
ones I'm still wary of.)
The Wall Street/establishment wing of the party has clearly learned nothing
from the debacle of the last election and is clearly unwilling to learn. Sadly
the same seems to be true for the "progressive" wing of the party – i.e.
WheresOurTeddy has it exactly right IMHO but the "left" still won't abandon the
dead hulk of FDR's party – which has rejected everything it formerly stood for
– if the calls for "unity" from Ellison and others are any indication.
I honestly don't see how things will truly get better, except with a lot
of people suffering or dying. It seems that we're in this desperate
last-gasp phase of trying to work a system that's supposed to be just, but
hasn't been for decades. My entire life.
On Friday I witnessed the NJ Pinelands Commission vote for a 15 mile
pipeline that should never have been approved. It's substantilaly for profit
and export. They voted while 800 people were screaming their opposition,
after five years of fierce opposition. Literally tallied the votes during
the screaming. This is the commission whose mission is to "preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands
National Reserve." It was approved by a 9-5 vote. That's how far Governor
Christie and big money has gamed the system.
Billionaires get to throw hired hands in between us and them (like
politicians and police and receptionists and PR staff everyone's just "doing
their job!" we are "rude" if we fight them because they have nothing to do
with it!), we have to risk our bodies and time directly. We have to organize
masses of people with hardly any resources and a diminishing internet, they
write a check and get hired professionals with access to do their bidding as
they sit in their comfy third homes. They write the procedures and laws, we
get to yell and scream for ten minutes, then our voices tire and their
decisions get rammed through anyway.
Oh, and they had a public comment AFTER the vote, which was in the agenda
not as "vote" but "approve with conditions."
What about us in Michigan? We have been manipulated and mentally changed
from a strong union democratic state to a redneck, "wannabe backwards early
1900s southern state" that maintains a governor who knowingly fed thousands of
people lead tainted water. And he continues to do nothing about it. If we do
anything about it, the republican legislature will just gerrymander our
districts again to maintain their power. I live in a district shaped like a
banana, running east to west in the middle of the lower peninsula. 80% of the
district (US house seat) has always been strong democratic. But the district
was re shaped in the early nineties so that it was extended forty miles east to
encompass a county that was once known as the capital of the KKK in Michigan.
This swung the majority to republican. They are a minority, but with all the
money.
As I was saying to someone yesterday, when I say something like "I don't like
obamacare either", it is automatically assumed that I want trump & Paul Ryan to
hand out vouchers. Yet when I follow up by stating I want Medicare for all, I
am called a crazy Hillary loving liberal.
Well, you can always say scornfully that she never wanted anything as
good for people as Medicare for all. But it's tough being in a spot like
that. There is a relative of an inlaw whom I admire enormously because,
living in a conservative rural area she nevertheless firmly states her
progressive opinions, if necessary finishing up, "Anyway, that's what I
think," in a way that let's people know she has formed her opinion and will
not be changing it merely for fact-free hostile criticism. It takes amazing
steadfastness to go on doing that.
Here in upstate NY my (state assembly) district's shape was once
described as "Abe Lincoln riding on a vacuum cleaner." Like the one you
describe, it was carefully constructed to include a wealthy minority so as
to ensure that the "right" candidate always wins.
"Do what I want. That's unity." Wasn't that one of W's wise injunctions? Now
we hear it in motherly tones in HRC's video released on Friday. Is this
anything like her debate response to Bernie, "I get things done. That's
progress. (Therefore) I'm a progressive!"? Always need to look for what this
kind of word-salad leaves out.
A note as to the Establishment Dems: In the Dem primary race there were 800
or so "Super Delegates" and almost all of them were locked into HRC before the
primary race began. At the convention all but about 25 of them cast their votes
for HRC. (Sorry, I don't have exact numbers.)
Now, who are these 435 Dem Party luminaries who are tasked with electing the
DNC Chair? Am I right to assume that they are a carved-out chunk of the Super
Delegates of yore? If I am, then the Establishment Dems are in big trouble, and
they know it just from the numbers.
In other words, 200 of the 435 just voted for Sanders by proxy of Ellison.
That's half. If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at
the convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?
What we are seeing in the dulcet tones of HRC's "unity" video, together with
the power punch of the monied interests in the DNC, is the public face of a
party in panic, digging in with all of its claws. From this it seems that
Bernie is a bigger threat than many folks may realize.
I don't mean to be Pollyanna-ish here. It's anybody's guess as to what to do
with this state of affairs. But perhaps Bernie is on the right track with his
efforts to take over the Dem Party?
With that in mind, the real dividing-line is wealth vs. poverty, income
inequality, etc.,
"If half of the Super Delegates had voted for the Sanders wing at the
convention, wouldn't Sanders have been the Dem candidate?"
Uh, no because HRC got a clear majority of the
elected
delegates
and 3.5m more
votes
in the primary. But hey, don't let me disturb
your alternate reality, and enjoy the next four years --
True, if caucus states did vote (i.e. were democratic) HRC would
have won by even more. See e.g
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/
.
I'm sure if the roles were reversed here you'd be screaming that
the corrupt DNC was ignoring the democratic vote in favor of an
undemocratic caucus.
But, as I said, enjoy the next four year. Maybe you really will
– Trump is the alternate reality candidate after all.
A democratic process within. Establish polling and voting by all members,
not some final 400 or super delegates.
The party writes, debates and endorses legislation, not lobbyists.
A serious cap on contributions. Complete immediate transparency on all money
matters.
Issue based platform long before leadership or candidates.
A way which leadership or candidates and office holders must adhere to the
party platform. Example if the party platform says expanded Single Payer (HR
676) for all then a vote for ACA would have been grounds for immediate removal
from the party for sitting Reps. Note that would have meant basically every
sitting prog would have received the boot. We would have all been better served
had we primaried all of our so-called own long ago (including Sanders and
Kucinich).
At the very least this should be established by a prog like wing within a
party. For we have no way in which to hold usurpers to account.. or keep the
eye sharply focused on issues. That's the lesson from '06 '08 '10. So many act
blue/blue America candidates lied and to this day they continue to be among the
least scrutinized.
I didn't see Sanders, Ellison etc. heading this way had they won. I don't
see it in any existing third party.
Testing. I tried posting a long comment and it didn't make it.
Short version–Sanders did everything people said Nader should have done and
Sanders was still treated like a pariah, so the self described pragmatists are
really the intolerant fanatics. There was more, but I don't feel like retyping
it, especially if I am having technical difficulties posting.
I agree that Sanders ran A primary campaign instead of third party, and
so answered a big establishment talking point.
Beyond that, I see the campaigns as vastly different. Nader campaigned at
the end of a long bubble. Bernie campaigned after the financial collapse and
after years of doing nothing to help ordinary people.
I think Bernie's campaign was more powerful, and gives more of a
springboard for future campaigns.
The part before the byline is reasonable and interesting. The DNC is acting
to preserve their own power, not to win elections. Classic "iron law of
oligarchy" stuff.
The part after the byline is less interesting. Why do we care what some
anonymous guy on facebook says? Of what interest is there in a facebook
argument between an activist and some rando? Is this more notable than a
thousand other political arguments on facebook that occur every day?
Dan Brooks has written about the practice of "eggmanning", as a sort of
counterpart to strawmanning– you can find people making basically any argument
on social media, no matter how specious.
http://combatblog.net/tom-hitchner-on-refuting-the-argument-no-one-is-making/
Elevating the voice of such a person just so you can dismantle their poorly
chosen words does not make for compelling reading.
Elitist Left – Whigs / Liberals / Neo-liberals / Democrats
Real Left – Labour (the US is not allowed this option)
You need a real left, liberals are not the real left.
Liberals have over-run the Labour party in the UK but progress is under-way
to get things back to the way they should be.
Universal suffrage came along and the workers wanted a party of the left
that represented them and wasn't full of elitist, left liberals.
The US has never allowed the common man and woman to have a party of
their own, they need one, a real left not a liberal, elitist left descended
from the Whigs.
This all makes me think the Democratic establishment are not honest actors.
They would rather meekly accept corporate money and play the part of the always
losing Washington Generals rather than come out swinging for progressive
values.
Agreed– Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of
Trump's vaunted (around here anyway) reconciliation with Russia policy. New
National Security Advisor McMaster is a Petraeus follower, and has
repeatedly called out Russia as an aggressive power which must be contained
and deterred with US and NATO military power.
He's just an advisor. MacMaster will not make policy. But Trump is
finding out, as many presidents have before him, that to a large extent
the Pentagon runs itself. The military plans things way ahead of time. As
president it's difficult to buck heads with the PTB on foreign policy.
The best Trump may be able to do for the time being is stay out of war.
I would prefer an outright lovefest with Russia. I like their anti-GMO
policy. Maybe in a few years.
Paid Outside agitators coordinating NATO seaport strikes. See, men can
get together and march in the street around the world at the same time for a
cause.
Many thanks Paul for putting these things together. Encouraging and
important for a bunch of reasons at once.
1. Even the most zealous Friedmanite (M. or T., does it matter?) or
Richard Florida-type cheerleader for the 'creative class' (deceased)
would have a hard time passing global logistics off as a 'dinosaur'
industry.
With the disclaimer that most of what I'm about to recommend comes
from friends/comrades or publications I'm somehow entangled with, there's
serious thinking about the latent
global
power of logistics
workers on the German 'Wildcat' site - [http://wildcat-www.de/en/wildcat/100/e_w100_koper.html]
for a recent example from a fair-sized English and huge German-language
archive - and years' worth of great writing about much the same thing by
Brian Ashton, a 1995-97 Liverpool dock strike organizer and one of the
first people to describe coherently the
industrial
uses of
what's now sold as 'the internet of things'. See eg. [http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/liverpools-docks-dust-and-dirt]
(with images by David Jacques), but if you're interested it's worth
searching that site and Libcom.org - just to start with - for more.
And 2.: because right now it can't be repeated often enough that
face-to-face community experience can be a powerful source of class
solidarity but
it's not the only one
. Cultural sameness is
not
the only possible basis for collective action for shared
interests. It can happen in a meaningful way even over long distances and
long periods, as shown by international support for the Liverpool Dockers
of 95-7 (and the California port truck drivers of 2012? Please correct
the latter if misremebered).
Admittedly this a sort of a priori principle for me, but not just
because it sounds like something it would be nice to believe. No, it's
because the 'choice' between globally co-ordinated hyperexploitation and
perpetual petty warfare* between internally close-knit groups (with no
way out of those groups for individuals or sub-collectives, thus:
conscript warfare) is a recipe for general despair.
[*'Warfare' here applies literally in some cases and figuratively in
others. But even when it stops short of physical violence it's
competition
, which puts it well on the way to global exploitation
anyway. Who knows why it's not considered obvious that EU-type
transnational management institutions and the National Preference
revivalists 'opposed' to them
share
the same obsession with
national
Competitiveness
. (And sub- and supra-national
Competitiveness too, but it amounts to the same thing because each arena
of economic bloodsports is supposed to toughen the gladiators (upscale
slaves, remember) for the next one up.
Peer-to-peer prizefighting is officially healthy for everyone, because
even what
does
kill me makes "my" brand/parent
corporation/city/country/supra-national trading bloc stronger. And one
day glorious victory over Emerging (capitalist) Planets will kill the
Zero that screams in the Sum.)]
An economy - just like an Army - marches on its stomach. Supply chains
for the US economy are long - reaching to distant countries including
many countries that aren't our best of friends - and shallow - often
depending on few to as few as a single source for many products and key
components. Just-in-time deliveries support local inventories trimmed to
within a few days of demand. The US economy has a great exposed
underbelly.
Our research focuses on state legislative elections because
we can more easily isolate the effect of Citizens United
compared with other factors that influence election outcomes
at various levels (such as the popularity of the president).
Before 2010, 23 states had bans on corporations and union
funding of outside spending. As a result of the court's
ruling, these states had to change their campaign laws. We
can then compare the changes before and after Citizens United
in these 23 states with the same changes in the 27 states
whose laws did not change. The effect of the court's ruling
is then simply the differences between these two
before-and-after comparisons.
We find that Citizens United increased the GOP's average seat
share in the state legislature by five percentage points.
That is a large effect - large enough that, were it applied
to the past twelve Congresses, partisan control of the House
would have switched eight times. In line with a previous
study, we also find that the vote share of Republican
candidates increased three to four points, on average.
We also uncovered evidence that these results stem from the
influence of corporations and unions. In states where union
membership is relatively high and corporations relatively
weak, Citizens United did not have a discernible effect on
the partisan balance of the state legislature. But in states
with weak unions and strong corporations, the decision
appeared to increase Republican seat share by as much as 12
points.
By Arthur MacEwan. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
The Issue Revisited
Around the time that the United States invaded Iraq, 14 years ago, I was in an auditorium at the
University of Massachusetts Boston to hear then-Senator John Kerry try to justify the action. As
he got into his speech, a loud, slow, calm voice came from the back of the room: "O – I – L." Kerry
tried to ignore the comment. But, again and again, "O – I – L." Kerry simply went on with his prepared
speech. The speaker from the back of the room did not continue long, but he had succeeded in determining
the tenor of the day.
Looking back on U.S. involvement in the Iraq, it appears to have been largely a failure. Iraq,
it turned out, had no "weapons of mass destruction," but this original rationalization for invasion
offered by the U.S. government was soon replaced by the goal of "regime change" and the creation
of a "democratic Iraq." The regime was changed, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain was captured and
executed. But it would be very had to claim that a democratic Iraq either exists or is in the making-to
say nothing of the rise of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and the general destabilization in
the Middle East, both of which the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped propel.
Yet, perhaps on another scale, the invasion would register as at least a partial success. This
is the scale of O – I – L
The Profits from Oil
At the time of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an article for Dollars & Sense titled "Is It
Oil?" (available online
here
). I argued that, while the invasion may have had multiple motives, oil-or more precisely, profit
from oil-was an important factor. Iraq, then and now, has huge proven oil reserves, not in the same
league as Saudi Arabia, but in group of oil producing countries just behind the Saudis. It might
appear, then, that the United States wanted access to Iraqi oil in order to meet the needs of our
highly oil-dependent lifestyles in this country. After all, the United States today, with just over
4% of the world's population, accounts for 20% of the world's annual oil use; China, with around
20% of the world's population is a distant second in global oil use, at 13%. Even after opening new
reserves in recent years, U.S. proven reserves amount to only 3% of the world total.
Except in extreme circumstances, however, access to oil is not a major problem for this county.
And it was not in 2003. As I pointed out back then, the United States bought 284 million barrels
of oil from Iraq in 2001, about 7% of U.S. imports, even while the two countries were in a virtual
state of war. In 2015, only 30% as much oil came to the United States from Iraq, amounting to just
2.4% of total U.S. oil imports. Further, in 2015, while the United States has had extremely hostile
relations with Venezuela, 24% of U.S. oil imports came from that country's nationalized oil industry.
It would seem that, in the realm of commerce, bad political relations between buyers and sellers
are not necessarily an obstacle.
For the U.S. government, the Iraq oil problem was not so much access, in the sense of meeting
U.S. oil needs, as the fact that U.S. firms had been frozen out of Iraq since the country's oil industry
was nationalized in 1972. They and the other oil "majors" based in U.S.-allied countries were not
getting a share of the profits that were generated from the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Profits from
oil exploitation come not only to the oil companies-ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum,
and the other industry "majors"-but also to the companies that supply and operate equipment, drill
wells, and provide other services that bring the oil out of the ground and to consumers around the
world-for example, the U.S. firms Halliburton, Emerson, Baker Hughes, and others. They were also
not getting a share of the Iraqi oil action. (Actually, when vice president to be Dick Cheney was
running Halliburton, in the period before the invasion, the company managed to undertake some operations
in Iraq through a subsidiary, in spite of federal restrictions preventing U.S. firms from doing business
in Iraq.)
After the Troops
In the aftermath of the invasion and since most U.S. troops have been withdrawn, things have changed.
"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, U.S. and other western oil companies were all
but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera
in 2012. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing
oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."
From the perspective of U.S. firms the picture is mixed. Firms based in Russia and China have
developed operations in Iraq, and even an Indonesian-based firm is involved. Still, ExxonMobil (see
box) has established a significant stake in Iraq, having obtained leases on approximately 900,000
onshore acres and by the end of 2013 had developed several wells in Iraq's West Qurna field. Exxon
also has agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq to explore for oil. Chevron
holds an 80% stake and is the operator of the Qara Dagh block in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, but
as of mid-2014 the project was still in the exploratory phase and there was no production. No other
U.S. oil companies have developed operations in Iraq. The UK-headquartered BP (formerly British Petroleum)
and the Netherlands-headquartered Shell, however, are also significantly engaged in Iraq.
While data are limited on the operations of U.S. and other oil service firms in Iraq, they seem
to have done well. For example, according to a 2011 New York Times article:
The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International [founded in Texas,
now incorporated in Switzerland] and Schlumberger [based in France] already won lucrative drilling
subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more. "Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors," Alex
Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh,
said by telephone. "There will be an enormous scale of investment."
The Right to Access
While U.S. oil companies and oil service firms-as well as firms from other countries-are engaged
in Iraq, they and their U.S. government supporters have not gained the full legal rights they would
desire. In 2007, the U.S. government pressed the Iraqi government to pass the "Iraq Hydrocarbons
Law." The law would, among other things, take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the hands of the Iraqi
government and assure the right of foreign firms to control much of the oil for decades to come.
The law, however, has never been enacted, first due to general opposition to a reversal the 1972
nationalization of the industry, and recently due to continuing disputes between the government in
Baghdad and the government of the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq.
U.S. foreign policy, as I elaborated in the 2003 article, has long been designed not simply to
protect U.S.-based firms in their international operations, but to establish the right of the firms
to access and security wherever around the world. Oil firms have been especially important in promoting
and gaining from this right, but firms from finance to pharmaceuticals and many others have been
beneficiaries and promoters of the policy.
Whatever else, as the Iraq and Middle East experience has demonstrated, this right comes at a
high cost. The best estimate of the financial cost to the United States of the war in Iraq is $3
trillion. Between the 2003 invasion and early 2017, U.S. military forces suffered 4,505 fatalities
in the war, and allied forces another 321. And, of course, most of all Iraqi deaths: estimates of
the number of Iraqis killed range between 200,000 and 500,000.
Basically the US seems to have invaded for the enrichment of the multinational corporations
at the expense of the rest of the world. Americans will pay a monetary price, but worse many have
died and many more have lost their lives.
Even if it had gone to plan, the average American would not have benefited. They would have
paid the costs for war. Let us face the reality. There was no noble intent in invading Iraq. It
was all a lie.
The ridiculousness of Paul Wolfowitz and his claim that invading Iraq could be paid for through
its oil revenue has become apparent. It has destroyed the stability of the area. We should nor
idealize Saddam, who was a horrible dictator, but the idea that the US is going to be able to
invade and impose its will was foolish.
There was never any need to invade Iraq. If oil was the goal, Washington DC could easily have
lifted the sanctions around Iraq. I doubt that the neoconservatives believed that Saddam was developing
nuclear weapons of destruction or had anything to do with the 9-11-2001 attacks, which is why
they claimed they invaded.
If this madness does not stop, it will do much more damage, and like the Soviet Union, bankrupt
the US.
Great overview of the real tragedy of Iraq-US companies having to share the spoils.
It reminds me of Russia: the US seethes because Putin is the one looting the country and not
them.
Back in the 90s President Clinton issued countless demands to Yeltsin about oil pipelines and
output increases, showing great impatience when the Russians dared to suggest environmental impact
studies. (See the linked UPI article.) If only Putin would have let us frack the Kremlin he'd
be our best friend!
If this boosterism seems out of character for a primetime populist like Carlson, he doesn't seem to mind
the dissonance. He speaks glowingly of his Northwest Washington neighborhood, a tony enclave of liberal affluence where,
he tells me, he is surrounded by diplomats, lawyers, world bankers, and well-paid media types. They are reliably
"wonderful"; unfailingly "nice"; "some of my favorite people in the world." If you've watched Carlson on TV lately, you
know they are also wrong about virtually everything.
Indeed, throughout the 2016 election cycle Carlson routinely deployed his anonymous neighbors as a device
in his political punditry -- pointing to them as emblems of the educated elite's insular thinking. He scoffed at their
affection for Marco Rubio in the primaries, and he ridiculed their self-righteous reactions to the Republican nominee in
the general. "On my street," he
wrote
in
Politico Magazine
, "there's never been anyone as unpopular as Trump."
This shtick worked brilliantly for Carlson, catapulting him from a weekend hosting gig to the coveted 9
p.m. slot in Fox's primetime lineup. He now regularly pulls in more than 3 million viewers a night -- a marked improvement
on the program he replaced -- and he counts the commander in chief among his loyal fans. Just this past weekend, President
Trump set off a minor international firestorm when he suggested Sweden was experiencing an immigrant-fueled spike in
crime -- a (
dubious
)
claim he picked up by watching
Tucker Carlson Tonight
.
In an era when TV talking heads are more influential than ever, Carlson has suddenly -- and rather
improbably -- emerged as one of the most powerful people in media. The question now is what he wants to do with that perch.
To the extent that Carlson's on-air commentary these days is guided by any kind of animating idea, it is
perhaps best summarized as a staunch aversion to whatever his right-minded neighbors believe. The country has reached a
point, he tells me, where the elite consensus on any given issue should be "reflexively distrusted."
"Look, it's really simple," Carlson says. "The SAT 50 years ago pulled a lot of smart people out of every
little town in America and funneled them into a small number of elite institutions, where they married each other, had
kids, and moved to an even smaller number of elite neighborhoods. We created the most effective meritocracy ever."
"But the problem with the meritocracy," he continues, is that it "leeches all the empathy out of your
society The second you think that all your good fortune is a product of your virtue, you become highly judgmental,
lacking empathy, totally without self-awareness, arrogant, stupid -- I mean all the stuff that our ruling class is."
Carlson recounts, with some amusement, how he saw these attitudes surface in his neighbors' response to
Trump's victory. He recalls receiving a text message on election night from a stunned Democratic friend declaring his
intention to flee the country with his family. Carlson replied by asking if he could use their pool while they were
gone.
"I mean people were, like, traumatized," he says. And yet, in the months since then, "no one I know has
learned anything. There's been no moment of reflection It's just, 'This is what happens when you let dumb people
vote.'" Carlson finds this brand of snobbery particularly offensive: "Intelligence is not a moral category. That's what
I find a lot of people in my life assume. It's not. God doesn't care how smart you are, actually."
McKay Coppins
is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Wilderness, a book about the battle over the future of the Republican Party.
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is
not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate
compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The
world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels
that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making
this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.
We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology
(medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this
possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.
Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents
if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.
Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their
views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make
or shipbuilding in Asia.
Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not
create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the
past?
Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies
that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog,
by the way.
Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year
Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the
supply chains stopped working.
Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization.
Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts,
already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?
Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental
protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.
I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.
Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:
Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20
percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has
the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment.
It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.
Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing
else.
The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts,
divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously
inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).
The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification
for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many
seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).
Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test
them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its
face.
In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly
in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.
You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.
America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors
and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico,
you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to
the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some
would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak
English. How do you make this work?
The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is
the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories
(in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota
got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity
to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.
I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working
conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies
of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that
capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).
That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If
anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose
if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much
to handle.
I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is
nothing.
The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies
are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense
that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.
Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting
future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.
There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products
arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one
has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.
When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to
production problems and issues.
Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main
business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that
Henry Ford had.
If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be
an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.
Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014
1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292
What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets"
that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing
overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.
While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design
method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions.
I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing
to Asia. "No" was his answer.
In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer
in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around
that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And
when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.
And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor
is free". Some level playing field.
Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a
more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports
as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.
How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants
to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in
both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western
countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the
wind.
This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say
about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form
of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs?
Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration
fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?
Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.
Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again.
The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It
is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they
did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.
Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method
to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we
find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism,
we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know,
modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.
Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long
as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.
Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again,
in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than
Popper.
What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical
analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all
falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured
America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed
how bodgy the methodology used had been.
By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads
up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some
interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.
I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment
over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and
I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving
the rich.
The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending
because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands
now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion
that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.
"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred
contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.
These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done -
a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it
down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!
Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week".
The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap!
Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work
is hard to come by these days."
Of the non-union guys he hired.
My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed
into law.
Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right
to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive
pay."
Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.
They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult.
Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting
started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.
I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not
under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping
suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain
the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing
every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience"
how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.
I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.
First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify
Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza
and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would
say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem",
where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.
Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would
be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees
accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person
to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist
on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.
So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get
to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?
One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty
which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great
War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for
the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to
the 3rd in the past.
Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was
the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects
themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial
profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that
the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully
enriched the wealthy!
And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are
convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their
historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living
that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.
And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders
denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately
played the global guilt card in response.
Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open
systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living
which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was
a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard
of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open
by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements
became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill
battle, to increase entropy again.
Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort
of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.
I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is
that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed
borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters
are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite
the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.
During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial
powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world
themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist
movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the
boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.
So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy
and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for
the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism
and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters
they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.
Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are
the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine
it's easy if you try!
What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept
of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to
these conflicting concepts.
To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied
densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine).
I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country
the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world,
hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form
of shrinkage.
We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle
to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged
proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".
My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy
or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break
it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.
Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other
people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast
returns that way but that's just the point.
Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic
arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?
The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.
Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually
flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.
The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling
treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.
The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the
South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.
The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed
for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated
, Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.
The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists.
And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.
The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks
of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy
vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray?
Bogus analysis here , yes.
The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties
of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export
driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic
collapse in the EU
I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves
admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China
was not even part of the WHO.
If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly
not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity,
perceived or not.
And the beginnings of the precariat.
So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of
national and local identities.
Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.
The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best
days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.
I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese
exports since 1983:
China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly
have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even
for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the
same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.
The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports,
and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.
Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and
Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.
And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the
one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).
People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon"
populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.
That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.
European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national
government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government,
local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national.
But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the
National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.
Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the
free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929
and the Great Depression.
After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics.
Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid
low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation.
In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today
only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.
In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression,
eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy
that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its
associated repayments.
In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually
become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again,
Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.
In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a
sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with
the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to
restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone
benefitted.
Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one
can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus
nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism
going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.
The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations.
Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989.
Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.
DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask
the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial
industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just
kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and
easy money!
We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and
NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of
mankind, all over the World.
DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke!
Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!)
but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!
Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And
you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!
Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their
consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment.
As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they
doing?
The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages,
e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without
limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit
bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.
Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.
Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt
deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt
deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.
1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve
Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
Good to see studies confirming what was already known.
This apparently surprised:
On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial
districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of
each voter's personal situation.
It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities
see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.
Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize
with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals
vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they
prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws,
anything else is plain wrong.
Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well.
Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class
will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally
poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).
Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations,
sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.
Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many
workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?
The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian.
Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread
subsidy. Ciao.
Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers
didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.
The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.
The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has
moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether
the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.
Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration,
easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back.
Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!
The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers
and the Winners!
80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of
global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!
The Rich became richer!
The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!
I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product
or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary,
and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which
have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political
parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism
was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment
(Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal
dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient
politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically
the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise!
as Yves would say.
Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations.
I think another interesting one is exchange rates.
One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to
have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies
against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance.
Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative
to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.
""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is
to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange
rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment
at the local level""
""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""
Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when
they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft
currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort
of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)
As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism
is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.
In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU)
were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue
the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .
In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration
debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled)
labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.
The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The
accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but
it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the
false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with
nothing in between.
One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done
so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other
countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade,
massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc
The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality
of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider
philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people,
from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution,
but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.
The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being
shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".
It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.
The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always
strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.
The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition
so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions
on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game
of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we
are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.
Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading
somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.
The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.
As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of
a cycle.
This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces
suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions
of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight
equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be
very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow
masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in
areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly
rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But
1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress.
This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in
Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.
Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered
the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural
imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers
in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more
that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.
All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3%
in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting
hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.
The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.
Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years
is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.
Maybe I'm missing sommething here.
Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that
in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could
go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their
money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.
I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over
a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.
I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably
don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component
analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which
I am acctually).
Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity
not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by
your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.
Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact,
you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the
full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage
advantages in three States?
Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool
used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop
the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those
other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist
way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles,
etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.
Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but
also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that
have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.
It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue
of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers
on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated
due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental
calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces
can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.
The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has
mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought
a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths
whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.
Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++
Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women!
All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!
Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!
Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political
platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left
is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed
as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.
Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the
most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual
property owners.
Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost
ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in
part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society
in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism
has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers'
like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they
decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough
to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education
all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment
to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.
and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth
requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added
goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting
countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And
if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting
countries might benefit overall.
The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the
picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally,
'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over
those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the
ruling top 1%.
Since today is President's Day, there will be no
Water Cooler. Which is a good thing, because this puppy took forever to write.
–lambert
* * *
"It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber
Readers know that I've been more than dubious about that incredibly virulent
earworm of a term, "deep state" (
December
1, 2014
). However, in the last week or so, "deep state" is all over
mainstream discourse like kudzu, and so it's time to look at it again. As we
shall see, it's no more well-defined than before, but I'm hoping that if we
aggregate a number of usage examples, we'll come up with a useful set of
properties, and a definition. Following the aggregation, I'll propose a number
of phrases that I hope can attenuate
deep state
's virulence, and
render it a sharper and more subtle analytical tool in posts and comments.
While the usage of "deep state" exploded last week after General Flynn's
defenestration by Trump, it seems likely to me that the term had been spreading
in the recent past before that, given that a series of politically motivated
leaks by the "intelligence community" (IC) from summer 2016 onwards could
colorably be attributed to such an entity. The examples are in no particular
order; I haven't had the time to find a "patient zero."
Usage Examples of "Deep State"
1.
The Atlantic
. Since "deep state" as a term originated in
Turkey (
derin
devlet
), I'll start with a Turkish analyst:
There Is No American 'Deep State'
Zeynep Tufekci, a Turkish sociologist and writer at the University of
North Carolina, tweeted a string of criticisms about the analogy Friday
morning. "
Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions
diverging with the electoral branch [is] not that uncommon even in liberal
democracies," she wrote. "In the Turkey case, that's not what it means.
There was a
shadowy, cross-institution
occasionally *armed*
network conducting killings, etc. So, if people are going to call non
electoral institutions stepping up leaking stuff, fine. But it is not 'deep
state' like in Turkey."
Comment:
One danger I always face is projecting American politics
onto other countries. Tufekci warns us the opposite is a bad idea too!
Properties:
Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral
institutions; "shadowy," cross-institutional. We cross out
"conducting
killings"
for the American context (or do we?).
The deep state, although there's
no precise or scientific definition
,
generally refers to
the agencies in Washington that are permanent power
factions
. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are
elected come and go. They typically
exercise their power in secret
,
in the dark, and so they're barely subject to democratic accountability, if
they're subject to it at all. It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the
other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing
not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes,
atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol,
but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are
cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from-in fact, in
opposition to-the political officials to whom they're supposed to be
subordinate.
Comment:
Later in the show, Greenwald says that the deep state is
"almost engag[ing] in like a soft coup." Here's the Kristol tweet to which
Greenwald alludes, explicitly applauding that coup with the bracing clarity so
foreign to most Democrats:
Properties:
Kristol, not normal, not democratic, not
constitutional; Greenwald: permanent power factions, agencies, especially
intelligence agencies, which specialize in deception and require secrecy.
Is [the current chaos], as some suggest, "deep state" revenge for the
haughty, dismissive way Donald Trump spoke of the U.S. intelligence
community during and after the campaign? Is it driven by the antipathy of
the permanent government toward Mr. Putin, and a desire to bring down those,
like Mr. Trump, who hope for closer relations with Russia?
It is a terrible thing if suddenly, in America, there is
a
government within the government
that hates the elected government -
and that
secretly, silently, and with no accountability
, acts on
it.
Properties:
Government within a government; secret; not
accountable.
4.
Breitbart
. I don't normally cite to Breitbart, but since
they're in the heart of the battle and have a usage example:
The "deep state" is jargon for the
semi-hidden army of bureaucrats,
officials, retired officials, legislators, contractors and media people who
support and defend established government policies
.
Comment:
Interestingly, Breitbart finds it necessary to define the
term for its readership, meaning it didn't originate on the right. Even more
interestingly, Breitbart - very much unlike the more staid Peggy Noonan -
urges, in my view correctly, that actors outside the alphabet agencies need to
be considered.
Properties:
Bureaucrats, officials (some retired), legislators,
contractors, media. Brietbart doesn't use Janine Werel's term, Flexian -
retired officials become talking heads, for example - but the concept is
implicit.
What Is the 'Deep State'-And Why Is It After Trump?
The Deep State is shorthand for
the nexus of secretive intelligence
agencies whose leaders and policies are not much affected by changes in the
White House or the Congress
. While definitions vary, the Deep State
includes the CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and components of the
State Department, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and
the armed forces.
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized
Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the
most-perhaps the only-credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball presidency."
And Roger Stone, a man who knows his memes:
"This is an effort by the Deep State to destabilize the president," Stone
said.
Comment:
Morley, then, agrees with Kristol (the "only check" in
Trump).
Properties:
Intelligence agencies; permanent.
6.
Greg Grandin,
The Nation
. A useful review of the literature:
What Is the Deep State?
So at least as long as there has been private property, there has been
private plotting, and talk of a "deep state" has been a vernacular way of
describing what political scientists like to call
"civil society,"
that is, any venue in which powerful individuals, either alone or
collectively, might try to use the state to fulfill their private ambitions,
to get richer and obtain more power .
Much of the writing frames the question as Trump versus the Deep State,
but even if we take the "deep state" as a valid concept,
surely it's
not useful to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic
,
as David Martin in an e-mail suggests. Big Oil and Wall Street might want
deregulation and an opening to Russia. The euphemistically titled
"intelligence community" wants a ramped-up war footing. High-tech wants
increased trade. In 1956, C. Wright Mills wrote that "the conception of
the power elite and of its unity rests upon the corresponding developments
and the coincidence of interests among economic, political, and military
organizations." If nothing else, the "Trump v. Deep State" framings show
that unity is long gone.
Comment:
Grandin does give an early usage example, but I'm totally
unpersuaded by his
identification
of the "deep state" with "civil
society." Rather - as Breitbart, amazingly enough, suggests - the deep state
more plausibly includes
components
of civil society (media,
contractors, etc.).
Properties:
Not monolithic; includes (components of) civil society.
This pattern of dissent ["#TheResistance"], and its early successes, has
brought about a vogue for the theory of the deep state, usually used in
analyzing authoritarian regimes, in which
networks of people within the
bureaucracy
are said to be able to exercise a
hidden
will
of their own
The federal government employs two million people; its sympathies move in
more than one direction. While many federal employees may want to oppose the
White House, others (especially border-patrol and immigration agents, whose
support Trump often cited on the campaign trail) have already been taking
some alarming liberties to advance the President's politics.
Comment:
Wallace urges that some Federal employees in the permanent
bureaucracy are, in essence, "working toward the Fuhrer," which is a
consequence of the deep state not being monolithic. He attributes the "vogue"
for "deep state" to the resistance, but I (and most others cited here) think
it's the Flynn firing.
A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent
Coup
So who or what is the Deep State?
It's the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and
federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a
standing army. It's the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a
surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It's the courthouses
and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due
process and justice. It's the military empire with its private contractors
and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It's the private sector
with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, 'a number
greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the
government.' It's what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to
as 'a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies': the
Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the
Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via
the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and
intelligence committees."
Comment:
Seems pretty big to be deep
Properties:
Law enforcement, contractors, agencies, the courts.
As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America
Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it
helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation's
leader and its governing institutions.
That can be deeply destabilizing, leading both sides to wield state
powers like the security services or courts against one another, corrupting
those institutions in the process.
In countries like Egypt, Mr. El Amrani said, the line is much clearer.
There, "the deep state is not official institutions rebelling," he said,
but rather "shadowy networks within those institutions, and within business,
who are conspiring together and forming parallel state institutions."
Comment:
Weird all around: The President is
the President
,
the Chief Magistrate of the United States. He's not the "nation's leader," like
in the title of sone kinda hardback in the "Business" section of your airport
bookstore. And quite frankly, the description of the deep state in Egypt
("shadowy network," "parallel state institutions") jibes with a several of the
other usage examples I've collected, right here in the United States.
Properties:
I'll use Egypt's! Network, shadowy, businesses forming
parallel state institutions.
With Intelligence Leaks, The 'Deep State' Resurfaces
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So how do you define the deep state?
AMBINDER: Well, I try to define it simply – maybe
the national
security and intelligence bureaucracy
, the secret-keepers in the
United States, people who have security clearances, who have spent 10 to 20
to 30 years working in and around secrets.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So when we're hearing about this term this week to do
with Michael Flynn, what do we – what are people making that connection with
potentially a huge group of people and this particular case?
AMBINDER: They're essentially alleging that the national security state,
this metastate that exists and, again, traffics totally in secret – used its
collective power in order to bring down a duly chosen national security
adviser because they disagreed with him or they disagreed with his president
or they disagreed with his policies. It is a term of derision, a term that
suggests people are using their power for ill-begotten ends. And that, if
true, sets up a crisis.
Comment:
Ambinder, then, rejects putting a "civil society"
construction on "deep state." (He also rejects Greenwald, and Kristol's, "soft
coup.")
Properties:
National security and intelligence bureaucracy;
long-term.
11.
Marc Ambinder,
Foreign Policy
. Ambinder gives an example of the deep state
in action:
Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security
was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire
offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works.
It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the
law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire
within it.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these [Flynn's] conversations
[with the Russian ambassador] had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius,
who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn
denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16,
Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls
were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was
President.
Comment:
Note the lack of agency in "was disclosed." Had the deep
state not been able to use David Ignatius as a cut-out, the scandal would never
have occured. Therefore, a media figure, a member of civil society, was
essential to the operation of the Deep State, even though Ambinder's definition
of the deep state doesn't reflect this.
Properties:
Network; civil society.
* * *
So now I'm going to aggregate the properties suggested by these 10 sources,
and make some judgements about what to keep and what to throw away. Throwing
out Noonan's concept of "a government within a government", I get this. The
deep state:
1. Gains power through (legal) control of state functions of secrecy and
deception
2. Is "permanent"
3. Is not monolithic
4. Is composed of "cross-institutional" networks of individuals in both
state (agencies, law enforcement) and civil society (media, contractors)
5. Is not democratic in its operation; and (potentially) is not accountable,
not normal, not constitutional.
(Individuals within the deep state belong to factions that compete and
cooperate, often in addition to their "day jobs," rather as in a "matrix
management" construct.)
So, what'd I miss?
A "Deep State" Phrasebook
So, here are some phrases to use that reflect the above - very tentative -
understanding. What I really want to do - and who know, maybe I'm trying to
shovel back the tide here, too - is get away from the notion of "the" deep
state. The deep state is not monolithic! Factional conflict within the deep
state exists! So, in my view, the definite article is in this case
disempowering; it prevents you from, as it were, knowing your enemy. So, if I
have to join the chorus of people using the term, I'm going to think carefully
about how do it. This list is a step toward doing that. (I'm going to use
examples from the run-up to the Iraq War because it's less tendenitious and way
less muddled than the Flynn defenestration.)
1.
"Deep State Blooper"
. I'm putting this first as
an antidote to CT. Quoting
Frank Herbert's
Dune
:
" [I]t occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists
were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were
accident and error."
It's important to put into our thinking right from the start that Deep State
actors are not all-powerful, and that Deep State operations are not invariably
successful. I mean, can anybody look at the foreign and nationally security
outcomes from what these guys are doing and urge that the baseline for
performane is very high? I don't think so. Accidents happen all the time, and
these guys, for all the power their positions bring them, are accident-prone.
(After all, they're not accountable, so they never get accurate feedback, in a
typical Banana Republic power dynamic.
Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State
Blooper." (
See
here for details;
the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush
administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)
2.
"Deep State Operation"
. I think it's important
to view the Deep State (as defined above) as able to act opportunistically;
although many Deep State Actors work for agencies, their operations are not
bureaucratic in nature.
Example: "The White House Iraq Group was a Deep State propaganda operation
that succeeded tactically but failed strategically" (See
here for details
; the WHIG planted stories in the press to foment the Iraq
War. They succeeded in that narrow goal, but the war itself was a debacle, and
the damage to the credibility of the press as an institution took a hit.)
3.
"Deep State Actor"
. An individual can be a
member of the Deep State as an official, and then later as media personality or
contractor. (It also seems to me that once you have been within the
intelligence community, you can never be said to have left it, since how could
anyone know you have
really
left?
Example: "Leon Panetta is a consummate Deep State Actor." (
Panetta
has been OMB Director, CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary
of Defense. "[Panetta] regularly obtains fees for speaking engagements,
including from the Carlyle Group.[55] He is also a supporter of Booz Allen
Hamilton."
4.
"Deep State Faction"
. This is a no-brainer:
Example: "The Neoconservatives are a Deep State Faction."
Conclusions
I apologize for the length as I fought my way through the material, and I
hope I haven't made any gross errors - especially political science-y ones! And
any further additions to the Deep State Phraseology will be very welcome (but
watch those definite articles!).
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic
cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that
provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class.
Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post
Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt
Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can
deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of
neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that
delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common
humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving
capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism
razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me,
the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me -
is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from despair," as described by
the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count
makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative.
And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of
identity politics - even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama,
and Clinton's wars created - bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my
frustration with the news flow - currently in my view the swirling
intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the
Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in
the State and in the press - a news flow that constantly forces me to focus
on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths.
What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the
increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am
also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party
establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to
those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates
opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets
first and opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the
saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even
the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years,
but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Gee you didn't even mention California's Bohemian Grove meeting where CEOs
romp in togas and such.
And taken literally Deep State would presumably mean a secretive (deep) and
more or less permanent ruling apparatus. We may have the latter but it doesn't
seem all that secretive since they love to join think tanks and talk about
their loony ideas. The term is often used to bolster conspiracy theories about
how the CIA killed Kennedy and are secretly running the country. While recent
movies like to portray CIA operatives as super human martial arts specialists
they are just as likely boobs who make many mistakes but nevertheless don't
mind ratting out Trump's phone calls as petty revenge. I'd say it's the not so
secretive but still behind the scenes state we have to worry about. Think the
CFR or that Kristol guy. In other words if the term means anything it could be
the secondary tier of influencers who have the ear of our MSM.
Nothing theoretical about elements within the CIA (such as the fired
Allen Dulles, and his still-in-the CIA cousin, Tracy Barnes - oopsy, Fake
News never told you they were cousins, now did they?) - just requires a bit
of reading and cross-referencing with declassified documents from the CIA,
State and the FBI.
Deep State is really the financial-intelligence-complex who believes they
are running things - the intel establishment was originally founded by the
super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.). When JFK was
assassinated the Deputy Director of the CIA was Gen. Marshall Carter,
recommended to McCone for that position by Nelson Rockefeller. And the
fellow in charge of the reorganization of the CIA at the same time was Gen.
Schuyler, Nelson Rockefeller's assistant.
There are a couple of books by Dan Briody that are very
illuminating about how Deep State actors in government interface with
corporate agendas:
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money (2004)
The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group (2003)
I think of the Deep State as the
military-industrial-intelligence-Congressional long-term
national-security complex that grew up after World War II, there are
perhaps four major elements:
(1) military and intelligence contractors who rely on the massive $600
billion military budget for their profits.
(2) executive branch bureaucrats who develop the contracts that are
delivered to contractors (State/Pentagon/CIA/NSA/NRO/FBI/DOE etc.)
(3) Congressmembers (long-serving) on appropriations, intelligence,
etc. committees who sign off on budget requests.
(4) Elements of mass media and think tanks who work overtime to
promote the interests of the Deep State elements of the above actors.
It's a kind of self-perpetuating system that's primary agenda is to
keep their budget from being cut by a healthy 50% – which is what we'd
need to do to rebuild infrastructure, set up high-quality public
education, and create a first-world health care system, i.e. to get up
to German or Japanese standard-of-living norms.
Some have also pointed out that there's an element of the judicial
branch that can be included in "Deep State" definitions (such as FISA
Court); note that judicial review of executive foreign policy
decisions is very rare in the American court system.
It's also factionalized; i.e. there's the nuclear weapons sector
(DOE/NNSA and their contractors), the various Pentagon branches and
their suppliers, NSA and their contractors, CIA and their contractors,
etc. So they compete with each other for a share of the pie, but they
all have a shared interest in preventing the overall pie from
shrinking.
he intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and
their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.).
Wow, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy. For about three decades they
were at the pinnacle of the United States Establishment. They were like
Sejanus during the reign of Tiberius or Marcus Agrippa during the reign
of Augustus. Very, very influential behind the scenes.
Rex Tillerson's dealing with the seventh floor
apparatchiks
at the
State Department is another productive step in calling out the
nomenklatura
.
Russian themes seem so popular these days.
Perhaps helpful to know the original provenance of the term it comes from
Turkish journalism when one fine evening a sedan was involved in a nasty wreck.
Passengers in said sedan included a high ranking military official, a state or
federal(?) representative/official, a crime boss, and a beauty queen.
My understanding: trying to comprehend what such a collection of worthies
were doing in the same car led journalists to coin the term deep state. A
networked web of power interests/relations across sectors and institutions that
operate beyond above below out of sight of normative or visible politics.
I checked out that article from a previous post of the link and thought
it was a very valuable, terrific and detailed explanation of Deep State
theories w/ some fine literature recommendations.
The totality of truths is that the US "elephant" consists of a power
elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that
has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the "levers
of power."
Complete with tables and diagrams! A must read IMHO.
People within the American Deep State are said to have compassed the removal
of General Flynn, who was a prominent member of DS organizations himself, so
yes, the DS is not a monolith. But are there powerful "permanent" factions with
the DS that pursue long-term strategies?
There is another way of asking this. Much of what is now labelled "DS" grew
out of the investment-banker+intelligence nexus in the immediate postwar
period, or at least came to the surface around that time. America has made a
series of disastrous unforced errors in the past 70 years, Vietnam and Iraq
being the most prominent examples. While these errors have been harmful to the
American people at large, is there a clique (besides the Military Industrial
Complex) that benefits from these "errors," that has far-reaching goals that
completely diverge from those of American constitutional democracy?
Both Kennedy's and Diem brothers' assasinations and 911 mass murders were
deep events to sell and organize war for the Empire part of American
democracy. Not mentioning Peter Dale Scott is a minus of the listing of
properties. What does the Deep state did ? 911 and JFK so Afghan Iraq and
Vietnam wars.
It's my understanding that the investment banking crowd served as the
government's intelligence arm on an informal, sub rosa basis well before WW
II. Prescott Bush, GHWB's father, was involved in that.
Lambert, there
is
a Deep State in the U.S. as distinct from the
mere ruling class (and yes, by definition, it has competing factions and power
centers at different agencies).
A clarifying example of that is this guy, Andy Marshall, aka Yoda, who
arguably had more effect on the direction of U.S. policy than any U.S.
president over the last half-century and was finally removed from heading the
Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment just before his 95th birthday.
That's
power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)#cite_note-5
Yet most people have never heard of Marshall and he never enriched himself
particularly. You won't be able to tell the influence he exerted from his Wiki
page either, except perhaps for the mention of Marshall 'proteges' being the
likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Furthermore, before Nixon installed him at the
Pentagon, in the 1950s and 60s Marshall was at the RAND corporation helping to
formulate nuclear strategy.
Interesting. And taking into account the comment from Cat's Paw above,
I'd suggest to Lambert there are two distinct components to the term 'Deep
State'. One element comprises the majority ie. the
facilitators
who
foster the deep state, while the other element consists of the all-important
minority ie. the
instigators
or 'deep state
en nom propre'
.
I think the key to the "Deep state" is simply COVERT.
It is all covert activities that a public relations officer for the neocons and
neoconservatives would not acknowledge in their fairy-tale view of the state.
Technical note – for CIA/Pentagon, a *covert* activity is something that
is known, but where US influence or the extent of that is supposed to stay
hidden – e.g. a coup d'etat. And a *clandestine activity* is something where
the entire activity is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. CIA running Heroin and
Cocaine, unlicensed human experimentation, or controlling the editorial desk
& ownership if the Washington Post. In that sense, the clandestine activity
are even deeper, and the set of people in the know, is even smaller.
"
barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to
it at all
" - Glenn Greenwald
The $50 billion-plus black budget for the IC, covering many
clandestine projects and activities, is not even subject to
Congressional
accountability. It is discussed verbally with the
majority and minority leaders, and the ranking members of the
intelligence committees.
Then the other 427 members (or at least a majority of them) are
obliged on instructions from their caucus to whoop it through, without a
clue (or even a right to ask) what is in it. To paraphrase the great
stateswoman Nancy Pelosi, "
We have to pass it to avoid finding out
what's in it.
"
Secret funding via this procedure is unconstitutional and
illegitimate. Yet neither the president, the judiciary, nor anyone in
Congress appears able to stop it. The IC is a fourth-stage cancer
devouring the guts of the former republic.
Secret funding is a huge unknown. Everything from mostly legitimate
front companies, to business donations for favors, to drug running.
One would think, incorrectly, that the drug running is some kind of
big secret the following links show it is not:
Collection of quotes from DEA agents, John Kerry, etc:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5878115
Video with Robert Bonner, ex-head of DEA, on 60 minutes in 1993, just
after he stepped down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1bL_Gp03g
50 billion? That is just the cost of coffee and donuts. A week
before 911 Rumsfeld acknowledged that 2.3 TRILLION dollars was missing
and unaccounted for in the DOD budget.
" CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own
auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it
spends.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in
transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
$2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in
America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions,
consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out
what happened to a mere $300 million.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim
Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
Conveniently the accounting records that might have made possible
an investigation of that little error were located in Building 7 of
the WTC and in the exact section of the Pentagon which the skilled
Saudi pilots targeted and and then vaporized their airliner leaving
only a few token pieces on the lawn.Of course 911 is ancient history
that nobody cares about anymore. Apparently we are in need of another
accounting cleansing, since the Inspector General reports that an
additional 6.5 TRILLLION has gone missing since then.
Susan Lindauer, in her memoir of her role as a CIA asset serving as
a go-between in the failed negotiations to avert the Iraq War (
Extreme
Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups
of 9/11 and Iraq
), recounts that in the desperate last few
weeks before March 20, 2003, she was paying her considerable expenses
out-of-pocket. Her handler was having trouble getting her
reimbursement approved, and by the time he did she was making a pest
of herself about the fact that the negotiations had been deliberately
sabotaged, and had become a pariah. At that point the handler had no
difficulty, not to mention compunction, about simply stiffing her and
diverting the funds to the McMansion he was building.
How much of that $50B black budget is similarly diverted?
"Covert" means the activity is against the law. "Clandestine" means
the activity is secret but within the confines of the law. The military
undertakes clandestine activity authorized by law, not covert activity. A
US soldiers cannot break the law. On the other hand paramilitary activity
is often covert.
For example, a US soldier on a clandestine mission is captured. Since
the soldier is acting legally, albeit in secret, he is afforded all of
the rights as a prisoner of war if he id's himself as a US soldier in
uniform, name, rank, serial number. A CIA agent [likely a contractor and
not a gov't employee] is captured on a covert mission, he can be
summarily executed, legally, on the spot for a number of reasons:
conducting warfare in civilian clothes and not in uniform, espionage,
piracy, etc. There is grey area, for instance, if soldiers ingress to an
area in civilian clothes [or the enemy's uniform] then put on their own
uniforms before conducting an attack, as the SS did in the Ardenne.
This article: Joseph Berger III. "Covert Action – Title 10, Title
50, and the Chain of Command." Joint Force Quarterly 67 (Q4 2012).
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-67_32-39_Berger.pdf
.
is exactly on this topic. I take my definitions from there. The
article does note that it takes some doing to resolve the different
usages within CIA and DOD.
It would be good if we could separate 'what is the deep state' and 'what are
the factions of the deep state' and 'who belongs to the deep state' I suspect
that Cambridge Analytics & their Facebook scraping could answer the question
'who belongs to the deep state' as they could they easier track a social
network of people more loyal to each other than to the US Gov or the POTUS of
the day. Asking the 'Deep State' to define itself could be an exercise in
futility as members of the 'Deep State' likely mix ideology & the opportunity
to make money in ways that blind them to the full implications of their
actions.
Slate magazine today had an article up of a doctor who tried the revolving door
and then wrote about it
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/going_undercover_through_washington_s_revolving_door.html
If you all need a fun book to read, try Interface by Neal Stephenson (written
after Snow Crash and before Cryptonomicon)
IMO: Deep State: Anyone who will be in DC regardless of who is president
and can still have some degree of power. They are sometimes well known
people like Neera Tanden and sometimes they work in the IC. They are the
people who no matter how many times they fuck up, destroy lives, lose a
campaign, or completely fail at whatever task they are given, they can
always count on a nice cushy paycheck and a new gig where they can [Family
Blog} it up some more. The entire class of DC insiders who just can't fail
down no matter what.
Don't forget the late, great Chalmers Johnson, who coined the term
blowback
and left us with guides such as
The Sorrows of Empire:
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
As long as we're on the subject, more or less, I have a question about
Dark Money (I'm reading Mayer's book these days) and the Deep State: Do they
overlap, or are they rivals? Or are their goals sometimes in sync and
sometimes at odds with one another?
Another way of posing this question is this: If we assume that the
President is not the preference of the Deep State, are we also to assume he
was not the preference of Dark Money?
I'm having a hard time figuring out who's going after whom these days,
and what short- and long-term objectives are being fought out, almost – but
not quite – before our eyes.
Here's a case from a different field, education, which is the one I
follow most closely. A blogger has recently identified the "blueprint" for
the new Sec of Education to follow, laid out in a planning document by a
Dark Money group which is below the radar (well, below my radar, anyway).
It's pretty clear that the Sec is their cabinet member, but are there
others? Were these appointments made in the form of favors called in? For
what, though, if the Pres isn't part of this network?
The Sec of Education, it emerged in the course of contentious hearings,
had contributed to no less than 23 Republican Senators' campaign war chests.
What are we to conclude about them?
Another good book to mention, which plays a different role, is "Legacy of
Ashes" by Tim Weiner. It covers a lot of CIA dirt – coups, assassinations,
defying/lying to Presidents, etc. – but it is different because basically
all of it is drawn from the CIA's own files. So it is purely historical and
outside of any "conspiracy" controversy. The files are not complete. Richard
Helms ordered the most incriminating ones destroyed in a giant purge in the
early '70s – this is described in the book too. But what is there and was
saved is often pretty dirty.
Definitely a good list. I've read a few of these books and want to read
more on the list. And don't forget any of Sheldon Wolin's recent books and
essays. This one is 13 to 14 years old and still appropriate –
https://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism/
He points out the basic structure, I think, in which following the money
makes the most sense.
Pepper's last book on the MLK assassination, The Plot to Kill King: The
Truth behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King would also be a worthy
addition to the list.
Imo, a must read:
Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between
the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia
by Paul Williams. I think it's
newer than most of the books above and connects a lot of dots.
I've always throught that 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy
of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky' should be mandatory
on high school curriculum as a speed course on intellectual self-defense.
Three essays by Charles Hollander: "Pynchon's Inferno," "Pynchon's
Politics: The Presence of an Absence," and "Pynchon, JFK and the CIA:
Magic Eye Views of The Crying of Lot 49."
I would put it simpler and define a 'Deep State' as a major (i.e. not
minority rogue) element within the existing government structures (or
quasi-government structures) which is willing to commit serious illegal acts or
unauthorised acts of violence
within the territory of the State
to
achieve its aims independent of the legally constituted government. In other
words, I'd not define it by its structure or nature, but by what it actually
does.
I'd define it this way to distinguish it from the sort of bureaucratic
plotting which takes place within any large institution which finds itself led
by someone who doesn't buy into the organisations core consensus. An example I
would use would be
Operation Gladio
. If Operation Gladio had simply operated as designed, as a
secretive military operation which government leaders may not have been aware
of, then it was not an example of Deep State. But if, as alleged (but never
proved), it carried out acts of terrorism and false flag operations with the
specific aim of forcing elected governments to do what they didn't want to do,
and this was part of a deliberate high level strategy (i.e. not just the act of
a rogue element), then it would be an example of the Deep State at work within
democratic western governments.
Put into contemporary terms, if the internal resistance to Trump takes the
form of leaks, internal manoeuvres to slow down his agenda, etc., then that is
'normal' bureaucratic operations. If it takes the form of blackmail, false flag
terrorist attacks, assassinations, etc., then it is the Deep State in
operation.
Given that we know parts of the US and allied intelligence communities have
for decades been involved in highly illegal operations around the world which
has included torture, murder, blackmail and high level assassinations, is it
really so far fetched that there is an element willing to do the same thing
within the US?
Defining "Deep State" by its actions is appealing. Would the military
veto of Kerry-negotiated ceasefire in Syria count? Some officers acted
without apparent authority and were not reprimanded as a result. Would this
have transpired "within the territory of the State" and, thus, meet this
definition? Should it?
Thats an interesting question. There can be a fine line between
bureaucratic infighting and actual illegal and anti-democratic actions.
On my definition I would say 'no', its not Deep State in that the actions
were insubordinate and dangerous, but they took place outside the US so
arguably were more the result of a power struggle between government
factions. It was the result I think of Obama's weakness as a leader, not
an actual Deep State action.
Wouldn't any so-called Deep State be supported by factions in Congress?
Sure. For instance, John McCain is in my view the epitome of the Deep State,
one of its chief representatives, out in the open, a vanguard. The Clintons
too, doubtless, though now outside government. If Congress gives no pushback,
it bestows tacit/active agreement. Congress can rescind the privileges and
power of all the organisations observers ascribe to the Deep State. So what's
so mysterious? The notion of a Deep State's existence might just serve as a way
to avoid responsibility, accountability, deny agency. Some shadowy bunch is
running things, anything else new? On the other hand think tanks, contractors
and subcontracters are less easily kept in place. Yet Congress can put an end
to prisons for profit and erase one element of the deception, reduce the
numbers if security clearances by defunding, etc. not things were are about to
do. Eminence grise, one two buckle my shoe
McCain is too stupid. To better understand the Deep State, one must go a
bit higher up the ladder.
Look into the membership of the Bretton Woods Committee - the lobbyist
group for the international super-rich (www.brettonwoods.org), and the Group
of Thirty (www.group30.org).
Once you understand these two groups, you'll be more aware.
Loved the Group of Thirty pictorials on their home page. I counted
exactly one genuine person of color (aka, "token negro") among the
melange, with a handful of "half and halfs" of former British colonial
heritage who of course have had time to assimilate and duly "see the
light" as to the wisdom of continued perpetual white northern European
supremacy. As for the few token Asians, they'll come around soon enough
as well, although they ARE amazing students, aren't they?
We can avoid definite articles, but this is a defining article, and could
become the definitive article.
The most curious fact is that the phrase is showing up in the msm. I take it
as confirmation of Lambert's point: 'Factional conflict within the deep state
exists!'
I always attributed the use of the word to Peter Dale Scott. The Turkish
phrase seems to me more of a parallel usage than the place from which the
phrase is derived. In my cursory reading, the phrase originated in conspiracy
theory – particularly around the assassination of JFK. I am not using
conspiracy theory in a disparaging sense, since I don't think a belief in
conspiracies (which is legally recognized, and was long one of the great themes
of political science, from Aristotle to Montesquieu) is per se disqualifying.
Scott, in the preface to Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, has a good take on
the prototype of the Deep State – in his theory, there is always a deep
political practice that is unacknowledged officially. For instance, Tammany New
York of the late 19th century operated, on the surface, according to the legal
order with a mayor and a bureaucracy, etc., but in practice, it was run by an
elaborate system of kickbacks and the investment of certain private players
with enormous governmental power. The Deep State, under this p.o.v., shouldn't
be confused with bureaucrats and those invested with public power, but instead,
is a collaboration between such bureaucrats and those in private positions who
retain unacknowledged public power. To quote Scott: " A deep political system
or process is one which habitually resorts to decision making and enforcement
procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and
society." By this definition, the endorsement of Trump by the National Border
Patrol Council and the way in which, under Obama, certain Border Patrol
officials sought to impede or change processes for taking in and giving due
process to refugees are evidences of a deep political process.
Well, Scott's Deep Politics is published in 93. The Turkish term Deep
State appears in print around 96 (maybe as late as 98–I'd have to look
around for a cite). While the terms are relatively synonymous they are by no
means equal. Best I can tell, Scott's starts using the word Deep State
widely in the mid-2000's.
Additionally, as I've come to understand it the term did not originate in
conspiracy theory. Rather the term was picked up by conspiracy theorists
from Turkish journalism as a useful shorthand for the alleged (and hidden)
events and actors they were trying to describe. Personally, not that it
matters, I think it's important to keep the original usage/meaning in mind.
1. b/c it was coined to describe a real yet inexplicable event–not
speculation or a theory of some conspiracy: i.e., the JFK assassination.
Wherein agents of military, representative government, and criminality
(along with a "bimbo" straight out of central casting) who have no
legitimate business doing business were obviously doing business–but what
kind of business? Who knows, that's why it's Deep. 2. The term itself can
easily drift into being an amorphous, ill-defined, but overdetermined and
overly unified signifier on the order of "cabal" which is likely to happen
anyway now that its wound its way into common parlance.
I may just be quibbling, but I don't see deep political processes like
Tammany or Border Patrol shenanigans as being of the same phenomena as the
so-called Deep State. Deep State would usually imply elements of the
military or, more especially, elements of the security apparatus (public and
private) at times coordinating with, at other times interfering with, known
political/institutional actors, corporate power, and criminal concerns that
might involve money laundering or drug and human trafficking. As most here
are noting, it is factional and adversarial–a network of several or many
discreet entities that coordinate, align, and conflict according to shifting
interests. It's paralegal, parapolitical, paraeconomic (or paramarket), and
parainstitutional.
And all of that to say that such a definition is wholly contingent upon
there being empirical and on-going phenomena which corresponds approximately
to the term itself.
Lambert debunked Scott's sloppy and internally inconsistent analysis, per
the link he provided at the very top of the post. That's why he kept arguing
against its use.
Thanks Lambert. Here's a bit more grist for this particular mill/passages
from the rabbit hole (depending on what set of metaphors you like)
1)
Paranoia
, a tabletop RPG game from the 80's. "The game's main setting is an
immense, futuristic city called Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is controlled by
The Computer, a civil service AI construct The Computer employs
Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it. Player
characters are usually Troubleshooters The player characters frequently receive
mission instructions from the Computer that are incomprehensible,
self-contradictory, or obviously fatal if adhered to, and side-missions (such
as Mandatory Bonus Duties) that conflict with the main mission each player
character is generally an unregistered mutant and a secret society member
(which are both termination offenses in Alpha Complex), and has a hidden agenda
separate from the group's goals, often involving stealing from or killing
teammates."
So: big on non-monolithic, also big on double/triple identities
(troubleshooter/mutant/secret society), which we associate with the
intelligence agencies, but also with revolving door politicians/lobbyists.
2) The "incomprehensible/self-contradictory/conflict with the main mission"
made me think of seven/eleven/twelve (depending on scholarship/personal
preference) chess, most recently attributed to BHO–that is, actions who on the
surface don't seem to make sense given the situation, but which conspiracy
theorists/true believers think are actually directed at a
future/buried/hidden/alternative problem. Although this would seem to fit
better with at least a semi-monolithic Deep Society, because it is strategy,
and a non-monolithic Deep Society would presumably be less organized/more
tactically inclined.
3)
The Final Reflection
, and especially the Klingon "equivalent" of chess,
klin zha
, and it's reflective version. Reflective
klin zha
is
played with only one set of pieces. "The Reflective is not so much a variation
but a strategic approach to an otherwise tactical game Once set up, the first
to place is also the first to move. During each turn, the player chooses one
piece, making all others the enemy. The player who captures the Goal on his
turn is the victor." So I kill a piece protecting (next to) the goal, but on
your turn you now control that piece, use it to capture the goal, and beat me.
So: a smaller (but still non-monolithic) Deep State, with a large unitary
set of "pieces" (the non-Deep State?). Again, while there are two sides
playing, they are both using the same pieces to try to do the same thing, and
they only have "control of the board" some of the time.
So my takeaways: non-monolithic (and especially more than two sides),
partial control (whether because of multiple/hidden identities or
non-monolithic is unknown), and given the pathetic state of most of our media,
most motives are "hidden", at least from casual view (cf
for the media's "hidden" motives
in
today's links
Here's a reminder (from NC a while back). It is a waste of time to
deliberate over the existence of the deep state. What's important is
participating in a state – a society – that is well run; where inequality is
always exposed; where propaganda is always obvious. It's impossible to define
"the deep state." I think Lambert was right when he said the definition of the
deep state always turned out to be a big hairball.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but try this: I think that
factional conflict, occurring during periods of systemic strain/crisis, is
what leads otherwise contented and inertial sections of the state to act in
ways that require concealment, either of actor or action. Reading a bit from
the Glennon book linked above, wherein he makes much of Bagehot, reminded me
of how the French political system used to be described as having something
like a bureaucratic ballast keeping the ship of state from capsizing. That
sort of conservative, continuity-maintaining function can grow claws, and
that's what we're seeing now, particularly when US elites are trying to
cobble a revised foreign/imperial policy to deal with China and Russia and
the president is having trouble intoning the verities of US exceptionalism.
Well, that lengthy disquisition seems to indeed "validate" – as it were –
the "deep state" terminology if not its epistemological derivation(s) at the
very least, readers keeping to the various formulae offered for "correct usage"
won't be whacked upside their haids by the moderators if the term appears in a
comment.
Cheers.
My first encounter with the idea of the Deep State was from Mike Lofgren's
2014 essay, "Anatomy of the Deep State", based upon his 25 year career as a
Capitol Hill staffer. Here is the link:
How about those little quiet gatherings of the Koch-convened sort, that
attract so little "press" attention, at Palm Springs and etcetera? Is the "deep
state" limited to Great Game and globalism, or is the long steady erosion of
even the myth of "democracy" and the transformation of that word into its
opposite, via the efforts of all those very small number of people who profit
from killing public education and regulatory capture and ascension to elected
positions in everything from little town councils and school boards to state
legislatures and statehouses, constitute part of what might qualify as some
sort of "deep state?" ALEC is not on everyone's tongue, after all, but the
power the people in it exert, through long application, sure forks over a whole
lot of what maybe most people would think of as "the general welfare" and
"public goods." IS Davos "over?" Is Bilderburg?
Interesting how many of what would seem to me to be deep-staters are tied to
Afghanistan, and of course Israel. One might even posit the Israelites have
their own deep state, that has interlocking membership with players and
factions and elements of the unelected and maybe public but mostly invisible
thing that the phrase calls up in the minds of many of us.
Having named the demon, if there is ever any agreement on a name and frame,
does that give us mopes any power over the demon, or just another opening for
its immanence in our sad little lives?
The first step would seem to be forcing the demon out from the shadows
and into the sunlight so everyone can get a good look at it. I imagine it
will then lash out with everything it has like a cornered animal, which will
harden public opinion against it, and then it will be game on for real. A
very dangerous game, to be sure, but what is the alternative?
From
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/dollar-deep-state2-14.html
[Charles
Hugh Smith, 02/2014]
I have been studying the Deep State for 40 years, before it had gained the
nifty name "deep state." What others describe as the Deep State I term the
National Security State which enables the American Empire, a vast structure
that incorporates hard and soft power–military, diplomatic, intelligence,
finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education–in a system of global
domination and influence.
Back in 2007 I drew a simplified chart of the Imperial structure, what I
called the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance (EMEGD):
1. "Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State
Blooper." (See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush
administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)"
How is this an example of a blooper? It helped to achieve its intended goal.
That it was exposed much later as a fabrication didn't vitiate its effect.
2. Surprised so many examples/references (especially here) but none with
Wall Street as a primary Deep State actor. Read something revelatory ( to me,
anyway) recently re the CIA ( post WWII) being engineered mostly by Wall Street
for the sole purpose of protecting big U.S Corporate interests. Sorry no time
to dig it up, but I'm sure others more knowledgeable can expound. (As
SerenityNow notes, Scott's book puts WS in the title.)
Good points.
What is interesting to me is the similarity of the
modus operandi
revealed in the yellowcake episode, where privileged information was
'leaked' to a tame 'journalist' to take out an enemy. In the case of the
yellowcake, we generally accept the narrative that blowing Joe Wilson's
wife's Non-Official Cover, but as part of a non-proliferation team, Valerie
Plame was also in a position to directly interfere with WMD claims from the
administration. OTOH, the WHIG and OVP are not very deep.
In addition, it is easy to point to the Iraq debacle as a failure on the
part of the 'deep state' that contrived it, but a more cynical view would
consider that a quick victory is less profitable than a slow defeat. In that
light, apparently glaring errors, like the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, may
be understood to be insurance that has paid off with a successful
insurgency, a weakened state where oil can be bought or taken without any
pesky national government interference, and eventually, trained military
leaders for IS, the next-gen enemy with actual ground troops and conquered
territory.
I was surprised that there wasn't a reference to Ike's warning about the
Military Industrial Complex, which seems like the original American
reference to an extra-democratic coalition of interests that could influence
or control policy.
Another milestone would be the Iran-Contra affair, where we heard North and
Poindexter drooling over an 'off the shelf operational capacity' to
circumvent constitutional control of foreign policy (a market niche now
filled by Erik Prince and Blackwater/Xe/Academi). In connection with this
scheme, we also witnessed intelligence officials colluding with arms
merchants to influence a US election by arming enemies, as well as running
drugs into the US to fund said independent foreign policy. I think the
illegality is well established, as for killings within the US territory, we
can ask Orlando Letelier.
Ran into an interesting passage in Kevin Phillips's 1994 book
Arrogant
Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics
.
He speaks of an 'iron triangle' of politics, interest groups, and media that
turns aside the cyclic outsider revolutions that would otherwise renew American
political institutions. If Trump has this view of his populism, it makes sense
he spends so much time disparaging the MSM; not just a celebrity feud, not just
annoyance about bitchiness, but a reasoned effort to break an elite power tool.
If Phillips's iron triangle fits the description of a Deep State, and it
can, this may be an actual conflict over principles and convictions. Because
the elite believe deeply in their own position, and are convinced they're doing
God's work.
To me this is the kind of synthetic journalism that really sifts meaning
from noise. And uniquely, on this site, the reading lists and comments are
sophisticated and thoughtful additions and refinements, like the peer review
offered from any scholarly community. This article is not definitive; but it
could grow and grow, and then one could easily call it "seminal." This is work
that I happily pay for.
From the history of the 1930s: one notes that for Heydrich to consolidate
his bosses' power over Germany, he felt it necessary to "declare war" on the
existing German civil service in 1935–not just the police force, but the entire
bureaucracy; and to seize control of the foreign intelligence services as well
as the domestic. The only successful hold-out was the Abwehr, the military
intelligence service, which succeeded in preserving its independence in a very
much more closely circumscribed field.
So Heydrich definitely felt there was a "state within the state" that needed
to be co-opted and ideologically purified and above all surveilled, before
Hitler's power was secured. That, in my humble view, is what the "deep state"
is. It's the most important part of the question "quis custodiet custodes
ipsos," and why Plato had a philosopher king instead of just a bunch Guardians,
and why a nobility requires a monarchy.
Yes it's great to see this issue being given the attention it deserves
and being subjected to serious analysis by NC and the commentariat. Thanks
Lambert!
A philosopher king who was poor, lived on public provision, owned no
property, had no family, and lived in accomodation from whom none could be
forbidden. And so just & virtuous.
Only relatively recently having become aware of the term, 'deep state' I
would assume, in its most basic form, it refers to those mostly 'unseen' and
'unknown' conservative we know best types who wield uninterrupted, often
disproportionate influence without having to suffer the dreadful inconvenience
or potential indignity of seeking a periodic democratic mandate.
It seems to me that there was a lot of talk about the birth of the DHS being
the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the New Deal.
That talk included concerns that Bush was putting thousands of dead-enders
in bureaucratic positions, and that they would be impossible to remove in the
future.
But here's the strange thing: unlike the Pentagon, this monstrosity draws
no attention whatsoever - even though, by our calculations, this country has
spent a jaw-dropping $791 billion on "homeland security" since 9/11. To give
you a sense of just how big that is, Washington spent an inflation-adjusted
$500 billion on the entire New Deal.
We've been talking around here about the breaking of
rice bowls
and
its affect on the credentialed class, the implication being the hysterical,
unorganized revolt of people who feel their well-being threatened by the rise
of Trump.
Bush II broke a lot of
rice bowls
when he leveraged the fearful
post 9/11 environment to bring about the reorganization of the federal
government under the DHS;
The Administration presents their strategy as one that requires them
to have more control over federal personnel in order to provide national
security and protect America. For example, President Bush argued that he
needed the freedom
"to put the right people at the right place at
the right
time to protect the American people."
The metaphor of physical placement-to "put" federal workers in particular
places at particular times-is rationalized as a strategy to protect America,
much like one would move a Bishop or Knight in a chess game to protect
the King.
This physical placement metaphor was also picked up by the news
media. In one summary of the issues, an article in the Washington Post
noted, "The White House wants to retain the ability to remove
some employees from unions for national security reasons," and "Bush
wants the ability to move workers from one part of the department to
another to meet rapidly changing needs.
This metaphor of physical placement suggests that the Administration
requires a particularly high degree of power and control over personnel,
but that degree of power is presented as rational and justified in light of
national security.
To the extent that the audience is concerned about national security,
then
they are invited to see the Administration strategy-in this case,
its need for power over personnel-as one that is consistent with that
concern.
Union leaders saw this issue in a different light; they disputed the
details of the proposal and also questioned the motives behind them.
Brian DeWyngaert, Assistant to the President of AFGE, saw the reforms
as an attempt by the administration to weaken the civil service system, to
shift from "public administration" to "political administration."
DeWyngaert cites a paper, written by two former Republican personnel
management officials, that asserts, "
The President can expect
opposition
from official Washington's 'permanent government
,' a network that
includes the career civil service, and its allies in Congress, the leaders
of federal
unions, and the chiefs of managerial and professional associations
representing civil servants."
DeWyngaert expresses union distrust of the administration, arguing that
the real goal of the administration was to "control what agencies do
[ ] to change some of the personnel rules [ ]
to the point where
they are going to follow your line because you control their pay, their
determination at will,
their layoff.
W4B;
What I'm pointing out, is that what we're calling the
Deep State
includes the
"permanent government"
mentioned above, and that in
reorganizing the government under the control of the new DHS, the right, in the
person of Bush II was attempting to replace a unionized, independent, New Deal
flavored government bureaucracy with one that could be more easily controlled,
because it was more politicized.
I'm saying that both the democratic, and the republican wings of the
republican party have made peace with the notion of a more politicized
"permanent government",
and that more politicized
"permanent
government",
is now showing its loyalty to the status quo by doing what's
expected of it, joining the resistance.
This is exactly what I think, too, and what Heydrich recognized in 1935:
that a large government has a hive mind. Without the SD ("Security
Services"), the SS, and the Nazi Party organization, he could never have
bent that hive mind, made of all those entrenched, entitled, relatively
law-abiding functionaries, to his will.
Trump has none of those tools at his disposal, so there's no reason to
expect his lasting very long or getting much done.
That's what makes the hysteria about his being like Hitler so very
misplaced. If Trump had an organization like the Nazi party hundreds of
thousands strong, ready to die in the streets for him, with operatives ready
to put into place to take over the management of the government effectively
at all upper levels, it would be another matter. As it is, he's grasping at
straws from other talent pools. No wonder the bookies are giving him lower
odds.
Chris Hedges, on his RT show, recently defined it almost exclusively in
terms of big business. I think the quote was something very short like, "It's
Raytheon, Goldman, and Exxon!!!"
Which complicates things, as Trump's cabinet has reps from Goldman and Exxon
in it.
On that tip more or less, I recall watching a video of Dick Gregory and
Mark Lane talking about the MLK Assassination, and Gregory made a point of
saying more or less that the intelligence apparatus doesn't act
unilaterally, but that it acts at the direction of the aristocrats, i.e.,
oligarchs, big business, etc. The aristocrats tells the apparatus to go
after those governments and politicians that are acting against their
interests.
In a documentary called King–Montgomery to Memphis (GREAT DOCUMENTARY),
Harry Belafonte said that when King antagonized the "money power" , he was
pretty much marked for death.
Anecdotally, I was working with a former Senator at the time of the DHS
formation who was still highly involved with the Bush administration. in fact
Cheney had them on speed dial. I can tell you flat out that despite spouting
the same garbage about freedom to reorganize on the fly, if you talked with
them long enough the ability to fire employees at will ALWAYS ended up being
the reason when anyone pinned him down about how departments would be
reorganized on the fly. Very clearly it was about making sure that employees
would know that they should show no integrity at all in doing their job most
particularly in regards to either upholding the Constitution or recognizing the
legal rights of any person, citizen of America or not.
All modern states are bureaucratic. So the surface state which the public
can replace, what we usually call "the government", is underpinned by a deep
and essentially invisible substrate of people and institutions. The
characteristics of the deep government are 1) opaque bureaucratic
decision-making and written output designed to mislead not inform, 2)
invisibility because the press cant easily turn the story into a narrative with
individuals who represent good and evil, and because the national press (NYT,
WP, and even the WSJ) no longer reports the news but filters the policies to
either spark outrage or encourage cooperation, 3) The deep government employees
are smart, educated and have come up through the ranks (think Bob Gates). They
are great people, fun to be with but often incredibly insular and sure that
"You people out there don't understand". And they are often right about that.
Don't underestimate their knowledge.
Under most conditions the surface government, the deep government and the
parts of the deep state outside the government (ie the press) are in general
agreement and work together smoothly. Today the surface state (President,
congress and soon probably the courts) are trying to bring about change that
the individuals within the deep government fundamentally disagrees with on
issues like immigration, national self-sufficiency and overseas threats. All
major changes (our entry into WWI and WWII, the civil rights movement, tax and
subsidy law, Obama's immigration program) generate resistance. Sometimes I
agree with the deep, sneaky part of the government (entering WWII); other
times, I don't (Vietnam, Bush in Iraq, Obama's immigration policy).
Our deep state is like that of most democracies and differs from
authoritarian deep states in a number of fundamental ways: 1) our military is
adamantly apolitical. All officers take an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution, not the government (in the late 1960s, as the military got sucked
into domestic policing, many senior officers started reading and discussing the
Constitution among themselves), 2) No U.S. deep state emerged out of our two
formative struggles, the revolution and the Civil War . Much of the world
(China, Russia and the colonies that became free in the 1950s and 60s) had a
different history, 3) We have no ethnic and religious deep states- no Moslem
Brotherhood, no Burmese Buddhist nationalist, although we do have passionate
ethnic groups that prefer to operate out-of-sight (Jewish, Irish Catholic,
Cuban, Indian to name a few) . 4) Countries that fight overseas wars or that
fear internal revolutions all develop a deep state. All the ex-colonies that
didn't (Iraq, Egypt, Guatemala and a hundred more) had the weak state
overthrown and replaced with a strong and deep state. In the US the first deep
state hints came after WWI (not WWII) with large caches of unappropriated money
going into the hands of Naval Intelligence (who do you think paid for the
Flying Tigers?). The original sin of our liberal deep state was the campaign to
get us into WWII. A good cause- and a terrible precedent.
Finally, the deep government and the national elite are not the same. The
deep government is largely a meritocracy filled with alert people who know
which way the wind is blowing. If real Communists or real Fascists took over
they would either stay inside, keep getting paid, and quietly try to undermine
the new leaders or they would take early retirement. They don't write
biographies or make statements because they are essentially private people
immersed in their private lives, what the Communists used to call Careerists.
The national elites are something else. They either feel independent (the
hereditary rich, celebrities and Trump and the self-made billionaires) or are
the insecure product of upper middle class families, Ivy League and
second-level private colleges and good social backgrounds. They work in large
institutions they don't own or control. The latter group wants to exercise
power because it gives meaning to their otherwise uninteresting lives (think,
academics, the non-profit sector and Federal judges). The self-made rich
exercise power to become richer and because they love to control organizations
that compete (Who owns all the NFL teams?). Both the deep state and the deep
government are open to people of education, good breeding, ambition, discretion
and good luck.
Is there any way to fix this? Probably not but nobody seems to bother the
countries that don't do foreign adventures To roughly quote from the Bin Laden
interview after 9/11, when he as asked "Why did you attack America?" he laughed
and said "We didn't attack Switzerland". A better national press would help. If
there are any billionaires out there interested in providing $100K salaries to
real smart MBA students who like to dig, let me know. A few platoons of young
I.F. Stones of various political hews might go a long way. But deep states are
here to stay. The best we can do is monitor. analyze and publicize them.
What a fascinatingly bland presentation, revering deep state careerists
for their solid private lives and good-breeding, while others are
power-hungry insecure product searching for a cure to their dullness.
And calling for "platoons" of new IF Stones from among MBAs, of all
places!
As a retired member of the Deep State, I find it amusing at the imbecility
of right- (or left) wing conspiracy nuts who can invent amazing chains of
undermining collaboration across agency lines orchestrated by some powerful
shadow demons.
If federal employees were really that effective, there would be no private
sector wage gap, the VA and DOD would share a seamless electronic record
system, and Snowden would have the Medal of Freedom, and HRC's fingerprints
would have been all over the gun that killed Vince Foster.
The Deep State, if you want to call it that, exists so the people get the
support and services they need despite confusing and often conflicting
legislation, presidential directives, and agency regulations.
I generally apply Occam's Razor to conspiracy theories. It is generally
more likely that events occur due to incompetence, lack of attention, or
emotional reactions than conspiracy. To pull a secret conspiracy off
successfully over a long time, you need to be really smart, really focused
and not have many people, otherwise it is no longer secret.
The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to have a reversion
to the mean of most of the population, and most people are more likely to
turn a blind eye than participate in something that means they could lose
their pension as well as getting home late for dinner.
So the biggest issue that Trump has with the bureaucracy is how to manage
Parkinson's Law. He did in the private sector by running around saying
"You're fired" but he can't do that to career civil servants.
http://www.economist.com/node/14116121
I am sure that there are a bunch of bureaucrat top dogs that don't like
the invasion of their turf. They are, after all, fundamentally political
animals very jealous of their territory. Some of them might even talk to
each other, but probably half of them despise the other half.
The biggest threat to us is that we slowly acquiesce to security theater
that quietly gets more and more invasive. The police etc. are the most
likely to be organized as some sort of "deep state" as some departments
already have an us vs. them attitude.
Tom, maybe one part of the bigger thing called "federal service" does
that. I spent 13 years with the US EPA through the Reagan Revolution (and it
was an amazing coup). A number of EPA employees, despite the threats of
"RIFs" (reductions in force, or wholesale politically motivated firings),
worked hard and quietly to do everything they could to slow the assault on
"regulation" of sh!tty corporate behavior that threatened human health and
the environment. There were a lot of go-alongs, usually later comers who
were looking to get their resumes padded before moving to the dark side, but
there were a lot who were serious in their commitment, and aware of their
vulnerability, who continued to press for enforcement actions, regulations
with teeth that required industries to spend money ("internalize") to
install process changes and end-of-pipe-or-stack controls (which often
resulted in increased profits for the corpos who had an excuse and tax
deductions to update their plants. And there was continued insistence on
doing the data gathering that supported the proofs of harm that pollution
and toxics cause. There was an 'environmental justice" initiative despite
the "f__k the poor" administration attitudes and policies, and a criminal
enforcement operation that actually put corporate officers in jail and at
least made them take notice of potential consequences. There are obviously
still a lot of employees at EPA to take their mission to be protection of
public health and the environment, preserving decades of data collection and
soldiering on despite the "Mandate for Leadership" quackery and
fear-and-loathing fomenting.
But your limiting the definition as you do is incomplete at best. The
state security overlords, the oligokleptocracy, and the other inimical
factions and parties that have been described in this post and comments,
seem to me the real nuts and bolts of what 'deep state' is getting at. Not
the many federal employees who, despite all the sh!t that flows down from
above and laterally from the culture inside and outside the agencies,
actually try to do the job of "positive governance," like a few people I
have dealt with in the Social Security Admin, the VA, the CMS behemoth and a
few others. I often wonder how people persist in those jobs and don't burn
out or get fired. I was close to both while doing my thing at EPA, 1980-90
(the Reagan years - I had two-plus with Carter as president before that, to
see how a less hostile-to-regulation-in-the-best-sense admin might operate.
Hard to take your comment seriously. Do you really think that the Deep
State consists of federal employees who are concerned with VA and the rank
and file of the DOD, or that they are interested in providing "support and
services" to the people? I think it's likely that your belief that you were
part of the Deep State is incorrect.
No discussion of the Deep State would be complete without reading "Spooks,"
by Jim Hougan. It was a seminal book written in 1980 (I believe) that
introduced the notion of retiring IC operatives joining private company
security apparati. Tell your compatriots you're acting on behalf of the
government and a patriot will do ANYTHING. "The Conversation" was a depiction
of one of the main characters in the book who had previously wiretapped most of
Manhatten back in the early Sixties; he worked for either Hoffa or the Kennedy
brothers or both. Really an unbelievable book getting more and more difficult
to find. Ironically– or not– I believe it was Hougan's last piece of
investigative journalism.
I'd always assumed the concept originated with Peter Dale Scott, who, before
he wrote the book "The American Deep State", used it all over the place in
2007's "The Road to 9/11". I've read neither but for excerpts, the concept
merely referred to covert agencies acting outside the scope of democratic
oversight - whether it's local police departments running out of control
torture squads and black sites or national intelligence agencies acting as the
private armies of the executive. That such groups might oust a sitting
executive is of course the heart and soul of all his conspiracy mongering about
the JFK assassination (I like his poetry an awful lot, but I remember trying to
get through Cocaine Politics and either the sources didn't check out or they
were untraceable, in any case I gave up on it).
If you want to find a consistent, broad, and useful meaning of a concept,
and a phase or 'name' for that concept, look for books written on the subject.
Postings, blogs, and even published articles do not have the authority that
books have (it's not just because being hit upside the head with a book will
hurt a lot more than with a blog posting, har,har).
My recommendation is Deep State, based on my understanding on Mike Lohgren's
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow
Government
.
I must say I personally don't like the term. When I use it with people who
believe that Rep & Dem describe the US government, I get the old eye roll, tin
foil hat outfitting treatment. Humm, maybe I'll lead in with the term
'Washington Consensus'. They get that one around here in Southeast Asia. They
haven't forgotten or forgiven the IMF about the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
I hate the term deep state because, unlike the mic, for example, which
has a clarity about it, it is so vague and malleable a term as to be almost
useless except for Hollywood films and conspiracy nutters, but if there is
such a thing, here is what it might look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8IvKx0c19w
A must-read is the 'Collateral Damage' investigation in which the Office Of
Naval Intelligence features as the main exposing agency of exactly this issue –
a parallel power structure operating on a black budget:
The central task of the U.S. 'deep state' is to maintain or expand the
permanent war economy. So it is the military-industrial complex. The
top-of-food-chain spy agencies - whose primary task within the MIC is to create
enemies and paranoia - are the brains and mouthpiece of the deep state.
Think kaleidoscope in motion. Colors are real but hard to predict. Preset
patterns, but affected by outside movement.
I love histories, but I know they simplify and often mislead. Anyway, the
trick is to spot the power emerging, not how it turned out with the last
generation.
I suggest that the best approach looking forward is to start with the
existing visible power bureaucracies both inside govt and outside govt but on
its periphery.
For each behemoth, daily routine is the biggest driver. And with that
usually goes shared values. Such things usually push events.
Offhand, I can think of a few starting points. If these separate
bureaucracies are subject to some common control, I would like to know exactly
who and exactly how.
Military/defense contractors. Mostly consumed with myopic concerns. Top
generals and bureaucrats do think tank type stuff, but mostly technical.
Obvious collusion with industry over defense budgets.
Not sure what attitude is toward Donald.
NSA and tech contractors. Foreign world to me, but obvious iceberg.
State Dept and White House and press chattering class. Propaganda
organizations, basically. I am sure they have clubs and secret handshakes, but
not sure should've called organized.
Main CIA Narrow bureaucrats.
Off-the-books CIA intersecting with business. These have been the most
spectacular stories and escapades. Edwin Wilson. Air America. Coups in the 50s.
Maybe CIA assassination of Kennedy.
Did these operations drive history? Maybe. If those types of connections
drive events today, what are they?
Nobody has raised the issue of COG. Here is one excerpt from Peter Dale
Scott's book that talks about and somewhat defines it. Much more in the book of
course.
One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise" plot to
prevent Carter's reelection, Iran-Contra, and 9/ 11 has been the background
involvement in all these deep events of personnel from America's
highest-level emergency planning, that is, Continuity of Government (COG)
planning, known inside the Pentagon as "the Doomsday Project." The
implementation of COG plans on 9/ 11 was the culmination of decades of such
planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic
United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes
designed for domination abroad.
Scott, Peter Dale. The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the
Attack on U.S. Democracy (War and Peace Library). Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Not logical. The Deep State is those elements of the establishment that
direct the course of government irrespective of e pluribus.
Perfectly good term, arising from popular usage, whose boundaries–hopefully
needless to say–people who know better will not dictate anyway. Would have been
much better, rather than to attack its use at the outset, just to investigate
it. Elitist exercise, shaped like this.
The Nostalgia of Trump: Remembering the days when birds fell
from the sky from the polluted air in L.A., When the Cuyahoga
River caught fire in Cleveland, death from black lung desease,
death from white lung desease, death by crushing, ...
I
don't ever see nostalgia for Trump. I wish to see him
expunged from the Nation's as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with nostalgia for
Trump.
Quite a while back Paine (who seems to be back here)
characterized contemporary Republicans as "the party of a
better yesterday". This refers to many people's impression
that when they were younger, at least looking back things
were more hopeful and remembered quality of life better. This
is independent from the things you mentioned. In my own
observation the same phenomenon could be observed in prior
generations of family and their acquaintances that
experienced in various degrees WW1 and WW2 and the postwar
fallouts. Life had always been better when they were young,
war or not.
The Nostalgia of Trump: Remembering the days when birds fell
from the sky from the polluted air in L.A., When the Cuyahoga
River caught fire in Cleveland, death from black lung desease,
death from white lung desease, death by crushing, ...
I
don't ever see nostalgia for Trump. I wish to see him
expunged from the Nation's as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with nostalgia for
Trump.
Quite a while back Paine (who seems to be back here)
characterized contemporary Republicans as "the party of a
better yesterday". This refers to many people's impression
that when they were younger, at least looking back things
were more hopeful and remembered quality of life better. This
is independent from the things you mentioned. In my own
observation the same phenomenon could be observed in prior
generations of family and their acquaintances that
experienced in various degrees WW1 and WW2 and the postwar
fallouts. Life had always been better when they were young,
war or not.
"... Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003) ..."
"... Paying for policy favors ..."
"... Removing constraints on dangerous behavior ..."
"... Increasing the public's vulnerability ..."
"... Increasing their own intake ..."
"... financial intermediaries. ..."
"... Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is fungible. One dollar is like any other". ..."
"... "I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply of intermediated ..."
"... no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding, nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more expensive than deposits" ..."
"... The first channel worked through the banking system By developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and similar intermediaries ..."
"... and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]). ..."
"... A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the window, that they are intermediaries ..."
"... obviously not so in any human activity. ..."
"... We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop. ..."
"... haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a rigged game. ..."
According to a recent study by Oxfam International, in 2010 the top 388
richest people owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's
population– a whopping 3.6 billion people. By 2014, this number was down to
85 people. Oxfam claims that, if this trend continues, by the end of 2016
the top 1% will own more wealth than everyone else in the world combined. At
the same time, according to Oxfam, the extremely wealthy are also extremely
efficient in dodging taxes, now hiding an estimated $7.6 trillion in
offshore tax-havens.[3]
Why should we care about such gross economic
inequality?[4] After all, isn't it natural? The science of flow says: yes,
some degree of inequality is natural, but extreme inequality violates two
core principles of systemic health: circulation and balance.
Circulation represents the lifeblood of all flow-systems, be they
economies, ecosystems, or living organisms. In living organisms, poor
circulation of blood causes necrosis that can kill. In the biosphere, poor
circulation of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. strangles life and would cause
every living system, from bacteria to the biosphere, to collapse. Similarly,
poor circulation of money, goods, resources, and services leads to economic
necrosis – the dying off of large swaths of economic tissue that ultimately
undermines the health of the economy as a whole.
In flow systems, balance is not simply a nice way to be, but a set of
complementary factors – such as big and little; efficiency and resilience;
flexibility and constraint – whose optimal balance is critical to
maintaining circulation across scales. For example, the familiar branching
structure seen in lungs, trees, circulatory systems, river deltas, and
banking systems (Fig. 1) connects a geometrically constant ratio of a few
large, a few more medium-sized, and a great many small entities. This
arrangement, which mathematicians call a fractal, is extremely common
because it's particular balance of small, medium, and large helps optimize
circulation across different levels of the whole. Just as too many large
animals and too few small ones creates an unstable ecosystem, so financial
systems with too many big banks and too few small ones tend towards poor
circulation, poor health, and high instability.
In his documentary film, Inequality for All, Robert Reich uses virtuous
cycles to clarify how robust circulation of money serves systemic health. In
virtuous cycles, each step of money movement makes things better. For
example, when wages go up, workers have more money to buy things, which
should increase demand, expand the economy, stimulate hiring, and boost tax
revenues. In theory, government will then spend more money on education
which will increase worker skills, productivity and hopefully wages. This
stimulates even more circulation, which starts the virtuous cycle over
again. In flow terms, all of this represents robust constructive flow, the
kind that develops human and network capital and enhances well-being for
all.
Of course, economies also sometimes exhibit vicious cycles, in which
weaker circulation makes everything go downhill – i.e., falling wages,
consumption, demand, hiring, tax revenues, government spending, etc. These
are destructive flows, ones that erode system health.
Both vicious and virtuous cycles have occurred in various economies at
various times and under various economic theories and policy pressures. But,
for the last 30 years, the global economy in general and the American
economy in particular has witnessed a strange combination pattern in which
prosperity is booming for CEOs and Wall Street speculators, while the rest
of the economy – particularly workers, the middle class, and small
businesses – have undergone a particularly vicious cycle. Productivity has
grown massively, but wages have stagnated. Consumption has remained
reasonably high because, in an effort to maintain their standard of living,
working people have: 1) added hours, becoming two-income families, often
with two and even three jobs per person; and 2) increased household debt.
Inequality has skyrocketed because effective tax rates on the 1% have
dropped (notwithstanding a partial reversal under Obama), while their income
and profits have risen steeply.
We should care about this kind of inequality because history shows that
too much concentration of wealth at the top, and too much stagnation
everywhere else indicate an economy nearing collapse. For example, as Reich
shows (Figure 1a & b), both the crashes of 1928 and 2007 followed on the
heels of peaks in which the top 1% owned 25% of the country's total wealth.
Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich
notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed
by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003)
What accounts for this strange mix of increasing concentration at the top
and increasing malaise everywhere else? Putting aside the parallels to 1929
for a moment, most common explanations for today's situation include: the
rise of technology which makes many jobs obsolete; and globalization which
puts incredible pressures on companies to lower wages and outsource jobs to
compete against low-wage workers around the world.
But, while technology and globalization are clearly creating
transformative pressures, neither of these factors completely explains our
current situation. Yes, technology makes many jobs obsolete, but it also
creates many new jobs. Yet, where the German, South Korean and Norwegian
governments invest in educating their workforce to fill those new jobs, the
American government has been cutting back on education for decades. A
similar thought holds for globalization. Yes, high-volume industrialism –
that is, head-to-head competition over price of mass-produced, uniform goods
– leads to a race to the bottom; that's been known for a long time. But in
The Work of Nations (2010), Robert Reich also points out that the companies
that are flourishing through globalization and technology are ones pursuing
what he calls high-value capitalism, the high-quality customization of goods
and services that can't be duplicated by mass-produced uniformity at cheap
places around the world.
So, while the impacts of globalization and technology are profound, the
real explanation for inequality lies primarily with an economic belief that,
intentionally or not, serves to concentrate wealth at the top by extracting
it from everywhere else. This belief system is called variously
neoliberalism, Reaganomics, the Chicago School, and trickle-down economics.
It is easily recognized by its signature ideas: deregulation; privatization;
cut taxes on the rich; roll back environmental protections; eliminate
unions; and impose austerity on the public. The idea was that liberating
market forces would cause a rising tide that lifted all boats, but the only
boat that actually rose was that of the .01%. Meanwhile, instability has
grown.
The impact this belief system has had on the American economy and its
capacities can be seen in American education. Trickle-down theories are all
about cutting taxes on the wealthy, which means less money for public
education, more young people burdened with huge college debt, and fewer
American workers who can fill the new high-tech jobs.
To be fair, this process is not just about greed. Most of the people who
participate in this economic debacle do not realize its danger because they
believed what they were told by the saints and sages of economics, and many
are rewarded for following its principles. So, what really causes the kind
of inequality that drives economies toward collapse? The basic answer from
the science of flow is: economic necrosis. But, let me flesh out the story.
Institutional economists talk about two main types of economic
strategies: extractive and solution-seeking. (Hopefully, these names are
self-explanatory.) Most economies contain both. But, if the extractive
forces become too powerful, they begin to use their power to rig the rules
of the economic game to favor themselves. This creates what scientists call
a positive feedback loop, one in which "the more you have, the more you
get." Seen in many kinds of systems, this loop creates a powerful pull that
sucks resources to the top, and drains it away from the rest of the system
causing necrosis. For example, chemical runoff into the Gulf of Mexico
accelerates algae growth. This creates an escalating, "the more you have,
the more you get" process, in which massive algae growth sucks up all the
oxygen in the surrounding area, killing all of the nearby sea life (fish,
shrimp, etc.) and creating a large "dead zone."
Neoliberal economics set up a parallel situation by allowing the wealthy
to use their money to extract ever more money from the overall economy. The
uber-wealthy grow wealthier by:
Paying for policy favors
– big corporate bailouts and
subsidies; lobbying; etc.
Removing constraints on dangerous behavior
– removing
environmental protections; not prosecuting financial fraud offenders;
ending Glass-Steagall, etc.
Increasing the public's vulnerability
– increasing
monopolistic power by diminishing antitrust regulations; limiting the
public's ability to sue big corporations; limiting Medicare's ability to
negotiate for lower pharmaceutical rates; limiting bankruptcy for student
loans, etc.
Increasing their own intake
– rising CEO salaries and
escalating Wall Street gambling; and limiting their own outflows –
externalizing costs, cutting worker wages and lowering their own taxes.
All of these processes help the already rich concentrate more, and
circulate less. In flow terms, therefore, gross inequality indicates a
system that has: 1) too much concentration and too little circulation; and
2) an imbalance of wealth and power that is likely to create ever more
extraction, concentration, unaccountability, and abuse. This process
accelerates until the underlying human network becomes exhausted and/or the
ongoing necrosis reaches a point of collapse. When this point is reached,
the society will have three choices: learn, regress, or collapse.
What then shall we do? Obviously, we need to improve our "solution
seeking" behavior in realms from business and finance to politics and media.
Much of this is already taking place. From socially-responsible business and
alternative forms of ownership, to democratic reform groups, alternative
media, and the new economy movement – reforms are arising on all sides.
But, the solutions we need are also often blocked by the forces we are
trying to overcome, and impeded by the massive merry-go-round momentum of
"business as usual." Today's reforms also lack power because they are taking
place piecemeal, in a million separate spots with very little cross-group
unity.
How do we overcome these obstacles? The science of flow offers not so
much a specific strategy, as an empowering change of perspective. In
essence, it provides a more effective way to think about the processes we
see every day.
The dynamics explained above are very well known; they are basic physics,
just like the law of gravity. Applying them to today's economic debates can
be extremely helpful because the latter have devolved into ideological
debates devoid of any scientific foundation.
We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework
capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the
picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve
if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This
soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop.
System Dynamics of Steve Keene is clearly more useful than equilibrium
dogma. He predicted the 2008 crash, though I think he was only lucky ..
modeling is always only good for interpolation, never for extrapolation,
unless you are lucky enough to only be dealing with linear changes over
time.
POSTED: Dec 13 2007 06:55 PM |
The Commerce Department said retail sales in Oct 2007 increased by 1.2%
over Oct 2006, & up a huge 6.3% from Nov 2006.
10/1/2007,,,,,,,-0.47,,,,,,, -0.22 * temporary bottom
11/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.14,,,,,,, -0.18
12/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.44,,,,,,,-0.23
1/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.59,,,,,,, 0.06
2/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.45,,,,,,, 0.10
3/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.06,,,,,,, 0.04
4/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.04,,,,,,, 0.02
5/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.09,,,,,,, 0.04
6/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.20,,,,,,, 0.05
7/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.32,,,,,,, 0.10
8/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.15,,,,,,, 0.05
9/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.00,,,,,,, 0.13
10/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.20,,,,,,, 0.10 * possible recession
11/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.10,,,,,,, 0.00 * possible recession
12/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.10,,,,,,, -0.06 * possible recession
Trajectory as predicted:
BERNANKE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING. IN DEC. 2007 I COULD.
With a simple spreadsheet projection of flows one can see a lot,
without fancy mathematics, using just simple difference equation
models, even models that display cyclical behavior. For example, with
any internal software development, the quantity of legacy applications
increase as they are created, unless retirement of legacy applications
is more rapid.
More often replacement occurs, rather than actual retirement. But
retirement of legacy applications is harder than you might think,
because of real dependency one can't retire them by fiat. The cost
of maintaining legacy applications, isn't zero. So with a fixed
software development/maintenance budget, the percentage of
expenditures to legacy applications approaches saturation, even
without figuring in the cost of replacement (similar to the rolling
over of loans vs retiring of loans). Short term maintenance using
patches, can only continue for so long, eventually wholesale
replacement is necessary.
Usually the only way to retire a legacy application is to produce a
newer and more expensive application, that itself has higher
maintenance costs. We dig the problem well deeper. Thus the
exponential decay of funds available for new development, or
replacement development, not only strangles new initiatives, but even
strangles the ability to maintain operations long term. That is why
there are still millions of lines of Cobol still working every day.
There is no free lunch, entropy reigns unless countered by new
forms of initiative. Usually the end result is an extension and
dilution of the problem, which then resumes decay on a larger scale.
This is what happens with the attempt to allay insurance costs by ever
larger pools, but there is a limit to the size of the pool, once that
limit is reached, the gambit no longer works. Long term problems
overwhelm short term solutions.
An exponentially increasing real economy covers all sins. In
absence of that, an exponentially increasing debt economy covers
all sins, temporarily because interest has a way of catching
up with you. See Greece.
Banks turned off the money spigot to developers by the start of
'07, if I recall. Developers and policy makers knew then there was a
recession, but the public was kept in the dark. After the market
crash, the consumers were punished instead of the Wall Street looters.
The only people who predicted the crisis were a handful of
post-Keynesians and Marxists. I'm more familiar with the work of the
latter, but for them it wasn't luck. They identified structural problems
with the economy that could not be fixed by simply utilizing stabilizers
(fiscal/monetary policy) and knew a massive crisis would occur once the
bubbles popped and exposed the real economy's underlying weakness. Some
believed that this crisis was the result of the tendency of the rate of
profit to fall and simultaneous downturns in the business cycle and the
profit cycle. I think the more convincing view is that low profit rates
in the manufacturing sector caused by a global crisis of
overproduction/under-utilization of capacity has meant that the real
economy has been weak since the 70's and that growth since then has come
from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the 80's, US stock market in
the 90's, US real estate in the 00's). These are problems that no amount
of fiscal stimulus can fix in the long run.
The author briefly touched on it. It's ALL about the circular flow of
savings. And the flow's stopped beginning in 1981, though really in 1966
(also Larry Summer's start of secular strangulation). That's why N-gDp
decelerated and there was a 35 year bull market in bonds.
You have to retain the capacity, like Albert Einstein, to hold two
thoughts in your mind simultaneously – "to be puzzled when they conflicted,
and to marvel when he could smell an underlying unity". "People like you and
me never grow old", he wrote a friend later in life. "We never cease to
stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were
born".
The smartest man to walk on earth was Leland Pritchard, Ph.D. Chicago,
1933, Economics, MS, Syracuse, statistics.
All bank-held savings originate, and are impounded and ensconced, within
the commercial banking system. Say what? Yes, the CBs do not loan out
existing deposits, saved or otherwise. The CBs always create new money
whenever they lend/invest (loans + investments = deposits). Thus bank-held
savings are un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and
investment. From the standpoint of an individual bank, the institution is an
intermediary (micro-economics), however, from the standpoint of the
collective system of member banks (macro-economics), the institution is a
deposit taking, money creating, financial institution, DFI.
The upshot is profound. The welfare of the CBs is dependent upon the
welfare of the non-banks (the CB's customers). I.e., money (savings) flowing
through the NBs never leaves the CB system. Consequently the expansion of
"saved" deposits, in whatever deposit classification, adds nothing to a
total commercial bank's liabilities, assets, or earning assets (nor the
forms of these earning assets). And the cost of maintaining interest-bearing
deposit accounts is greater, dollar for dollar, than the cost of maintaining
non-interest-bearing demand deposits. Interest collectively for the
commercial banking system, is its' largest expense item (and thus its' size
isn't necessarily synonymous with its profitability).
This is the source of the pervasive error (and our social unrest, e.g.,
higher murder rates), that characterizes the sui generis Keynesian economics
(the Gurley-Shaw thesis), that there is no difference between money and
liquid assets.
The CBs & NBs have a symbiotic relationship. And so do the have's and
have not's. Unless the upper quintile's savings are expeditiously activated,
a corrosive degenerative economic impact is subsequently fostered.
The Golden Era in U.S. economics (Les trente glorieuses) was where
democratized pooled savings were expeditiously activated (put back to work)
and matched with real-investment, non-inflationary, outlets by the thrifts,
MSBs, CUs, and S&Ls (principally investments in long-term residential
mortgages). And in the good ol days, we had gov't incentivized, FSLIC safety
nets for non-bank conduits. Now we only have FDIC safety nets for the
commercial bank clientele (which further retards savings velocity).
I.e., "risk on" is not higher FDIC insurance coverage (the FDIC formally
modified the assessment base in 2011 to include all bank liabilities – which
along with the LCR, contracted the E-$ market), not increased Basel bank
capital adequacy provisioning (which literally destroys the money stock),
not an increased FDIC assessment fee on 1/1/2007, or 4/1/2009, or 4/1/2011,
or an increased churn in speculative stock purchases (the transfer of
ownership in existing assets).
This post laudably critiques wealth inequality, but it suffers from the
"Newtonia Delusion" that confuses economic thought in general through
metaphorical malapropism.
Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure that
enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural artificacts
that are not time-invariant. Money is a cultural construct, a form of social
imagination and lacks any sort of deterministic attributes. Newtonian
metaphors of flow and accumulation restrict analytical illlumination even
though they enable quick and simple calculation.
Money is only one form of a "coordinate system" that enables the
measurement of forms of social interaction and cooperation. And it's
one-dimensional. This makes it useful given its parsimonious simplicity but
it badly restricts complete explanatory power. Physicists know the choice of
a coordinate systems influences measurements of phenomenon, and they
developed math techniques to neutralize that influence - I think use of
tensors in relativity is one example. Economics relies on "money" and
resultant ideas of "growth" or 'recessionn" because that's all it knows how
to do.
First, what does "collapse" mean in the context of the post. The word is
vague, undefined and subject to a multitude of interpretations - that's not
"scientific" at all. "Wealth" is also vague. Presumably it means possession
of assets that can be converted into money, so in effect is uses "money" as
a sole coordinate basis, and that's reasonable as a form of dimensional
reduction, but it fails to measure the implied asset value of any sort of
social safety net available to those without assets. That's no rationale for
inequality - and anybody wants a job more than a safety net - but it's a
logical flaw. Third, the nature of economic structures and cultural
relations isn't easily quantifiable or translateable into money; living in a
just, fair and inclusive society has an intrinsic value that defies easy
measurement through the "money basis". Measuring relies instead on
application of a sense of justice and honest sensibility.
It would be bettter to start analysis with a non-monetary vision of the
social rights any citizen of a community should have access to. This form of
thinking in fact was the normal and dominant form over most of human
history, when people lived in non-monetary tribal structures. And what their
implied responsibilities are to gain that accesss. Use that as a
time-invariant basis and then introduce money but only as one method of
measurement of economic change, there could be other social indicators that
might be used as coordinate systems too; use of these could result in very
different measurements of ecoonomic phenomeenon than result with the money
basiis. That would force the sort of thinking that's required for analytical
clarity and ompleteness, but that doesn't exist in economics
(See I can bang out a comment that doesn't mention jungle boogie butts or
hot women! Calling women hot isn't bad, as long as it's respectful and
flattering and inclusive. Women in general are hot! What do you want? to
live in a world full of gay guys or what? Hahaha. Sorry I can't help it.)
Turchin has been working on proxies, to get some measures of
well-being and political instability. One measure of social rights could
be the right to live, so life expectancy could be used. Dead is dead and
is a hard number. Chicago police historically have a different criteria
of what my rights are than I do, so the ecological measures can avoid
such definitional fuzziness.
Another Turchin point relevant to the post is that in-group variance
is only meaningful used as a multiplier of in-group selection, and in
context of other groups. Extreme inequality does not necessarily cause
economic collapse, and coherent elites consistently crush popular
revolts. The "the more you have, the more you get" feedback loop can also
be seen as a consolidation and success of a certain trait ("rich"), and a
re-sort of within-group dynamics (national citizenry) to between-group
dynamics (haves & nots).
(Also, economics does not concern itself with ompleteness, as rational
actors cannot be omplete, and an agent who is omplete often withdraws
from economic systems.)
I believe that biggest problem in economics is not the dogma created
by money(though its a problem of Course) , but rather biggest problem is
lack of a clearly defined goal. "Economic development" ,which is
generally termed as goal of economics , is very ambiguous and this
ambiguity is creating problems.
Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure
that enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural
artificacts that are not time-invariant.
Very, very few physical systems involve time invariant modeling.
Almost every physical system represented by a mathematical model
describes how that system changes with time. Otherwise it wouldn't be a
very useful model. Few things can be said to be at steady state and even
when they are it is usually a simplification, not an outgrowth of time
invariance. For example a chemical reaction A + B-> C at rate k1 and C ->
A + B at rate k2 is said to be at equilibrium (steady state) when k1=-k2.
Even at steady state the reaction is proceeding in both directions and
can be thrown out of equilibrium by a change in concentration,
temperature, volume, or any host of other factors. After the shock the
system will again tend towards an equilibrium but there is no requirement
that the new equilibrium be the same as the last one. And all the
equations that describe how we went from equilibrium 1 to 2 all involve
time. Neoclassical morons obsessed with equilibrium seam to be confused
by this and assume time is irrelevant and that full employment will
always return.
Economists are pretty much the only people I see that try to use time
invariant models. I think it is a great step forward that economists like
Keen have been trying to use the full spectrum of time variant models.
The fact that the models are relatable to models of other physical
systems is more an outgrowth of calculous than anything else.
I actually was out today doing stuff & plan to go star gazing
tonite!
What I meant is the equations that map the movement of the moon and
planets or heat diffusion or chemical reactions or sound propagation
worked in November 1887 the same way they'll work in July 2020.
Of course experimental measurements change through time, depending
on the phenomenon being measured. But the natural phenomenon modeled
by the equations themselves are time invariant as are the equations,
or science wouldn't work. That's why they're called natural laws.
Now wait a minute here. While I appreciate getting my terms
correct and such – frame invariant, yeah, that's what I need to
know – craazyman is a gift not to be distracted or encouraged
wrongly. Yes, his posting clarified the great lie of most
economic theory and its teaching and modeling, but his calling
is greater than that. "jungle boogie butts or hot women" are
rare on this site and should not be lightly diverted. Not that
I'm implying that our hostess or commentators of the female
persuasion aren't "hot women" or that jungle boogie butts aren't
finance, economics, politics, or power, but based on past
personal history, if I tried a craazyman, or even a craazyboy,
posting, I would be forever marked as hopeless.
Physical systems can be time-variant in that way too, it's
called a regime shift. We have observed that in several real
natural systems. In some cases apparent randomness actually is very
complicated but fully deterministic dynamics. Look up "bifurcation
diagram". Mathematical analysis can deal with that too.
Instead of the monetary system and flow, the analysis of human
populations, including the production and exchange of the fruits of
their labour, should start with the amount of cooperation as the
driving variable (or coordinate as you prefer to say)?
Odd that education investment is shown in the article as part of the loop
between employment and consumer spending. That is a very slow regenerative
path compared with the direct effect of employment, spending, and labor
demand.
The article wastes time extolling circulation merely because it resembles
that in natural systems such as tigers, but these do not necessarily serve
human interests. It benefits most people simply because they need the inputs
and outputs.
just institute a progressive tax on bank assets above-say-$700 billion.
would literally only affect a handful of banks and do much to rein in the
seize of the megabanks.
oh wait, all these banks are blue state banks (JPM, C, WFC, BAC) and
friends w/Schumer, Pelosi and Uncle Warren owns big chunks in WFC and AXP.
Capitalism is a balance between supply and demand but we only put
in half a system.
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can
already meet every need, want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on
goods and services. It is
demand side capital.
Marx noted the class struggle between the two sides that neither can win,
to do so destroys the system, either supply or demand will cease to exist.
The balance has yet to be recognised and we flick between the two sides
until everything crashes into the end stops.
Before the 1930s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics
By the 1920s, productivity has reached a stage where supply exceeds
demand and extensive advertising is required to manufacture the demand for
the excess supply.
Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment
capital which pours into the US stock market. The banks get in on the act
and use margin lending to fuel this boom in US stocks.
There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption
can only be maintained with debt.
1929 – Wall Street Crash
The investment capital was used to blow an asset bubble and not for
productive investment, it all ends in tears. The Great Depression is the
debt deflation that follows from an economy saturated with debt.
After the 1930s – Demand Side, Keynesian Economics
The New Deal starts the turnaround of the US economy and after the Second
World War there is the Golden Age of the 1950s and 1960s. Redistributive
capitalism looks after the demand side of the equation.
With the target of full employment, the unions start to abuse their power
and by the 1970s we enter into stagflation. There is a shortage of
investment capital and demand exceeds supply leading to inflation, there is
not enough investment capital to redress the balance.
After the 1980s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics
Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment
capital which pours into various different asset classes and the first round
of crashes occur in the late 1980s. Leading to an early 1990s recession.
There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption
can only be maintained with debt.
After the early 1990s recession the speculative, investment capital look
for another bubble to blow and finds the new dot.com companies.
Housing booms take off around the world, a speculative bubble for
everyone to get involved with and the UK and Japan have already been through
their first boom/bust by 1989.
Wall Street get's into 1920s mode and leverages up the speculative bubble
that is occurring there.
2008 – Wall Street Crash
The West is laid low and growth is concentrated in the East but they
start to use debt to keep things running.
Even with the Central Banker's best efforts the global economy falls into
the new normal of secular stagnation, the debt repayments are a constant
drag on the global economy.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
All that investment capital with almost nowhere to invest due to the lack
of demand.
We just swing from the supply side, to the demand side and back
again until we crash into the end stops.
We could recognise the system requires a balance between supply
and demand.
a balance in real time, not over decades with crashes and booms
harder to do globally than nationally which is prolly why nationalism is
rising it was China imploding c. 2008 that brought the growth of the
global economy to a stop, I read somewhere .anyway the growth-forever
premise of globalism was nuts. Not even the push for austerity by the
neoliberals could make the required adjustments – and not for lack of
trying. Yes a new balance (good shoes ;-) is what we need. One that
understands the old saying 'form follows function' and create a
functioning economy, the scaffold of a new sustainable human society. One
in which banking actually follows the economy.
It's not a math error, it's an accounting error. It wasn't
precipitated as Alan Greenspan pontificated in his book "The Map
and the Territory", viz., FDR's Social Security Act. It wasn't
Nixon who introduced "indexing". It wasn't because from 1959 to
1966 the federal gov'ts net savings was in a rare surplus. It
wasn't because between 1965 & 2012 total gross domestic savings (as
a percent of gDp) declined from 22% to 13% (9 percentage points).
No, the New York Times sobriquet, the "Three-Card Maestro's"
error, like all other Keynesian economists, is the macro-economic
persuasion that maintains a commercial bank is a financial
intermediary (conduit between savers and borrowers matching savings
with investment):
Greenspan: "Much later came the evolution of finance, an
increasingly sophisticated system that enabled savers to hold
liquid claims (deposits) with banks and other
financial
intermediaries.
Those claims could be invested by
banks in in financial instruments that, in turn, represented the
net claims against the productivity enhancing tools of a complex
economy. Financial intermediation
was born"
Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is
fungible. One dollar is like any other".
"I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting
banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply
of
intermediated
credit" (Bernanke and
Blinder, 1988)."
For example, although banks and other
intermediaries
no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding,
nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more
expensive than deposits"
The first channel worked through the banking system By
developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as
by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and
similar intermediaries
develop "informational
capital."
"that the failure of financial institutions in the Great
Depression increased the cost of
financial intermediation
and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]).
A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that
thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the
window, that they are
intermediaries
in the
true sense of the word."
From the standpoint of an individual bank (micro-economics), a
bank is an intermediary, however, from the standpoint of the entire
economy, the system process (macro-economics), a bank is a deposit
taking, money creating, financial institution.
The promulgation of commercial bank interest rate deregulation
(banks introducing liability management, buying their liquidity,
instead of following the old fashioned practice of storing their
liquidity), i.e., the removal of Reg. Q ceilings (the non-banks
were already deregulated until 1966), by the oligarch – the ABA,
(public enemy #1), or an increasing proportion of time to
transaction deposits liabilities within the DFIs, metastasized
stagflation and secular strangulation. Remunerating IBDDs
exacerbates this phenomenon (as subpar R-gDp illustrates).
I.e., every time a commercial bank buys securities from, or
makes loans to, the non-bank public it creates new money – deposit
liabilities, somewhere in the system. I.e., deposits are the result
of lending, and not the other way around. Bank-held savings are
un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and
investment. Unless savings are expeditiously activated outside of
the system (and all savings originate within the payment's system),
thru non-bank conduits, said savings exert a dampening economic
impact (destroying saving's velocity & thus AD). I.e., savings
flowing thru the non-banks, never leaves the CB system.
Craazyman says it all, but I have to say it too, just for my own mental
health.
How often do social "scientists" have to make this same mistake? Biology
is not physics, and human society is biology, and economics is not even
close to accurately describing human society, not even the economics part of
it.
Equilibria are achieved, and thermodynamic laws obeyed, on much greater
and on much smaller scales than an economy, which is not even a system, per
se. Life is anti-entropic, but the universe, the solar system, is not.
Communities are not "social networks." Terry Pratchett as usual brings
common sense to bear on metaphors like this. Metaphor, you know, using words
to convey something like the truth, but not exactly: "Oh, so it's a lie,
then."
You have just lost me. Of course economics is a complex system but it
is a system nonetheless. Wynne Godley's sectoral balance model is an
excellent example of a systems approach to economics, and it's precisely
the systems peoperties that attract me to it. MMT is a systems approach
by design and easily approached mathematically in that way if desired. I
have often considered how I would do it but no doubt there is someone
more able to do it than me.
The bonus of a systems approach would be the possibility of a
multitude of possible equilibrium states, some could be fixed, some
oscillatory if they include feedback with delay.
The author could also consider adding futile cycles to her list of
cycles, long recognised by biochemists.
Craazyman says it above. A "system of pulleys" is a system. A
"solar system" is a system. A galaxy, a liter of sodium bicarbonate
solution under defined temperature and pressure conditions, these are
systems. How is "economics" a system? What is it even a system of? Can
you define the parameters of even one of the aspects of economics in
some way that does not "leak energy" through every other aspect of
human activity, which is not accounted for in some way by the "system"
of economics? You can try, but you can't do it. That is why economics
is scientific just like astrology: it describes and explains
everything, but its only prediction is more jobs for its
practitioners.
There are "closed" and "open" systems. The behavior of the
former can be modeled and understood; the latter, less so (possible
only to some extent, and heavily dependent on the intellectual
framework that you bring to the table).
My experience is opposite. Usually in systems approaches most of
the detail can be ignored until it becomes important. They do not
require knowing the details of the system, instead they try to
simplify as far as is practical. Systems approaches attempt to
infer micro from gross macro behaviour. This is fundentally
opposite to orthodox economics. Godley's model illustrates this
well. You don't need to know details about every transaction
because parameters for aggregated transactions can be inferred from
macro data. You don't need to assume anything about motivations of
individuals or firms, but if necessary you could try to infer them.
I clearly need to go and do reading on open systems, because
understanding them makes for a richer intellectual life, like
poetry, or skimming rocks. For me, the chafing starts when
people try to apply a rigorous, mathematically based
scientifically accepted reproducible set of theories like those
of fluid dynamics (itself by no means fully elaborated) to a
field where the described system cannot be even be defined by
consensus.
What, for instance, exactly constitutes an "economic system,"
or a "system of economics," or an "economy"? Where is the
universally accepted definition of something even as basic as
money, a definition with scientific reliability, like the
definition of an atom in 1930? They just aren't there. You can
tell me yours, but it will not be the same as his, or hers. If
real scientists behaved that way, there could be no
breakthroughs: without a definition, there is nothing even solid
enough to break through.
And by scientific, I just have to fall back on Popper,
however old-fashioned that may seem. The propositions of
economics, like those of astrology and sociology, and also of
human nutrition, and so many other fields flogged by their
practitioners, remain unaccompanied by experimental
methodologies that result in reliable predictions of
reproducible results. They are therefore prolific with
unfalsifiable claims. They are, therefore, fraudulent at worst
and noisy at best, at a time where the direction of the public
discourse is increasingly controlled by central authorities with
agendas. A signal among the noise is harder and harder to
distinguish without the further impediment of additional
publish-or-perish verbiage which will be, more often than not,
weaponized by an interest group, if that was not actually the
reason for its creation to begin with.
Systematizers of non-scientific systems are either virtuous
"pre-scientists" or frauds. What they claim as the wider social
value of their work is the discriminating test. Alchemy and
astrology of yore ultimately evolved into chemistry and
astronomy, without actually contributing much information as
such: but without the need to make magic or gold from powders,
alembics, crucibles, and retorts, those tools moved into hands
directed by serious, patient minds, where they produced useful
and reliable information. (Not that circus entertainment,
handwaving, and noise were not great disseminators and
motivators of science, and remain so today!)
Until the dynamics of human society and psychology have been
fully described by anthropology, there will not be a
"fundamental atomic theory" for Economics to use to underpin its
scientific pretensions. It still rests completely on
demonstrably untrue assumptions, rules that can be proven not to
apply to human behavior. Most recently, the use of the "normal
curve" as generally applicable to economic "systems," because of
its near-universal employment in statistics, had catastrophic
results. This was easily predicted by anyone who has worked with
the normal curve; the Central Limit Theorem that underpins the
normal curve assumes that the assembled variables are
independent, not related functions of each other; and this is
obviously not so in any human activity.
So much of the
use of the normal curve is nothing more than hand-waving
hocus-pocus.
No serious reputable historian would claim any longer to be a
scientist, and if he did, he would be no true Scotsman, either.
But then, despite what I seem to be doing on these forums,
neither would a professionally trained historian think to
dictate public policy by appealing to the systematic rigor of
his craft.
Economists today should modestly retreat from their claims to
exercise any influence on public policy and direct their efforts
elaborating a true science. I believe that may never happen; and
I personally fear the unintended consequences that will result
from the political use of the kind of knowledge about human
motivations and collective activity that will be required to
bring it about; maybe less, however, than I fear nuclear war or
planetary desolation through aggressive environmental
destruction, which may be the alternative outcomes to that kind
of advance.
Money velocity falls because more and more savings are impounded and
ensconced within the payment's system. This started in 1981 with the
plateau in deposit financial innovation, the widespread introduction of
ATS, NOW, and MMDA accounts. Thus money velocity, formally a monetary
offset, started decelerating dropping N-gDp with it (and producing the 35
year bull market in bonds).
This should be evident with the remuneration of IBDDs beginning in
Oct. 2008. I.e., the 1966 S&L credit crunch is the economic paradigm and
precursor (lack of funds, not their cost). The "complete evaporation of
liquidity" on 8/9/2007 for BNP Paribas, "runs on ABCP money funds",
"shortage of safe, liquid, assets", "the funding crunch forced fire
sales", "efforts to replace funding that had evaporated in the panic",
i.e., non-bank dis-intermediation (an outflow of funds or negative cash
flow).
"Our goal was to increase the supply of short-term funding to the
shadow banking system"
Ben Bernanke, August 10, 2007:
"Our goal is to provide liquidity not to support asset prices per se
in any way. My understanding of the market's problem is that price
discovery has been inhibited by the illiquidity of the subprime-related
assets that are not trading, and nobody knows what they're worth, and so
there's a general freeze-up. The market is not operating in a normal way.
The idea of providing liquidity is essentially to give the market some
ability to do the appropriate repricing it needs to do and to begin to
operate more normally. So it's a question of market functioning, not a
question of bailing anybody out."
I.e., Bankrupt u Bernanke doesn't know a credit from a debit. Bad Ben
was solely responsible for the world-wide GR. My "market zinger" forecast
of Dec. 2012 foretold of the expiration of unlimited transaction deposit
insurance (putting savings back to work), not a "taper tantrum, not
budget "sequestration".
Seems like a sales-pitch to the 1% trying to convince the 1% that sharing
would be good .. I have my doubts about that strategy, the 1% respects power
and care very little (if anything at all) for the common good. Use the power
of the many in an democracy and force through the needed changes.
Continuing the model of a firm that requires software to function. If
the executives of the firm keep taking expensive vacations at the expense
of the firm, starving the software development/maintenance department of
resources .. then even if there were no other systemic problems, the firm
will fail (unless bailed out by a greater entity, as happened in
2008/2009). But in the end, who will be big enough, after we have
extended the risk pool to the entire planet, to bail out the planet, from
foolish management? I would suggest that the Roman Empire failed because
it was unable to overcome either long term systemic trends, nor
irresponsible management.
Inequality is directly correlated to corruption and the U.S. has an
exceeding corrupt political economy, hence the extreme inequality. Germany
and Japan, to take two prime examples, are part of the same global system
and are subject to the same forces, technology, corporate tax arbitrage
strategies, etc but neither of them have any where near the inequality of
the U.S. It's also worth noting they don't have financial grifters like Mitt
Romney and Steven Schwarzman amongst their most esteemed citizens.
So yes, it is all pretty complicated but at the end of the day the U.S.
is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, certainly the most corrupt of
the Western democracies so our problems are no surprise. All this talk about
globalization, tax policy, education and technology are all distractions.
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of our monetary system
which is at the root of the corruption.
Right on! – And the corruption is permitted, even encouraged, by the
"greed is good" philosophical basis of mainstream economics, and the
concentration of both media ownership and campaign finance and lobbying
in the hands of the wealthy.
Yes, this does deserve some kind of award for expressing a simple idea in
a pointlessly complicated way. When I was studying economics in the
paleolithic era, we were taught about the "propensity to consume" – in other
words the idea that the poorer you were the more of any extra income you
would spend as opposed to save. So if you give everyone on the minimum wage
20% more, then they will probably put it straight back into the economy. If
you give billionaires 20% more they probably won't. The more widely wealth
is spread, the more of it will be spent. This isn't a scientific law, but
it's an observation borne out by common sense.
Even Henry Ford, not exactly known for his altruism or philanthropy,
knew it made sense to give his workers a significant rise so that they
could afford the cars they were building for him.
I can't read this whole post this morning - but - my one note tune:
6% labor union density in non-gov work is like 20/10 blood pressure
:
it starves every other healthy process - even while starving the employee
herself.
Easy way back: if the 1935 Congress had intended (they didn't) to leave
any criminal enforcement of NLRA prohibited union busting to individual
states - Congress would not have had to change one word of the NLRA. States
in fact were left to make any form of collective bargaining (NLRA connected
or not) muscling an economic felony. There is no problem of federal
preemption when the area has been left blank.
Nor may the fed force local labor down an impassable road to union
organizing - because rules of road unenforceable and unenforced - when a
First Amendment protected right is at stake. To state that clearly: the
First Amendment is violated when government insists on a mode of action that
dismembers freedom of economic association before it starts.
I think he's saying more unions are needed, but the Federal
Government left it up to the states to stop the union busting,
which they have declined to do. The Feds can't enforce union
membership or collective bargaining as that would violate the first
amendment right to free association.
[cut-and-paste]
America should feel perfectly free to rebuild labor union density one
state at a time - making union busting a felony. Republicans will have
no place to hide.
Suppose the 1935 Congress passed the NLRA(a) intending to leave any
criminal sanctions for obstructing union organizing to the states.
Might have been because NLRB(b) conducted union elections take place
local by local (not nationwide) and Congress could have opined states
would deal more efficiently with home conditions - or whatever. What
extra words might Congress have needed to add to today's actual bill?
Actually, today's identical NLRA wording would have sufficed
perfectly.
Suppose, again, that under the RLA (Railroad Labor Act - covers
railroads and airlines, FedEx) - wherein elections are conducted
nationally - that Congress desired to forbid states criminalizing the
firing of organizers - how could Congress have worded such a
preemption (assuming it was constitutionally valid)? Shouldn't matter
to us. Congress did not!
"Renewable energy" is obviously the foundation of Regenerative Economics,
simply because energy itself is the foundation of all economics (as well as
of all life and of the "active" part of the universe). Yet all the focus on
renewable energy in recent years has done little or nothing to stop
escalating economic inequality.
I think a big thing missing from RARE is a theory and program for power.
What we need are institutional values and structures that will keep greed
under control without much effort. This means not just getting the
incentives right, but also the "political revolution" that will be needed to
implement them.
So I think not just about limits-to-growth but about the need for partial
universal ownership of all the major sources of wealth, combined with
limited stakeholder ownership (fossil fuels, large corporations, etc).
We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework
capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the
picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only
serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and
practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are
trying to develop.
Accuracy of analytical method aside, who will implement it? Who can? Not
those 8 dudes with 1/2 the world's wealth.
That depends on what kind of inequality you're talking about. Men
being paid $10/hr and women $8/hr to perform the same task is an
example of "binary" inequality. Either everyone is paid the same wage
(before the first performance review anyway) or they are not.
Income inequality is a bit different. If a CEO takes home 20 x more
per year than the lowest paid worker in the company income equality is
low (way lower than in any modern capitalist economy) if the CEO makes
300 x as much as the lowest paid worker, it is high. Income equality –
everyone being paid the same wage regardless of what they're doing to
earn it – is not the goal. Rather, it is reducing the gap between the
lowest and highest paid members of society.
Only jet settesr get the advantages of civilization at its heights. My
own partial solution has been an airport nation that advances flying
literacy and availability.
There is an amorphous factor arising out of the defined structure and
standard rights afforded travelers & businesses based on a separate airport
nation. (I admit this amorphous factor which causes me some presentation
problems.)
No human system will function without a common committed belief in it.
Airport movement of people & parcels is simpler to make comprehensive.
For example I have difficulty in attempting to expand passenger service in
NC because the corporation Norfolk Southern was given power to inhibit it
while getting the advantages of state responsibilities created with a buyout
of a rail company state company where it was controlled by shareholders.
A trick was done on us with the collusion of legislators.
We can simply say the RR as analogous is a matured industry to the point of
immaturity compared to an international airport accommodating both
freighters & passenger airliners.
These things will not directly make an economic theory, but are about
economic activity as enabled from basic port theory & the sociology of
ports.
For instance I advise women in nations prone to put them at a disadvantage
to put business offices on international airports which tend to be more
culturally neutral.
Appreciated the author's thought-provoking observations about the effects
of extreme concentration of wealth, with its enormous feedback loops and low
circulation of money that materially reduce the overall debt servicing
capacity of the private sector. But I also felt that she understated the
roles that private sector debt growth, central bank monetary policy, asset
price speculation and manipulation, and financial fraud have historically
played in causing economic collapse.
Playing Devil's Advocate I suppose you could argue that there is
something Darwinian about the way things are nowadays.
Apex predators are indeed flourishing and in a curious way they are
searching further afield and adapting to new 'food sources' as those closer
to home become less appealing, less nourishing and less worth the effort of
expending the energy trying to exploit, particularly when other tastier
morsels are so plentiful and readily available elsewhere.
Maybe we should just all get with the programme, know our places in the
grand scheme of things and resign ourselves to our evolutionary fate?
haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in
danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian
analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all
individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a
rigged game.
Our problem is that the rich really suck. They are greedy and I would not
be surprised if many were psychologically diagnosed with anti social
personality disorder. They are without integrity and would fight tooth and
nail for their pilfered money.
But the status quo is like the Congo under Mobut Sese Seko. It is a
society build on kleotocracy. Like any such society, it is inherently
unstable with money going to a few.
The late 1960s had problems. The costs of the Vietnamese War, the excess
deficit spending, and the dependence on Middle Eastern oil all lead to
problems in the 1970s.
"As Paul Samuelson stressed, that assumption [propensity to equilibrium]
is necessary for economics to be science, as in mathed up, and the dominance
that economists have achieved is due to their scientific appearances and the
fact that their mathematical exposition enables them to dismiss lay
critics."
Why? Non-equilibrium is accessible to maths.
In branching systems such the one imagined for monetary flow in this
article, growth in the number of nodes at the terminals (and thus necrosis
of excess of nodes) is controlled/limited by the number of terminals of the
branching, let's call these capillaries, that can be accommodated inside the
volume of the whole versus the number of nodes than can be accommodated
inside the whole. Since the total number of capillaries grow at a lower rate
than the number of nodes as the volume of the whole increases, growth is
limited and excess growth in times of higher volume of the whole suffers
necrosis when the volume of the whole shrinks.
'Obama and others have handed him (Trump) a pretty well
functioning economy'...not the only way that Obama set the
table for Trump. We also have a terrifying NSA to thank Obama
for. With SCOTUS in hand, all the pieces are in place for a
police state.
I am not that worried yet. The 2016 election was part Mad
Magazine "What, me Worry?" And the other part was "What
Hillary? You got to be kidding me!"
It was also a backlash
reaction to globalization and persistently low wages, both
accumulating over a long time now. There are a lot of kinds
of backlash and we have the potential for all of them in our
American diversity. Which one will be next?
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring
and surveillance of the opposition activists sort of like
what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals'
debacle in Southeast Asia.
Deep state surveillance and
trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.
There is no question that at least some policies Trump is
proposing will boost corporate profits at least in the short
run. Not irrational at all for stock market to be up,
especially backed up for now by steadily growing
non-inflationary economy that Trump has inherited.
And you
thought you were being ironic, didn't you, Peter K.? :-)
What Trump did was uncover the deep State by using Flynn as a soldier to ferret-out the deep dark
places....what you are seeing is the enemy being uncovered. Trump made this happen and now you will
see who is in charge....the deep State has now been exposed. We will now see the eradication of this
foul 5th column.
The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people.
Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the
national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment
wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part
of the Swamp to be drained.
Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people
have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after
our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law
and order.
Peter, what's your solution to the "lesser evil" dilemma? I
sympathize with your frustration, and I'm on board with your
complaint over how Bernie was treated. But when it actually
comes time vote in the general election, what's the solution?
I keep thinking that if progressive voters had held their
noses in 2000 and voted for Gore, we'd almost certainly have
never gratuitously invaded Iraq, avoided squandering hundreds
of thousands of lives and saved trillions of dollars.
You pose a very tough question. If we stick with the lesser
evil then lacking any competition they will stick it to us.
That is what happens when you have no choice. We have seen it
already. One can hardly consider the Republican Party a
choice if one works for a living and is well informed.
The
only thing that I have ever come up with is an
anti-incumbency solidarity movement that holds re-election of
all politicians at both the state and Federal level hostage
until they deliver on ratified constitutional amendments that
provide real campaign finance reform, an absolute end to
gerrymandering, a ranked/preferential/instant-runoff style
replacement for first past the post voting, legislative term
limits of reasonably long but well short of lifetime
duration, and popular election petition and referendum power
to overturn select SCOTUS decisions (notable citizens unite -
but who knows what would be next).
The solution is to have an open and honest debate.
I agree
that we shouldn't hold Democrats to impossible standards but
we should hold them accountable.
There are too many economists who just give Democrats a
pass and don't present an unvarnished history of what
happened policy-wise. They spin and present alternative
facts.
Look, I voted for Hillary in the general. Sanders
campaigned hard for her and he was easy on her during the
primary. He didn't go after her e-mails, etc. I think that
was the proper approach, even if Hillary supporters treated
Bernie unfairly.
Because of 9/11 I think Bush turned out a lot worse than
people expected. Still, now with President Trump people look
back fondly on Bush.
When the plutocrats found themselves losing the political
battle back in the 60s, Lewis Powell suggested a plan of
action:
" Businessmen of the World, Unite!
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s
was swift and sweeping - a domestic version of Shock and Awe.
The number of corporations with public affairs offices in
Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In
1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington,
but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs
increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle
of 1980.[5] On every dimension of corporate political
activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization
of business resources in the mid-1970s.
What the numbers alone cannot show is something of
potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how
to work together to achieve shared political goals. As
members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively
and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became
advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms
but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
.....................
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
.......................................
Bernie Sanders showed that a populist message could
resonate with a yuuuge number of people. And those people
would respond via the internet.
Unfortunately the DNC quashed that movement in the
primaries and Sanders has not followed through since.
I would guess that Bernies's message is still valid but
isn't being broadcast effectively. A focusing organization is
needed to marshall the anger and upset among the populace.
Our Revolution was supposed to do that but hasn't taken off.
An effective focusing organization is needed and progressives
need to get behind it.
People should absolutely read and understand Powell's memo -
it's the clear game plan that the
pro-business/anti-government crowd has faithfully followed to
reverse the progressive tide of the '60's. Where we are now
is no accident, nor the result of unintended consequences of
policies.
What progressives lack is such a clear strategy - and an
organizational framework - for taking back the initiative
from these reactionary forces. There are multiple polls and
studies that document the fact that the majority of Americans
back progressive policies, whether they be progressive
taxation, preservation and enhancement of entitlement
programs, humane immigration policies, and non-discriminatory
employment and law enforcement policies, among others. What
progressives generally lack is crisp and coherent messaging
that shows their commitment to these policies, demonstrates
the right's opposition to them, and doesn't get lost in the
minutiae of a plethora of policy proposals.
Fight it out in the primaries and then quit your bitching in
the general.
That is how you will get the best policy
outcome you can get.
If Bernie had won the primary and Hillary PUMAs came out
in force, they would be as worthy of derision as are the
Busters and the cynical More Progressive Than Thous are
currently.
Hmmm... I get, and agree with, the recommendation embedded in
your first two sentences - though I think the force of the
language is a bit over the top. It's a bit naive to expect
that people who hold strong opinions will simply fall into
line with a choice that they're not necessarily enthusiastic
about. This is consistent with the solution suggested by
Peter K, and largely consistent I suspect with RC AKA Darryl,
Ron's views, as well (if I can speak for both of them).
However, I have no idea what you mean in your last
paragraph. If you're suggesting that Bernie backers, as a
group, are worthy of derision then I strongly disagree. I was
a strong Bernie backer during the primaries, and campaigned
and contributed to his effort. Then, when he lost I held my
nose and did the same for Hillary. I'm pretty sure a majority
of Bernie voters did the same, while acknowledging many did
not. However, the evidence supports the view that the DNC
skewed the process to favor Hillary - and I think
progressives have a legitimate complaint over that. Would
Bernie have won in an open, democratically run primary
process? We'll never know - and that's the point. What we do
know is that a enough otherwise Democratic voters were
sufficiently unenthusiastic over the anointed choice to stay
home (and enough others voted for the opposition) to allow a
disastrously unqualified and deranged individual to win the
election. I think those who did will share a major part of
the blame for what this will cause; but that certainly
doesn't absolve the Democratic leadership for their share of
the blame - and since they're supposed to be the "grown ups"
in the room, with charged with managing a process to produce
a result that best advances the interests and views of
Democratic voters, I think they bear the major share of
blame...
"... The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected, arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act. ..."
"... The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. ..."
"... This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election. ..."
"... This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.) ..."
"... But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.' ..."
"... This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple. ..."
Note how skillfully NYT presstitutes present Russians as the next incarnation of Satan, contact
with which is prohibited for Christians.
Who are those nine officials... Looks like Jeff Bezos is just a puppet. Taking on Flynn is a
serious game which is far above his head. I do not remember any fuss over Bill
Clinton getting Russian money (really outrageous honorarium for the speech) which if you think about
it is even more clear violation of Logan act.
Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?
From the start, Michael Flynn, a retired army lieutenant general, was a disturbing choice as
President Trump's national security adviser. He is a hothead with extremist views in a critical
job that is supposed to build consensus through thoughtful, prudent decision-making. The choice
is now growing more unnerving every day.
A conspiracy theorist who has stoked dangerous fears about Islam, Mr. Flynn was fired by the
Obama administration as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and led anti-Hillary Clinton
chants of "lock her up" at the 2016 Republican Convention. He raised eyebrows by cultivating a
mystifyingly cozy relationship with Russia, which the Pentagon considers a major threat.
Now we have learned that in the weeks before the inauguration, Mr. Flynn discussed American
sanctions on Russia, and areas of possible cooperation, with Moscow's ambassador to Washington,
Sergey Kislyak. They spoke a day before President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for hacking
the Democrats' computers, probably in an effort to sway the election in Mr. Trump's favor.
Mr. Flynn's underhanded, possibly illegal message was that the Obama administration was Russia's
adversary, and that would change under Mr. Trump and that any sanctions could be undone. The
result seems to be that Russia decided not to retaliate with its own sanctions.
We know this not from Mr. Flynn or the administration, but from accounts first provided to
The Washington Post
(aka CIA Pravda)
by nine current and former government
officials who had access to reports from American intelligence and law enforcement agencies that
routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Bizarrely, Mr. Trump told reporters on
Friday afternoon that he was unaware of the Post report, but would "look into that."
jburack,
6:01 AM EST
The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected,
arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house
cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of
democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act.
ausmth,
2/14/2017 8:02 PM EST
Who leaked classified telephone intercepts of a foreign diplomat to the Post? Why isn't
that person in jail?
Cecile Pham,
2/14/2017 1:34 PM EST
Flynn would not dare to go ahead with telling Russia not having to worry about sanctions
and that the future would be better with Trump without Trump direction.
So Flynn's resignation is just an appeasement. The real story is Trump relationship with
Russia.
Mike Mitchell,
8:12 AM EST
As though Flynn is just an idiot who would have never suspected the NSA was listening in on
his phone call to ... a Russian Ambassador. Yeah right.
SittingOnThePotty,
2/14/2017 12:29 AM EST
People make reference to the Logan Act and brushing it off as nothing that will be used
against Flynn. But the law is on the books, regardless. So I gather now we pick and chose
which laws to apply and which not to apply? Am I a bit confused? It was placed as a law for a
good reason, just because no one has ever been prosecuted under this law do we dismiss it as
"old" and pretend it is not there?
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United
States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who
negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.
It was
intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2]
The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in
1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last
amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
To date, only one person has ever been indicted for violating the act's provisions.[2]
However, no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the act.[2]
Joe Smith,
2/13/2017 3:00 PM EST
Yet ANOTHER fake news story based on "anonymous sources". The media is now nothing
more than a means for distributing rumors, dressed up to look like "news" by labeling the
rumor mongers as "anonymous sources".
Stan Lippmann
, 2/13/2017 2:27 PM EST
This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this
story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State
Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to
buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election.
moonshadow168,
2/13/2017 5:45 PM EST
Looks like a preemptive set up so that Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy
sanctions, in response to imaginary "election hacking", will not be touched. If anyone dares
question Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy sanctions, in response to imaginary
"election hacking", then they must be "in cahoots" with those darn Russians who "hacked the
election".
Meanwhile, President Trump continues to do good work for all Americans.
Scott Cog,
2/13/2017 1:30 PM EST
Americans want to know if kickbacks are/were being offered (by Russians) to Flynn and other
Trump-team members in positions to push for rollback of trade sanctions against Russia.
moonshadow168,
2/13/2017 1:34 PM EST
"Americans want to know"... you mean like Bill C's "speaking fees" or "donations"
(cough-cough) to the family foundation? LOL!
Funny how the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former U.S. officials",
apparently fellow Hillary supporters, are treated as unbiased, indisputable and fact.
Laugh out loud at this, it is revealing: "Those officials were already alarmed by what they
saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election." Just so so you know what planet they are
coming from. Hillary lost. You can't blame it on Russia. Get over it.
In addition to not questioning the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former
U.S. officials" there appears to be obvious discrimination and bias against the Trump
administration.
Typhon
, 2/13/2017 3:02 AM EST
This is going to turn out to be another nothing-burger. All Trump has to do is wait it out
for any proof to come up, and if it is just unsubstantiated rumors, then to just write it off
as more fake news by frothy Dems ... Regarding Russian "hacking" the election, all Trump has
to do is get Brennan and Clapper on the hot seat, and have them talk for hours and hours about
John Podesta's Gmail password. Then ask "What else?" only to find that Big Ed at RT TV is a
Russian spy!! And so is Tucker Carlson. And probably Mel Gibson too, leading to the conclusion
that the Dems are a bunch of loons. Then ask "Who taught you this?" only to find out that
Obama ordered an in-depth sabotage of the incoming administration
wesevans,
2/12/2017 9:33 PM EST
Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?
NVCardinalfan
, 2/12/2017 3:22 PM EST
Typical Washington Post, running a story without confirmed sources to back up the story.
Just speculation as usual.
clewish09,
2/12/2017 11:42 AM EST
Russia hacked the DNC with Iraq's WMDs...
Tyler.Woods99,
2/11/2017 3:20 PM EST
This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president,
"I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia
would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.)
But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding
different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.'
JungleTrunks,
2/11/2017 11:17 AM EST
Approach the logic of the accusation in reverse, any Russian official meeting an American
official will be pressed to finding an opening to discuss sanctions. Any American official
knows a Russian diplomat will bring sanctions up and have a deflection to handle it. This
doesn't represent a "discussion" on a diplomatic level.
This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and
a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite
obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple.
KingMax, 2/11/2017 11:34 AM EST
He spoke with Kislyak the same day the sanctions were announced and then lied about what
was discussed (oh, right, suddenly "couldn't remember" because, you know, it was over a month
ago). But good job rationalizing his deceit.
JungleTrunks, 2/11/2017 11:50 AM EST
And yours is the typical cry of left wing malcontents that create as much controversy as
you can from what signifies nothing. No reporter ha disclosed what actually was said. It's a
virtual certainty that expected overtures were made, and typical brush off language was
reciprocated. You know nothing but innuendo backed by a desire of extreme prejudice to
prosecute any opportunity to defame anyone in the administration, this much is certain, the
only certainty frankly.
"... "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency ..."
"... For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. ..."
"... Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. ..."
"... Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. ..."
"... It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '. ..."
"... The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. ..."
"... Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. ..."
"... I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? ..."
"... Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. ..."
Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise
man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not.
However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone
of Trump's national security policy . For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare
that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the
CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council.
Put differently, Flynn
tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them
back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover,
the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood
that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests.
That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.
The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had
a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.
And Trump accepted this resignation.
Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run
Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European
politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are
fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.
But now Trump has betrayed us all.
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he
hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ? Today, Trump has shown
us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook
up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an
act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump
will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types,
ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.
Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him.
The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took
the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who
would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all
move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and
emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby.
Hassan Nasrallah was right when he
called him 'an
idiot '.
The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will
smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some
might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.
The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns
out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU.
Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous 'deplorables' who try as best we can
to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?
I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just
hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington
'swamp' will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of
solace in two undeniable facts:
Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist
Empire. Just like Erdogan' purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump 'color
revolution' has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of
the USA.
The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against
Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show they
true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization
of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and
that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people.
In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the
USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no
ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for
the US to avoid a collapse.
Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also
acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the
actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over.
Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.
Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not "great again", but at least stronger,
a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from
the others. That's over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump
stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at
any level.
I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others
surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking
Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been
comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to
show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new
Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?
Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance
that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would
focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual
edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian
statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.
Today's Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the
official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that
barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it's over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people
in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power
by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.
I see very dark clouds on the horizon.
* * *
UPDATE1 : Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but
what Trump's caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump's character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself
– after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump?
UPDATE2 : Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down:
"... Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend. ..."
"... Stupid survey leads to dumber article and fucking ridiculous headline. Standard Guardian opinion I guess. ..."
"... Seriously can you perhaps stop being so clickbaity? I've already lost the Independent because it went full on lefty Buzzfeed listical "you won't believe what they did to Trump when the lights went out". Don't follow them downwards. ..."
"... On both side of the Atlantic, we don't have a 'democracy', we have an elected monarchy. The trouble is, this monarchy gets itself elected on the basis of lies, money and suppression. For a few brief years after WWII, there was an attempt to hold executives to account, but neoliberals put paid to all that. Nowadays, it's just as if nothing had changed since Henry VIII's time. ..."
"... What we gave the ordinary Russian was neo-liberalism and they got screwed by it. Capitalisms greatest trick was to convince the many that it & democracy are the same thing. When actually, on many levels, they are totally at odds with each other. ..."
Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend. Essentially can be be used as another form of
lie and propganada
Lawrence Douglas
But, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves as Trump
supporters: 51% agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions. 33% disagreed. 16%
were not sure.
It is tempting to attribute this difference between Trump supporters and others simply to the fact
that the president's supporters prefer a more authoritarian style of government, prioritize social
order, like strong rulers, and worry about maintaining control in a world they perceive to be filled
with threats and on the verge of chaos.
As the PPP's survey reveals, Trump is appealing to a remarkably receptive audience in his attempts
to rule by decree – and many are no longer attached to the rule of law and/or democracy. Other studies
confirm these findings. One such study found a dramatic decline in the percentage of people who say
it is "essential" to live in a democracy.
When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how "essential" it is for them "to live in a democracy,"
72% of Americans born before World War II check "10," the highest value. But, the millennial generation
(those born since 1980) "has grown much more indifferent." Less than 1 in 3 hold a similar belief
about the importance of democracy.
And, the New York Times reports that while 43% of older Americans thought it would be illegitimate
for the military to take power if civilian government was incompetent, only 19% of millennials agreed.
While millennials may be politically liberal in their policy preferences, they have come of age
in a time of political paralysis in democratic institutions, declining civility in democratic dialogue,
and dramatically increased anxiety about economic security.
These findings suggest that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens will stand
up for the rule of law and democracy. That's why, while President Trump's behavior has riveted the
media and the public, our eyes should not only be focused on him but on this larger – and troubling
- trend.
If the rule of law and democracy are to survive in America we will need to address the decline in
the public's understanding of, and support for both. While we celebrate the Ninth Circuit's decision
on Trump's ban, we also must initiate a national conversation about democracy and the rule of law.
Civics education, long derided, needs to be revived.
Schools, civic groups, and the media must to go back to fundamentals and explain what basic American
political values entail and why they are desirable. Defenders of democracy and the rule of law must
take their case to the American people and remind them of the Founders' admonition that: "If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor
internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control
the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
We need to remember that our freedom from an arbitrary or intrusive government depends on the rule
of law and a functioning democracy. We need to rehabilitate both – before this crisis of faith worsens.
Austin Sarat is a professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College
"There is much to celebrate in the court decision against President Trump's immigration
ban. It was a stirring victory for the rule of law and reaffirmation of the independence
of the judiciary."
A stirring victory of the rule of law? Hardly. More like an extraordinary act of politicised
justice. And an orchestrated one at that. In my opinion that is, and as I see it at this point
in time and from what I am able to discern.
No. I do not see not see any stirring victories for the rule of law here here. Certainly
no courage of truth or justice. Nor, as it happens, do I like this travel ban. Nevertheless,
the court's ruling seems to me to be wrong since the constitution gives the president the power
to enforce blanket bans against countries believed to pose a threat.
I cannot see how the ban could justifiably be said to be aimed specifically at Muslims since
it does not concern some 90 percent of the world's Muslim population. So it looks very much
like a political decision from the 9th Circuit Court – and now San Francisco - in a tug of
war between Democrats and Republicans.
I am somehow reminded of the final "Yes we can" in Obama's farewell speech and of a sore
loser – the vindictive Mrs Clinton. Some smooth transfer of power.
The very fact that expert analysts are already sizing up what will be the Supreme Court's
decision in terms of breaking the stalemate between 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats provides
a perfect illustration of the politicisation of the judiciary at the highest level. Compatibly
with this, Democrats are continuing to block Gorsuch's nomination.
And compatibly with this the illusion of salutary Rawlsian** apolitical amnesiacs on the
part of the judiciary disperses like Scotch mist.
Somehow I have a clear mental picture of a newspaper editor, no one in particular, sitting
back in his chair with a smug smile 'Look how we managed to swing that one', I hear him say.
The principal protagonists here, overshadowing the US lawcourts, are the mainstream media.
A power never to be underestimated, especially when the choir is singing in full maledictory
and mephitic unison.
**The reference is to A Theory of Justice, the monumental work on philosophy of law by John
Rawls. It casts damning light on judicial impartiality by focusing on distorting criteria affecting
juries. Worth reading in the context of attacks on the impartiality of the judiciary in US
lawcourts taking place right now. And also in the wake of recent attacks on the judiciary in
Britain over Brexit.
Interesting that Clinton's 52% is regarded as a God-given mandate where as the 52%
for Leave is unfair as the voters were "too old/uneducated/outside London"
In both campaigns if more people my age (26) had actually bothered to vote then the results
would probably be very different.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump
to make the right decisions for the United States."
But that is an utterly assinine question to ask anyone!
"Making decisions for the United States" suggests setting policy. The judges Trump
is so angry with aren't making policy decisions, they are
interpreting
the laws
that already exist.
Laws without and independent judiciary are not laws at all, they are just whims of
whoever or whatever is in power. Might as well ask people do you prefer to live in a
country that follows its laws or do you want to live at the whim of an irrational despot
with irresponsible power who can do whatever the hell he pleases.
This survey is clearly a case of garbage in garbage out. Which is a pity, because
the subject is an important one.
In a common law system, like those of Britain and the US, judges do make law. If there is no
relevant legislation and no precedent, the judge is
required
to make new law in order
to rule on the case, which will then be cited as precedent by future courts. In a civil law
system, like those of continental Europe, judges merely interpret (and generalise, where necessary)
the rules set out in statutes and codes, and have less scope to innovate.
Of course, the
recent case over Trump's immigration plans has been based on interpretations of the constitution
though, but even interpretations are political (hence why the balance of power between liberals
and conservatives on the Supreme Court is considered such a big issue).
After nearly 40 years of corporate, lobbyist controlled politics, it's little surprise the
younger generation have no faith in democracy. What on earth is the point in voting for two
shades of the same shit?
You could argue that the US has never been a democracy. It is a strange democracy that allowed
slavery, or the later segregation in the south, or that has systematically overlooked the rust
belt taking all the gold for the liberal coasts.
It seems democracy is simply a way of deciding who the dictator should be. Not unlike the U.K.
Either.
If you were black in Alabama in the early 60s I don't think you would have enjoyed any more freedom,
respect or control than your Russian counterpart at that time
democracy is, of course, the best form of governance but in practice we see it benefit the wealthy
who unhindered can rob
the poor, only a socialist government can
usher in a true government to do so it may
be needed to have an authoritarian regime
True socialism is a form of government which sounds wonderful in theory. In practice it has never
successfully worked anywhere in the world. It does not take account of human nature.
Sorry but in the authoritarian nominatively socialist governments of the past the poor were as
robbed off the fruit of their labour and their dignity as they are today.
It's effectively a FPTP system that means you have a choice from only two parties. Even if someone
could challenge they'd need to be a billionaire to do so. America is no democracy.
Germany under Adolf Hitler before he started WWII was not a zillion times worse than any of the
contemporary powers in Western Europe. Neither was Franco's Spain. Looking in other areas of the
globe and further away from the West, what about South Korea under Park Chung Hee? Would you call
his dictatorship bad when he brought South Korea up to become one of the Asian 5 Tigers?
Germany under Adolf Hitler before he started WWII was not a zillion times worse than any
of the contemporary powers in Western Europe
Is that supposed to be a joke? If so, it's in very poor taste.
My parents grew up in Nazi Germany. Yes, it was a zillion times worse. Political opponents
were routinely murdered. There was no rule of law. Minorities, gay people etc were imprisoned,
tortured, murdered, expelled.
Germany was broke, following their defeat in WWI; people were poor, humiliated,insecure
and frightened for the future. In other words, the classic breeding ground for demagogues and
extremists.
After WWII, the Allies had learned their lesson and made sure that Germany should, for everyone's
security, be helped to prosper.
what about South Korea under Park Chung Hee? Would you call his dictatorship bad when he brought
South Korea up to become one of the Asian 5 Tigers?
The Friemanite right adored him and
many of his equally repressive and dictatorial successors (just as they did Pinochet, Suharto
(deemed by Transparency International to be the most corrupt leader in modern history to boot)
and endless South American juntas etc).
Every one else saw him for what he was - an authoritarian who had political opponents tortured
and killed and who banned any form of protest.
And is it particularly surprising that Trump voters tend towards anti democratic authoritarianism?
My dad and two of my brothers voted for Trump. Like most Americans, they detest authoritarian
governments. I sincerely doubt you know any Trump voters - let alone ones who favor authoritarianism.
In a cross-section of Americans, only
53%
of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make the right
decisions for the United States."
38%
said they trusted Donald Trump more than our country's
judges, and
9%
were undecided.
But
, the result changed when the data were narrowed to those who identified themselves
as Trump supporters:
51%
agreed that Trump should be able to overturn court decisions.
33%
disagreed.
16%
were not sure.
The results are significantly the same, the
But
implies something different.
besides, the results are *not* significantly the same. Fauteuil's first sentence suggests that
53% (more than a Brexit majority, hence Will of the People) of Americans support the judiciary
over the presidency. In contrast, a majority of Trump supporters, not unnaturally, take the opposite
view.
Statistics can be made to slant any way you intend.
So let's break this down: 51% of Trump supporters think he can do what he pleases. 51% means
one quarter of those who voted in the US general election.
If we estimate that only two-thirds of the electorate voted, that means in reality, probably
less than 16% of total potential voters think this way.
Stupid survey leads to dumber article and fucking ridiculous headline. Standard Guardian opinion
I guess.
Seriously can you perhaps stop being so clickbaity? I've already lost the Independent because
it went full on lefty Buzzfeed listical "you won't believe what they did to Trump when the lights
went out". Don't follow them downwards.
On both side of the Atlantic, we don't have a 'democracy', we have an elected monarchy. The
trouble is, this monarchy gets itself elected on the basis of lies, money and suppression. For
a few brief years after WWII, there was an attempt to hold executives to account, but neoliberals
put paid to all that. Nowadays, it's just as if nothing had changed since Henry VIII's time.
Sad that a new, stupid generation have to learn the truth of Churchill's dictum that 'Democracy
is the worst form of government, except for all the others'.
Sincerely hope for all of us that
they don't have to learn this the hard way.
I say this speaking as someone whose parents fled Nazi Germany, and who also spent time with
relatives in the former East Germany prior to the wall coming down. Life under a dictatorship,
whether of the right or left, is no picnic.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others'.
But is it democracy's
fault when the option as to which kind of government we can choose is so narrow? Scary as it may
sound, I think that the majority of young people would swap democracy just for some stability
& safety. But what they fail to realize is that it's not democracy that's at the fault - but our
form of capitalism. Look what happened in Russian when the wall came down & the free market rushed
in & totally screwed over the ordinary Russian. Putin was, to some extent, a reaction to this.
His strong man image was something they thought would help them.
What we gave the ordinary
Russian was neo-liberalism and they got screwed by it. Capitalisms greatest trick was to convince
the many that it & democracy are the same thing. When actually, on many levels, they are totally
at odds with each other.
Laws aren't final, they evolve with the needs of society. While I support this decidion I find
all of this a bit silly and typical of that strange world.. "this is the law, therefor blabla.."
I don't get why people even decide to study it in university. Most law students are like : "Yeah
I don't know what to pick. Lets do Law, it'll give me a good job". Empty stuff really..
Can someone please explain how the court has over ruled the executive order? From what I understand
it's because it would harm some Americans - but does that mean using the same logic courts can
undo tax increases, spending cuts, changes in abortion law? Or if the travel ban was instead passed
by congress it would then be beyond the remit of judges?
One example given was schools. Banning students from state universities, or professors, by preventing
them from entering the country, was damaging to the schools capacity to earn money ( in tuition
fees) and provide state education. Then there was the example of forcibly separating families.
But this part of the ruling does not exist on it's own, it goes together with another part
of the ruling, which was that there was no good reason for this action, since the Government had
failed to provide that any person from any of these countries was a threat - which was the reason
given in the executive order. For this and other reasons the Executive order was deemed to be
not legally enforceable.
Another problem is that this was an executive order, just a piece of paper signed by Trump,
and the President does not have sole authority to make laws, there is also the judiciary and legislative
branches - the courts and congress. If the travel ban had been passed by congress then the courts
would probably have not been able to overturn it. In this game of stone scissors paper, the executive
doesn't beat the other two - it needs one of them to rubber-stamp the decision if challenged.
The argument that a presidential order should be all powerful and must be obeyed regardless of
whether it was legal or not, was deemed by the judges to be anti constutional and thrown out of
court.
The other examples you give of tax increases or spending cuts or abortion might indeed cause
harm, but providing they are not anti-constitutional, and they get through congress, and are not
illegal, the harm wouldn't be taken into account.
I would not have voted for Trump. I would not have voted for quite a few American Presidents before
him either.
But the hyperbole about Trump is being overdone.
The USA is one of the oldest democracies on earth, and, one of only ten nations that have lasted
as democracies for more than a century.
By overstating Trump's impact, you are not helping.
It is actually a kind of hysteria. I remember Senator McCarthy's communist hysteria, and also
the marijuana hysteria which swept through schools when I was a child in the 1950s.
I'm a little surprised that there seems to be less debate in the USA about the electoral college
for the presidency than I thought likely. Of course, the electoral college is a completely redundant
if it never leads to a different result from a straightforward popular vote. As I understand it,
the electoral college is designed to ensure that smaller states have a voice greater than their
population size alone would deliver.
But in a nationwide poll, on a binary issue, such as the election of the president or Brexit,
I would have thought that each vote should count equally. SNP supporters might differ in this
view, as would presumably US Democratic Party supporters.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be
led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.- H.
L. Mencken.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make
the right decisions for the United States." In this cross-section of Americans, 38% said they
trusted Donald Trump more than our country's judges. 9% were undecided.
This means absolutely nothing regarding whether people support democracy and the rule of law.
Were the results about Obama, the very same result would probably be interpreted as racism
by the liberal media.
Another poll from Public Polling Policy says that by a margin of 51/23 Trump supporters agree
that the Bowling Green massacre shows that Trump's travel ban is a good idea.
That's shows what
you're up against and also why both Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer 'misspeak' so often.
A new national survey suggests that we can no longer take for granted that our fellow citizens
will stand up for the rule of law and democracy
Dear Austin, let me educate you a bit about the basics. The rule of law and democracy cannot
both exist simultaneously in one society. The former has never been an American tradition. Read
Tocqueville.
The rule of law is characteristic of a totalitarian state where it is enforced by civil servant.
The basic principle of such a state were described by Shang Yang 2400 years ago: a civil servant
obeys the law, regardless of the will of his superior. Everyone obeys the law from top to bottom.
In democracy people are judged by courts of jury. Which rule as they like, representing the
public opinion, not the written law. Constitution doesn't exist either. Teddy Roosevelt explained
when asked if his orders are constitutional: "The constitution was created for the people, not
the people for the constitution".
One nice example: the famous "Affirmative Action". It is obviously inconsistent with the most
basic constitutional principle, that people are born equal. But it existed because the public
didn't mind.
It makes me really wonder if americans (and other nations) are feeling something like a 'weimar'
moment, when the germans in 1933 lost trust in their very young democracy after living for years
under economic hardship and political pariah.
There is so much that resembles the nazi-era, this xenophobia, that started with a slow decay
of civil rights, the erosion of check and balances without the need to change the constitution.
When we are heading for the similar kind of fascism like germany eighty years ago, at what point
people should be held responsible for making a stand ?
Schools, civic groups, and the media must to go back to fundamentals and explain what basic
American political values entail and why they are desirable.
Agreed. Special emphasis should be placed on accepting the results of elections, there appears
to have been a recent surge in undemocratic sentiment on that front.
I suspect that it's a change in what the word democracy means to people. Even the older generation
are starting to understand that the 'democracies' that we live under in the western world are
horribly distorted. Big corporations, even foreign ones, have far more access to the elected executive
than the actual voters. Governments dance to the tune of powerful media. Votes don't often count
for much at all.
With this background it's no wonder that the Brexit voters feel drunk with power. For once
they voted on something and believe that they will get exactly what they voted for. The final
irony is that for most of them they don't realise that they were turkeys voting for Christmas.
Brexit could have possibly bought them some benefits, but the Tories seem determined to deny them
even that. Once the realise they have been swindled, what then for democracy?
People have lost faith in democracy, politics, the judicial system and, yes, economics.
Voting
to remain in the EU, is a vote for the status quo...if you're lucky. They want more government,
not less. It is not a 20-50 year project. It is forever, and they will not stay still. It will
evolve, and not regress politically.
The UK government will have to change, and they have the chance. They may not succeed, but
I believe they will try, and the pressure from the people will be more direct.
The EU don't want to change. If it was an economic union and not a political one, then it would
be a great organisation.
Forget the garbage about wars and instability. That comes from economic success, with NATO
providing any security until that comes to fruition to the developing countries.
No surveys needed to arrive at these conclusions I am afraid, apathy and mistrust of govt has
been eroding for decades. US government is a cesspool of corruption and in no small way is aided
by the fact that its citizens have given tacit approval for the erosion of their own civil liberties
and rights while celebrating the war machine that has increasingly rolled on for more than 3 decades
The abyss looming for the US, and by extension the world, can be traced back to a populace that
abandoned democracy and freely gifted the cronies the mandate to accelerate the erosion.
Solution? Kill apathy and not only get back involved but remain vigilant to preserve checks
& balances
Forty years ago, democracy was more or less synonymous with prosperity. Given it's now wider spread
to many poorer states across the world, as well as the incredible increase in the standard of
living in non-democratic countries, principally China, this is no longer the case. I suspect we
have not made the case for democracy as an end in itself, nor as a route to distributing prosperity
more widely, or as a corollary of 'The Free Market'.
This (democracy relates to prosperity) is insightful. Will we all be able to operate democratically
when climate issues and exhaustion of resources vs. population force us to manage the decline?
A thought provoking article. Like many things it comes down to terminology .what, for example
is democracy? Are the US or UK systems really democracies when it is clear that laws are enacted
in the interests of a narrow group of citizens and corporations who have the power to lobby, especially
in the US where bribery has been legalized with respect to lobbying.
Beyond this, look at US
attempts to come up with some sort of climate change plan. All of these flounder on the twin rocks
of democracy with its lobbying (we'll never get voted in again) or economic cost to the tax payer
(we'll get voted out next time).
Democracy is always presented in our schools, TVs, books and newspapers as a universal good,
when in reality there are good democracies and bad democracies with the US and UK versions actually
being on the bad side what with an unelected second chamber of grandees in the UK and the US in
a state of perpetual wars of choice.
Countries are what they do. The US starts wars. The UK follows the US into wars. Most countries
whether democratic or not, don't start many wars (Germany hasn't started too many wars since 1939).
Many countries that don't start wars are actually controlled by non democratic governments or
military juntas .and personally I would prefer non democracies that don't start wars. It's not
a difficult concept to grasp.
The main problems with all forms of government is abuse of power and it goes on in democracies
as much as any other type of government. Look at Tony Blair astride the globe hoover-ing up millions
instead of being sitting next the Bush in a 6X8 feet cell. When Britain and America fell asleep
and accepted total state surveillance as the price they had to pay to stop a handful of terrorist
deaths each year, they set themselves up for this power to be abused in the future and badly abused.
What's the answer? Really it begins at home with lessons in honesty, modesty, selflessness and
the like. The reality and the kids are plonked down in front of the TV watching the avarice of
the Kardashians there is little hope.
After the horrors of WWII most people in the developed world understood both, the dangers and
merits of democracy. In fact there is a conventional wisdom that it is totalitarian regimes which
start wars, never democracies. By and large that may be true, but I don't think it is true in
every instance.
But the major motivation for people is to press their own advantage, even it
is to the detriment of somebody else. Even if it is quite evident that it is to the fatal detriment
of somebody else. I guess religion describes this as our original sin. If that goal of personal
advantage is better secured by a dictatorship then people (e.g. in 1930s Germany) will support
that. Democracy is not a value in itself for the majority, but just a means to an end. After all,
I suspect many would prefer to be rich in a totalitarian state, rather than poor in a democracy
(especially those people who have never lived under a totalitarian regime).
What people like Trump do is to legitimise this drive/desire/greed as something positive (greed
is good, greed works), when all of our upbringing has told us otherwise. Otherwise we could just
take to killing our siblings to acquire their larger bedrooms.
I suspect the horrors of WWII have to be repeated to re-learn that lesson.
oh well who cares. let the US rip itself apart from the inside, we all knew it was gonna happen
sooner or later.
there will be no need for a terrorist attack to destroy the US ,they manage that fine on their
own. a 50/50 split in the population over values and believes? Regardless of who's right and who's
wrong. Its so damaging that by the end of Trump Pax America will be history.
US cant even keep control in their own backyard atm, thousands are killed within their own
boarders every year by their own people, most average people will never get enough paid to sustain
a adequate living condition, they struggle heavily with race and race related problems. They struggle
heavily with females and female right.
But most importantly they are not united, americans hate americans now. Many americans hate their
fellow americans more than they hate outside enemies. And thats a fact. How can a society like
that survive?
The US will eat itself and Trump will probably earn a billion on it, he is after all a business
man. He does what suits him best. But did anyone actually expect something els?
Take it a step further and apparently the word of Jesus is that you pull the ladder up after
you and you look to the demagogue giving false praise to fantastical notions and mocking democracy.
There is much confusion between "Christian" America and America's Judeo-Christian Heritage. Books
have been written.
The heritage is what gave America, and Europe, Liberal Democracy and freedoms
understood as "self-evident." That is, embedded and safe from lawyers and politicians. You do
not need to be a "Christian" to enjoy the freedomos the heritage gives to all.
"self-evident" is a strong clue that the constitution was informed more by man-centred Enlightenment
than by residual Judeo-Christian Heritage.
The majority of the framers were Atheists or Deists; any reference to God was part of the necessary
legitimizing and marketing process. Since then it has been a process of Christianity (read: Protestantism)
being merged with the civic religion, to the point where they are indistinguishable. Both have
been mightily degraded in the process.
More recently, corporate America's propaganda campaign to merge Christianity with Capitalism,
fronted by Rev. J Fifield, was hugely successful, and has brought us to the present pass.
"While millennials may be politically liberal in their policy preferences... "
They are not
politically liberal. They might be vaguely called "socially liberal", supporting the causes prescribed
to them by a new "progressivism" in the name of ill-defined tolerance, diversity etc.
None of the above implies an understanding of liberal democracy.
There have been many strains of the "left" in the past that would be classified as "liberal"
under current American terminology but were totally undemocratic. That was why the term "democratic
left" was invented to separate left-wing people that really believe in democracy.
The modern "progressive identarian" is not a liberal.
If you are a Green Card holder and leave the US you can incure tax liability for up to 10 years.
Taxation without representation.
But........the most flagrant departure from Democracy is giving
the lawyers the final say on what is, or is not, the law. The legislature can pass whatever bills
they may like but if the lawyers say it is offensive or phobic it will be struck down. The "Supreme"
Court is the ultimate power in the USA and none are elected by the people and none can be removed
by the people. The only way they go is in a box.
Sad to say, Tony Blair (surprise surprise!) created the same undemocratic monster in our country
and even labelled it the same way: "Supreme." Unelected, unaccountable and as politically motivated
as its US counterpart.
No the SC in the US can decide a law is contrary to the constitution.
Can you give a single example where the UK SC has 'struck down' any legislation? They have declared
govt decisions contrary to existing law including common law. You do seem to have a habit of coming
on here making stuff up.
In the context of first past the post, democracy is a total con. If you examine those democracies
with FPTP you wintness the most right wing governments on the planet that use this system. PR
as is used across Europe prevents these extremes and all votes count. Do you think the Tories
OR Labour will rush to change to this? No chance. Lastly, here and in the US, you have a choice
of two broadly similar parties who serve the rich and powerful who have engineered democracy largely
by contolling the press, to suit their own ends. By definition therefore, democracy here and in
the US is a caricature of what was originally intended for the people and not fit for purpose.
I support the introduction of PR, but it is a mistake to assume that any kind of voting system
or institution will stop the collapse of democracy/ democratic institutions Economic and social
strife will tend to overcome all safeguards when the public starts to feel desperate. A good example
and warning from history is the rise of the Nazi party in pre WW2 Germany. Trump and the republicans
have yet to destroy democracy and I see no suggestion that T will refuse to stand fro reelection.
I agree that the reason democracy has lost its lustre is because both her and in the US we are
offered no real choice. In terms of economic policy, the "There is No Alternative" party always
wins. Unsurprisingly, people start to believe that there IS no alternative, and therefore the
choice on offer is not genuine. They then either lose interest in voting altogether, or look for
more extreme offerings which seem to be truly different.
Bringing up the 'law and order' issues combined with blaming it on immigrants is typical of far
right regimes that want to undermine democratic values and move towards dictatorship.
By casting aspersions on the judiciary, Trump is echoing past dictators. First, he questions
their independence and then, when another terrorist incident occurs (whether white or non-white)
he can say 'I told you so, this atrocity is all the judge's fault'. America has truly entered
a new dark age. Let's pray that good men and women will continue to uphold and defend the
Constitution and the rule of law...
Share
Democracy has been in decline in the west for some time now, and it isn't just the right or the
left which has abandoned it. Nearly every western country has a bill of rights (either a strong
version eg the US which can strike down legislation or a weaker one eg the U.K. where the courts
award damages for breaches and make declarations of incompatibility). The EU has pros and cons
but no one could pretend it is democratic. The UK still has the House of Lords. The Canadian academic
James Allen has written a good book on it - how elites have now decided they know best.
We need
to be wary of this endless erosion of majority rule. Tin pot dictators the world over have always
had an excuse for ignoring the majority. Latin American military Juntas always explained that
they had to have power to ensure security. Human rights lawyers say they are needdd to uphold
the ever evolving concept of human rights. The Church used to insist it should have power to enforce
God's rule. The Fijian army in 1987 made an openly racist coup (attracting minimal opprobrium
and next to no action from the international community). Even those who think there are sound
reasons to ignore the majority have to admit they're not in great historical company
The EU has pros and cons but no one could pretend it is democratic.
The EU is not a state; it is 28 member states acting collaboratively in a number of specified
policy areas. As such, the appropriate comparison is not between the EU and a state but between
the EU and other collective bodies through which states cooperate with one-another such as the
UN or NATO. In terms of giving representation to ordinary citizens of its member states, I would
say the EU compares extremely favourably.
Moreover, the only two bodies in the EU that are able to enact legislation (and can only do
so through the agreement of both bodies) are the EU Parliament, which is directly elected by the
citizens of the member states and the Council, which consists of members of the Governments of
the member states, which, in turn, have been put in place by the citizens of the member states
through whichever electoral system is employed in each member state. We don't need to 'pretend'
that the EU is democratic; it's system of governance IS democratic in the same way that the governance
structures of western democracies are democratic.
Fewer people believe in the importance of democracy because we're several generations on from
almost having lost it. In the same vein we're more likely to have a major war than we were 40/50
years ago because none of the major world leaders have experience of one. It's cyclic. We become
complacent and smug until it happens again.
Fewer people believe in the importance of democracy because we're several generations on from
almost having lost it. In the same vein we're more likely to have a major war than we were 40/50
years ago because none of the major world leaders have experience of one. It's cyclic. We become
complacent and smug until it happens again.
"It was a stirring victory for the rule of law and reaffirmation of the independence of the
judiciary."
It most certainly was NOT anything of the kind. It was an act of judicial arrogance and a deliberate
attempt to undermine the long upheld power of the President to take actions that HE considers
required for the safety of the nation. What the ruling basically did was substitute judicial preferences
for Presidential preferences no matter that the Constitution was clearly not supportive of this
usurpation of power. you can review LOTS of legal opinions that state precisely this. An horrendously
POLITICAL decision that will come back to haunt the courts.
A defense of 'democracy' that begins with a defense of an arbitrary and demonstrably BAD court
ruling is pretty much fatally flawed from the jump.
Democracy works for as long as the fracture points in society are papered over with a commonality
of basic interests. When that is not the case, democracy cannot endure. The US (and others will
follow) is fracturing into pieces that simply don't like each other for VERY fundamental reasons,
including the definition of a Nation State and what it means.
Democracy works when things go well. It cannot work when it all falls apart. Oh and it also of
course fails when the majority have a vested interest in getting stuff 'free', and can vote to
have their demands enacted no matter the consequences.
LOTS of places are not democracies. It really isn't the future. Too many fault lines coming up.
Only 53% of those surveyed said that they "trust judges more than President Trump to make the
right decisions for the United States."
One of the reasons why I am very sceptical of opinion polls or surveys is that they often ask
the wrong questions. It is not for judges to make decisions about what is best for the country
which this question clearly implies. Their job is to judge what complies with the law.
Judges do not make political decisions about what is right for the United States any more than
they do about what is right for the UK. It is this lack of understanding which leads to them being
called enemies of the people.
It all boils down to education. Democracy can't work when you have so many people prepared to
believe and base their vote on 'fake news' (a nicer way to say lie).
Governments in a democracy
need to make having a well educated public a priority. Provide a high standard education for all
the population up to secondary school level for free (or at a rate affordable to everyone) and
you greatly diminish the chances of another Trump/Brexit.
And hopefully diminish the chances of more "moderate" alternatives bringing the Population to
its knees? Was Thatcher more "moderate" than Trump or did the Me Generation that she created usher
in May and Trump.
One person's victory is another's defeat. Politicians and voters are divided on judicial appointments
to the Supreme Court, and the 4-4 split in the current court illustrates that the rule of law
is simply another reflection of politics.
I think the Ninth Court made a big mistake. Why? Because
playing politics with the law can have serious unintended consequences. American Presidents have
been resorting to shock and awe against Muslims because they can't use tough domestic security
measures to protect Americans at home for fear of US judges taking an uncompromising view of constitutional
rights. Trump's predecessors have not only resorted to foreign military action, but they have
taken risks with extra-legal measures like Rendition, Secret Prisons, Torture and Drone attacks.
The Ninth Court may uphold the constitutional rights of people coming from war zones to attend
universities in Washington State, but the real world consequence of their hostility to domestic
security measures will be to corner existing and future presidents in to bombing suspected terrorists
abroad, making the world infinitely less safe with regime-changing wars.
Congress gave the President the power to exclude people from the US on national security grounds.
The University of Maryland maintains the Global Terrorism Database which lists more than 150,000
attacks since it began.
96% of current terrorism killing more than 7000 people each year is
claimed by jihadis. President Trump first mentioned his proposed temporary ban after the murders
in San Bernardino.
I don't think its unreasonable to restrict people coming from these war zones when they've
been murdering people elsewhere, including Paris, Brussels, Berlin etc. It seems that US judges
can't be persuaded that the right to life is more important than the temporary inconvenience of
not being able to attend universities in Washington State unless and until such people murder
Americans on American soil. I wouldn't call that 'constitutional'. It's offensive stupidity and
irresponsible.
If Americans were so concerned about the right to life they would do something about their almost
non-existent gun laws. Terrorists don't have to kill Americans since Americans are doing such
a good job of it on their own.
Americans are waking up to the fact that the elite and establishment don't care about the them.
The media lies, the courts are trying to let in terrorists. TRump is the only one who is fighting
for the people. Trump is fighting for truth, Trump is fighting for our safety, even though the
establishment is desperate to make us less safe (my guesss do the 1% can profit somehow). Fake
news by the media is only continue to push this
Trump is fighting for Americans, we need to unite behind him. He will never let us down, and
never lie to us.
It's funny how Americans use Christianity as a weapon and are always quoting an eye for an eye
etc instead of love your neighbour. If you are a Christian then surely you should realise that
the old testament which is The Torah is all about revenge and anger whereas the New Testament
is all about forgiveness and love and if the two come from the same God then that God has a spilt
personality!
Also looking at history if you remember that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity ask
yourself what were Christians doing 600 years ago and you will see a lot of it was the same as
what Jihardis are doing today - torture, beheadings and killing of those seen as apostates in
the name of religion.
And remember American was founded by those seeking religious freedom despite the fact they
oppressed the religions of the Native Americans and then went on to break more than 400 treaties
with the Native Americans over the years.
Even the declaration of independence was signed mainly by slave owners ( which is surely anti-christian)
and apartheid reigned in the US until Martin Luther King.
Land of the free and home of the brave is some king of joke played on the people but only noted
by historians.
To an important degree extensive, well-understood and articulately defended democracy only
"matters" if you ascribe a large role to the [nation/federal] state - if you think it should
spend very large amounts of money, address all manner of social problems, and regulate everything
people do to reduce risk and enforce equality/diversity. If you believe in a minimal state
(as most of the US founders did) then a much clearer and less pressing kind of democracy
for national affairs is fully adequate. It is at the local level - in the states and counties,
the towns and cities - that regular and engaged democracy is essential. And this report
does not look at that at all. It is only bothered about who gets to drive forward the all-powerful
state. If Pres Trump - and it is a very big if - wants to reduce the role of the state,
then the significance of his actions through that state become clearer and more capable
of control.
surely the problem is that so much of what happens in a modern democracy cannot be carried out
at a local level. You cannot have a local level internet. You cannot decide where your highways
and trains are going to go purely at the local level. You cannot, in most cases, feed and clothe
and support your population at the local level and any form of trade requires agreements that
take place at a much higher level.
It's a very interesting phenomenon. The 'attraction' of Trump is that he's a loose cannon and
doesn't seem to have that much control over a lot of what he says. The remarks about Putin and
America's own predilection for killing people - which caused him to be called anti-American for
actually speaking the truth - is a case in point. He is the precise opposite of your usual buttoned
up on-message politician and that, quite frankly, is refreshing. He is precisely where our democracy
itself has led to. Because of its reliance on professional politicians who say one thing and mean
another, his tendency to blabber and say just what's on his mind, must be perceived as a virtue.
Where this will lead, I have no idea, but he is definitely opening up new unexplored territory
and what we might find in it is anyone's guess. As the old Chinese curse goes, "May you live in
interesting times."
"... Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus ..."
"... I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! ..."
"... If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative. Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. Get out of their box. ..."
Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear
on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have
to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what they
want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually
meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!
If you didn't
read this
(linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing
far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative. Don't
just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically.
Get out of their box.
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To
see why it is only necessary to look at
the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...
U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden
as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who
deserves to be executed.
That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence
reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to
"curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence
about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.
(bold italics added)
It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the
'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.
One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations"
that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing
at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable
that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the
Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise
the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.
The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in
order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's
lawyer, who has
denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian
President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of
Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have
gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period,
and I can think of no exceptions to it.
As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a
Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the
US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT
translates
her post
Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia
can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous
dossier
on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only
to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by
representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed
sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public
and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .
It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within
the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine
has not yet been formed
It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing
Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence
community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community
is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works.
In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden
in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.
Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation,
spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what
Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to
Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence
community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.
This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do
to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to
which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.
The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian
spy.
As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking
about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the
US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians
handing him over.
However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian
intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have
been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other,
and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.
It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic
motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having
a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than
have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far
more likely to damage them politically.
This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden,
which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.
Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was
all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and
issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak.
But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance,
cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry
is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
" as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US
intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants
better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the
US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in
seeking better relations with Russia."
A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both
the left and the right.
HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human
rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that
would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another
win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians
would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.
The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know
this better than anyone.
FAKE NEWS:
On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve
relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.
How many gringos were fooled???--- not many
shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
Pissgate II...
Brought to you from your friends at the CIA
Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much
everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.
In Part 2 of their interview, TYT Politics Reporter Jordan Chariton spoke with The Intercept
co-founder Glenn Greenwald about Senator Bernie Sanders pattern of working with corporate
establishment Democrats.
Everything Glenn said. I don't understand Bernie strategy, but I have to believe he's
playing the best game he can play and he knows patients, it's a chess game and it's
impossible for the observer to predict the players next move. But he does it with extreme
caution and thoughtfulness.
We have to stop thinking of Bernie as the "leader" of this revolution. Yes, not a
movement, but a revolution. Revolutions ARE NOT LEAD by one person. They have one or a few
figure heads that history remembers but they have many factions and many leaders to be
successful. I wish TYT would see it this way. We need to put more focus on all of the
different leaders and groups contributing to this revolution, not just Bernie.
I said it once and I will say it again...,never ever turn your back on Bernie Sanders.
This man has a plan. For sure i understand that people were quite pissed at the moment he
endorsed Hillary Clinton. But you know what? He had to do it. Supposed he wouldn't do it do
you actually believe he would still be a senator today? I don't think so. The Democratic
Party would have killed him. ( politically speaking). Look at his history. And listen to him
when he speaks. It is not only the USA that needs him. It's actually the whole world needs
him. Specially now with that clown of a president on the steering wheel. Love and peace to
you all.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's a saying that has been around for generations,
for a reason. Truth will always be truth. It's been proven time after time in history, and is
a proven tactic that the US has successfully employed since the Revolutionary War (France vs
Britain) and is the only way weaker parties can triumph. You work together until you no
longer have common ground!
I am more on Glenn's side on this one. Bernie is a smart politician -- he knows you can't
be 100% belligerent and still expect to get anything done (even though some of us wish he
would be that way).
Strategically it is as if Bernie is behind enemy lines. The ideology of the corporate Dems
decimated legislative ranks. His small 'unsullied' unit in the legislature needs to grow to
match his outside support. To ensure that end he needs to continually draw & welcome
contrast btw himself & Est. Dems
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
"... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
"... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon. ..."
"... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
"... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
"... Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
"... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
"... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
"... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
"... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
"... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still
don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis
by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative
polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets
an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly
help his cause by doing so.
Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's
going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official
building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page
of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more
serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its
inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.
And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious
issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply
ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for
fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart
or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied.
A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.
British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized
his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords:
"An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is
an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and
the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like
the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.
The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is,
is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not
a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press
pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British
role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle
East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'?
Not me.
The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s),
and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks
as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport,
from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak
up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable
experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak
in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that
of strangers.
Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a
chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away
sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good
book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along
with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which
any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly
pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness,
they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the
same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.
Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least
decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is.
But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching
the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still,
there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.
The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering
a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and
Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith
in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be
cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.
Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it
makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's
probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference
between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field
MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other
way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.
That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the
execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For
anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged
racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn
their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.
We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically,
morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people
while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media
feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.
The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps
will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the
more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies.
And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.
Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted
on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation,
opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the
modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively
honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just
a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.
my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen.
the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against
special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't
have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump
the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would
calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts
that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore
the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance
is neocon.
In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to
the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump
did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation
is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah
off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.
Gah.
Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently.
The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans
may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving
that way. The Judiciary and lawyers – a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse
– simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly)
strive for objective impartiality.
The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if
they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin
are doing.
Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different
levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:
Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time
by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit
from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech.
capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks
of the public mass media.
It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative
media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda
and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001
– not because of any links to US created al Qaeda – and a big chunk of that plan is still being
carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.
While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know
a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all
enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital
weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the
number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has
been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And
the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well.
For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been
sweet.
Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food.
Everything else is gravy.
Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today
but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff
we'd be happier.
We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles
and all these lies make society.
Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations,
the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
.
Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)
I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more,
even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling
at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US
it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch
them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters,
paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable
intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).
Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed
the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues
of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing
that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed
to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people
are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not
Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.
I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious.
That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schäuble's austerity terror was
equally bad, but not many people understand that.
I believe it was Iraq. When they named the 2003 invasion Operation Iraqi Liberation, or
O.I.L. , all the pretense of it being for any legit reason was gone.
Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.
But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in
shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?
I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets,
by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen
fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?
Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama
twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an
isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America
is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed.
Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof
that this is the awful truth.
It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when
someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to
watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take
him down.
Ratings are to broadcast or print media as shareholder value is to corporation - the overriding
metric that blots out any reponsibility to the commons.
and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:
"The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style
hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most
grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed
by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing
to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's
worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions,
an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in
the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily
banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so
much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself.
As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for
the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been
made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means
necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.
"As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly
exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation
cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas
moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use
of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined
the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was
ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was
one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant,
and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain
Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"
But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one
of these preening monsters!
Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing
all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain
that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There
universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off
focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning
he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have
not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.
Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called
Westminster paedophile ring – the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have
lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not
all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control
certain people.
In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian,
from journalist Jonathon Cook.
So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired
Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.
I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to
heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be
on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then
the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining.
That's a recipe for two years of nothing.
On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play
is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach
around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different
deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim
nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation
to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.
I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban
that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice
Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what
should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable
next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to
purge their power.
On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The
only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end
a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and
Iran. Israel will not be pleased.
My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them
to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven
with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame
their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There
is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should
soon spring back to life.
Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening
is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community
in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.
Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access
Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen
Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the
seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team
Trump and the GOPe.
I like the "offer the survivors a weak reacharound". Reminds me of Vietnam, where we would
napalm a village and then fall over ourselves making sure the burn victims all got Band-Aids
The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not
going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.
Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly,
he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who
just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that
purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation
of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle
of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical
period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when
engaged critically:
TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back
US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even
more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively
transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation
– of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at
large.
I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like
a fiddle.
The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia'
author of the blog Economic Undertow:
One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being
the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation
that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance
on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself:
he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does
not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out
of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This
is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes.
The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon
which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations
and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.
I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is
it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something
pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that
we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with
him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.
Another false note–"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic
and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and
hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish
as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I
grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with
horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.
This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude
to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any
category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even
have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to
join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I
don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.
After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard
to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some
liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes,
as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed
Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently
wrong.
You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent
contemporary application of the term
On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from
seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other
religion for thats matter.
I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.
On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia
in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think
it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia
is a form of bigotry– whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on
the circumstances.
I do not believe in the corruption of language. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom
is to call things by their proper names.
Are you by the same sloppy logic going to cal bias against women and gays "racism"?
Islamophobia is indeed not racist. Arabs, many American and African blacks, Persians (who
are not Arabians) and Indonesians among others are followers of Islam.
We already have perfectly good works, like "bigotry," "bias," and "discrimination".
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot,
but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes
and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism.
If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.
But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either.
They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying
to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently
evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent.
That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some
carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions
often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why
antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged
race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based
on a clear understanding of biology.
So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it
as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.
I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.
The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty,
unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection
from the original point.. ..
File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can
be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.
In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while
simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.
Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point.
However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.
Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the
jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any
refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry
come out.
People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis
with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If
we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death
in the countries which produce the refugees.
>People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here.
And where are these rights enumerated? I don't recognize "moral rights" beyond those associated
with copyright (and I am not particularly fond of those, either).
So the fact that we are bombing civilians and helping the Saudis plunge Yemen into a famine
is something you don't question, just the right of our victims to come here?
The legacy of Obama's incompetence in foreign policy does not obligate American citizens
to accept - or to foist upon their posterity - changes in the demographic make-up of our populace.
I'm still interested in learning where you discovered this moral right to move here
In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this
context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy.
Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway,
my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have
moral obligations to the victims.
And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief,
and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of
guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't
accept Monsanto poison.
"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle
"People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here."
Bullsht.
The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and
in that case only in a "just war" context if at all
Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or
the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences
allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations
at all– we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the
right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest
military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own
idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military
want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.
I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have
no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to
steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.
The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't
discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to
continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers
of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having,
because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.
Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.
"Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough."
That we'll agree on. Maybe another day you can elucidate on why you bother writing when
you could find an airbase and stand on the runway, to stop the bombing.
No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".
Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation
should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those
nations are under no obligation to do so.
Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the
refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What
has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come
up with a decent metaphor or simile.
But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another
nation if the nation decides to say "No".
So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter
at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.
You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say
we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude
as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other
countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here.
That will not stand.
The Athenians had no good reason to suppose that the Gods would not favor them.
There was nothing in their laws or beliefs to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, there is nothing in our laws that requires us to accept population transfers
because this or that President drops bombs in a far away country on people of whom we know
nothing.
Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we
bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say
that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty
much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).
Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds
about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the
President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American
society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked
Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They
recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts,
they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become
too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation
and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared
of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the
Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the
way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're
going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites
and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly,
we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.
"Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media.
"
The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news"
story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including
well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term
"fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy
skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live
and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency
sir?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA
And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch
hunt. Now where was I going with this ?
I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather,
it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral
origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in
box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country).
The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race,
who are we to say otherwise?
Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e.,
Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino
consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.
But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal
register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level
of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.
" . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent
people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever
the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday
destination." .
Dear Raul,
Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain
like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.
"We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always
seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2)
Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves
off playing Russian Roulette.
I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this
imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify
what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect
gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does
not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM
tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .
I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he
reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has
killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he
might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his
impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the
UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black
hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly
and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness'
and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their
voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the
people of that they point to. For profit.
On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin
"But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There
are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"
I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine
if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the
world .
"... Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1] Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold reserves to increase availability of consumer goods . ..."
"... Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization. ..."
"... It did not need a foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. ..."
"... In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership. ..."
"... And patently the military-security monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables.. ..."
An over extended Soviet Empire collapsed in no small part due to its obsession with winning
a war, albeit one that thankfully remained 'cold', that it never could.
A corrupt, nepotistic distant, paranoid elite that instead of dividing its efforts into looking
after its own society's well-being, as well a apparently just defending it, opted for near as
dammed bankrupting itself attempting to feed an insatiable military machine it could ill afford
(and would mostly never use) at its increasingly disaffected, divided, restive people's expense.
First, did the Soviet state "bankrupt itself damm near" mostly by trying to feed an "insatiable
military machine," or did the wealth of the Soviets get dissipated into other ratholes as well,
alongside various external pressures and effects? And what scale applied to each political-decision
"allocation"? One view, among a flood of intersecting and competing interpretations, of course:
The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the
West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct
result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis
has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that
were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the
Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater,
but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is
proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the
face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the
Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in
internal Soviet history.
1. Stagnation in the 1970s
The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions
of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the
1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent
China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous
strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably
by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted
with the Nixon administration in 1972. This détente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid
Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political
popularity.
Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it
would never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide
hard currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1]
Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained
trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold
reserves to increase availability of consumer goods .
Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of
the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption.
Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given
false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive.
Soviet living standards remained poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent
of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little
was computerized, due to state paranoia about the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary
purposes. The USSR was able to endure this technological lag because its closed economy protected
it from competition, but its ability to maintain military superiority increasingly depended
on the ability to keep pace with Western modernization.
In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist
nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally
collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity.[2] In contrast to his later hagiographers,
Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived
that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life
support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited,
who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a
foreign enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm
And I recall the Soviet military leadership was largely (no, not exclusively of course, humans
being what they are) reacting to the clear and present danger that "the West" presented. Among
many other considerations, of course. In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are
mostly passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall
the Soviets were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all
earlier than it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned
about the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership.
Seems to me that all of us ordinary people, many of whom would gladly take advantage of opportunities
to do some looting themselves, to "get ahead" in the "rat race," if only those opportunities were
presented, have insufficient collective concern about the many systems, living and political-economy,
that apparently are collapsing or running out of control. And patently the military-security
monkey that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense
of the term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net
effects of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit
mine for corporate looters to get at the extractables..
But yeah, the halls of history are full of echoes and shadows and reflections in a glass darkly
And I wonder if London bookies are running a line on when history, as recorded and debated and
acted out by humans, will REALLY end, thanks to our wonderful unbridled inventiveness and lack
of that genetic predisposition to survive as a species that ants and termites and rats and cats
and other "lesser creatures" seem to have
"... We are loosing global power not due to military projection but, that military projection is in support of financial projection which is a plague ..."
February 7, 2017 by
Yves Smith By Arthur
MacEwan, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a co-founder
and associate of Dollars & Sense magazine. This is the final part of a three-part series on the era
of economic globalization, the distribution of power worldwide, and the current crisis. It was originally
published in the January/February issue of Dollars & Sense, commencing the magazine's year-long "Costs
of Empire" project. Parts 1 and 2 are available
here and
here . Cross
posted from Triple
Crisis
The rhetoric of free trade, in any case, is simply one of the tools that the U.S. government,
its allies, international agencies, and large firms use in shaping the world economy. Economic and
political-military power is the foundation for this shaping. Following World War II, when the U.S.
accounted for more than a quarter of world output, it had tremendous economic power-as a market,
an investment source, and a source of new technology. U.S. firms had little competition in their
global operations and were thus able to penetrate markets and control resources over a wide range
(outside of the U.S.S.R., the rest of the East Bloc, and China). Along with this economic power,
the military power of the United States was immense. In the context of the Cold War and the rise
of democratic upsurges and liberation movements in many regions, the role of the U.S. military was
welcomed in many countries-especially by elites facing threats (real or imagined) from the Soviet
Union, domestic liberation movements, or both.
This combination of economic and military power, far more than the rhetoric of free trade, allowed
the U.S. government to move other governments toward accepting openness in international commerce.
The Bretton Woods conference was a starting point in this process; U.S. representatives at the conference
were largely able to dictate the conference outcomes. In terms of international commerce, things
worked quite well for the United Sates for about 25 years. Then, however, various challenges to the
U.S. position emerged. In particular, the war in Indochina and its costs, competition from firms
based in Japan and Europe, and the rise of OPEC and increase in energy costs began to disrupt the
dominant U.S. role by the early 1970s.
Still, while the period after the 1970s saw slower economic growth, both in the United States
and in several other high-income countries, the United States continued to hold its dominant
position.
In part, this was due to the Cold War-the Soviet threat, or at least the perceived threat, providing
the glue that attached other countries to U.S. leadership. Yet, by the 1990s, the U.S.S.R. was no
more, and China was becoming a rising world power.
In spite of the changes in the world economy, the United States at first appears to have almost
the same share of world output in 2016, 24.7%, as it had in the immediate post-World War II period,
and is still considerably ahead of any other country. Yet this figure evaluates output in the rest
of the world's countries at market exchange rates. When the figures are recalculated, using the real
purchasing power of different currencies, the U.S. share drops to 15.6%, behind China's 17.9% of
world output. Of course, as China has a much larger population than the United States, even using
the purchasing power figures, per person GDP in the U.S. is almost four times greater than in China;
it would be almost 7 times greater using the market exchange rates.
The rise of China has not moved the United States off its pedestal as the world's dominant economic
power. Moreover, U.S. military strength remains dominant in world affairs. Yet the challenge is real,
even to the point that China has recently created an institution, providing development loans to
low-income countries, to be an alternative to the (U.S.-dominated) World Bank. Investment by Chinese
firms, too, is spreading worldwide. Then there are the military issues in the South China Sea.
At the same time, the United States is engaged in seemingly intractable military operations in
the Middle East, and has continued to maintain its global military presence as widely as during the
Cold War. Having long taken on the role of providing the global police force, for the U.S. government
to pull back from these operations would be to accept a decline in U.S. global power. But, further,
the extensive and far flung military presence of U.S. forces is necessary to preserve the rules of
international commerce that have been established over decades. The rules themselves need protection,
regardless of the amount of commerce directly affected. The real threat to "U.S. interests" posed
by the Islamic State and like forces in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of East Asia is not their
appalling and murderous actions. Instead, their threat lies in their disruption and disregard for
the rules of international commerce. From Honduras and Venezuela to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, if U.S.
policy were guided by an attempt to protect human rights, the role of U.S. military and diplomatic
polices would be very different.
Continuing to operate on a global level to halt threats to the "rules of the game"-in a world
were economic power is shifting away from the United States-this country is threatening itself with
imperial overreach. Attempting to preserve its role in global affairs and to maintain its favored
terms of global commerce, the U.S. government may be taking on financial and military burdens that
it cannot manage. In the Middle East in particular, the costs of military operations during the 21st
century have run into the trillions of dollars. Military bases and actions are so widespread as to
limit their effectiveness in any one theater of operations.
The potential danger in this situation is twofold. On the one hand, the costs of these operations
and the resulting strain on the U.S. government's budget can weaken the operation of the domestic
economy. On the other hand, in the context of the rising challenges to the U.S. role in global affairs
and the rising role of other powers, especially China but also Russia, U.S. forces may enter into
especially dangerous attempts to regain U.S. power in world affairs-the treacherous practice of revanchism.
Are There Alternatives?
Although globalization in the broad sense of a geographic expansion of economic, political, social,
and cultural contacts may be an inexorable process, the way in which this expansion takes place
is a matter of political choices-and political power . Both economic and political/military expansion
are contested terrain. Alternatives are possible.
The backlash against globalization that appeared in 2016, especially in the U.S. presidential
campaign, has had both progressive and reactionary components. The outcome of the election, having
had such a reactionary and xenophobic foundation, is unlikely to turn that backlash into positive
reforms, which would attenuate economic inequality and insecurity. Indeed, all indications in the
period leading up to Trump's inauguration (when this article is being written) suggest that, whatever
changes take place in the U.S. economic relations with the rest of the world, those changes will
not displace large corporations as the principal beneficiaries of the international system.
Nonetheless, the Sanders campaign demonstrated the existence of a strong progressive movement
against the current form of globalization. If that movement can be sustained, there are several reforms
that it could push that would alter the nature of globalization and lay the foundation for a more
democratic and larger changes down the road (Sanders' "revolution"). Two examples of changes that
would directly alter U.S. international agreements in ways that would reduce inequality and insecurity
are:
Changing international commercial agreements so they include strong labor rights and environmental
protections. Goods produced under conditions where workers' basic rights, to organize and to work
under reasonable health and safety conditions, are denied would not be given unfettered access to
global markets. Goods whose production or use is environmentally destructive would likewise face
trade restrictions. (One important "restriction" could include a carbon tax that would raise the
cost of transporting goods over long distances.) Effective enforcement procedures would be difficult
but possible.
Establishing effective employment support for people displaced by changes in international commerce.
Such support could include, for instance, employment insurance funds and well funded retraining programs.
Also, there would need to be provisions for continuing medical care and pensions. Moreover, there
is no good reason for such support programs to be limited to workers displaced by international commerce.
People who lose their jobs because of environmental regulations (such as coal miners), technological
change (like many workers in manufacturing), or just stupid choices by their employers should have
the same support.
Several other particular reforms would also be desirable. Obviously, the elimination of ISDS is
important, as is cessation of moves to extend U.S. intellectual property rights. The reforms would
also include: global taxation of corporations; taxation of financial transactions; altering the governance
the IMF, World Bank, and WTO to reduce their role as instruments of the United States and other high
income countries; protections for international migrants and protection of their rights as workers.
The list could surely be extended. Changes in international economic relations, however, cannot be
separated from political changes. The ability of the United States and its allies to shape economic
relations is tied up with military power. Military interventions and the threat of military interventions
have long been an essential foundation for U.S. power in the global economy. These interventions
and threats are often cloaked in democratic or humanitarian rhetoric. Yet, one need simply look at
the Middle East to recognize the importance of the interests of large U.S. firms in bringing about
these military actions. (Again, see the box on Smedley Butler.) It will be necessary to build opposition
to these military interventions in order to move the world economy in a positive direction- to say
nothing of halting the disastrous humanitarian impacts of these interventions.
No one claims that it would be easy to overcome the power of large corporations in shaping the
rules of international commerce in agreements or to reduce (let alone block) the aggressive military
practices of the U.S. government. The prospect of a Trump presidency certainly makes the prospect
of progressive change on international affairs-or on any other affairs-more difficult. There is,
however, nothing inevitable about the way these central aspects of globalization have been organized.
There are alternatives that would not undermine the U.S. economy (or other economies). Indeed, these
alternatives would strengthen the U.S. economy in terms of improving and sustaining the material
well-being of most people.
The basic issues here are who-which groups in society-are going to determine basic economic policies
and by what values those policies will be formulated.
An over extended Soviet Empire collapsed in no small part due to its obsession with winning
a war, albeit one that thankfully remained 'cold', that it never could.
A corrupt, nepotistic distant, paranoid elite that instead of dividing its efforts into looking
after its own society's well-being, as well a apparently just defending it, opted for near as
dammed bankrupting itself attempting to feed an insatiable military machine it could ill afford
(and would mostly never use) at its increasingly disaffected, divided, restive people's expense.
First, did the Soviet state "bankrupt itself damm near" mostly by trying to feed an "insatiable
military machine," or did the wealth of the Soviets get dissipated into other ratholes as well,
alongside various external pressures and effects? And what scale applied to each political-decision
"allocation"? One view, among a flood of intersecting and competing interpretations, of course:
The stunning collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been heralded in the
West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event were obviously a direct
result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This self-congratulatory analysis
has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political dynamics that
were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the
Soviet state itself. Fiery political speeches and tough diplomatic postures make good theater,
but they are ineffective at forcing political transformation in totalitarian nations, as is
proven by the persistence of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the
face of punishing trade embargos. The key to understanding the reasons for the demise of the
Soviet Union is to be found not in the speeches or policies of Western politicians, but in
internal Soviet history.
1. Stagnation in the 1970s
The Soviet Union was already in decline as a world power well before 1980. Any illusions
of global Communist hegemony had evaporated with the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the
1960s. As the Nixon administration improved American relations with an increasingly independent
China, the Soviets saw a strategic need to scale down the nuclear arms race, which placed enormous
strains on its faltering economy. The threat of a nuclear confrontation was reduced considerably
by the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) and strategic arms limitation treaties (SALT) contracted
with the Nixon administration in 1972. This détente, or easing of tensions, allowed Leonid
Brezhnev to focus on domestic economic and social development, while boosting his political
popularity.
Around 1975, the Soviet Union entered a period of economic stagnation from which it would
never emerge. Increasingly, the USSR looked to Europe, primarily West Germany, to provide hard
currency financing through massive loans, while the U.S. became a major supplier of grain.[1]
Despite moments of anti-Communist grandstanding, the Americans and Western Europeans maintained
trade relations with the cash-strapped Soviet Union, which dipped into its Stalin-era gold
reserves to increase availability of consumer goods .
Foreign trade and mild economic reforms were not enough to overcome the inefficiencies of
the Soviet command economy, which remained technologically backward and full of corruption.
Economic planners were frequently unable to diagnose and remedy problems, since they were given
false reports by officials who only pretended to be productive. Soviet living standards remained
poor by Western standards. By 1980, only 9 percent of Soviets had automobiles, which was actually
a vast improvement under Brezhnev. Very little was computerized, due to state paranoia about
the use of telecommunications for counterrevolutionary purposes. The USSR was able to endure
this technological lag because its closed economy protected it from competition, but its ability
to maintain military superiority increasingly depended on the ability to keep pace with Western
modernization.
In his radio broadcasts during the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan complained that the capitalist
nations propped up the intrinsically flawed Soviet regime, instead of allowing it to naturally
collapse from its own inefficiency and inhumanity.[2] In contrast to his later hagiographers,
Reagan did not envision defeating the Soviet Union by forceful action, but instead he perceived
that the regime would collapse from its own failings once the West removed its financial life
support system. It is this early Reagan, far more thoughtful than he is generally credited,
who proved to be most astute in diagnosing the state of the USSR. It did not need a foreign
enemy to "defeat" it, for it was deteriorating from within. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/soviet.htm
And I recall the Soviet military leadership was largely (no, not exclusively of course, humans
being what they are) reacting to the clear and present danger that "the West" presented. Among
many other considerations, of course. In the Great Game of "chicken," in which we all are mostly
passengers in the speeding cars with loony drivers ya-hooing out the windows, I recall the Soviets
were the ones to veer off from that head-on collision that might have ended it all earlier than
it seems increasingly likely to end anyway. And Russian leadership seems more concerned about
the survival of the nation than our own clown-car leadership.
Seems to me that all of us ordinary people, many of whom would gladly take advantage of opportunities
to do some looting themselves, to "get ahead" in the "rat race," if only those opportunities were
presented, have insufficient collective concern about the many systems, living and political-economy,
that apparently are collapsing or running out of control. And patently the military-security monkey
that's riding our backs is doing a p!ss-poor job of "defending us" in any ordinary sense of the
term, and not even a vary good job of playing Imperial Forces. Though of course the net effects
of military and political chaos-building and destabilization do blast out a nice open-pit mine
for corporate looters to get at the extractables..
But yeah, the halls of history are full of echoes and shadows and reflections in a glass darkly
And I wonder if London bookies are running a line on when history, as recorded and debated and
acted out by humans, will REALLY end, thanks to our wonderful unbridled inventiveness and lack
of that genetic predisposition to survive as a species that ants and termites and rats and cats
and other "lesser creatures" seem to have
Training people for jobs does not create jobs for them. Training would be an organic function
of profitable businesses seeking employees. I'm old enough to remember what that was like.
The issue is JOBS pure and simple for everyone that wants or needs one.
Prosperous, secure people make progressive change possible: desperate, insecure people don't.
If you want security, make people secure.
There's the rub. Because the only way in the future to ensure enough of these jobs may be by
using tax money from the well off to at least partially fund the scarce and missing jobs that
won't be created otherwise. How willing do you think they will be to see their tax dollars funding
progressive causes? We say progressive/they say socialist.
Until we convince enough people of these ideas and they actually vote (if their vote is still
possible as suppression intensifies), this won't likely happen. If you have a better idea on how
to create these well paying secure jobs in the face of automation, etc. outside of winning elections
the old fashioned way and using policies, I'm open minded and listening.
Been down this "protections for workers" road before and the TPP (Obama, Clinton). Sorry neolib-neocon
globalist oligarchs. Rewording the messaging still has the same shit outcome for the middle class.
The potential danger in this situation is twofold. On the one hand, the costs of these operations
and the resulting strain on the U.S. government's budget can weaken the operation of the domestic
economy.
Really? When the US can just issue the dollars to pay the bills? How does this weaken the economy?
"Following World War II, when the U.S. accounted for more than a quarter of world output, it
had tremendous economic power -- as a market, an investment source, and a source of new technology.
U.S. firms had little competition in their global operations and were thus able to penetrate markets
and control resources over a wide range (outside of the U.S.S.R., the rest of the East Bloc, and
China)."
IMHO
– Of course we did because our investments were in technology, industry and production which was
tightly coupled with investment in infrastructure with a "market" much more free from economic
rent. Economic rent pushes all production costs up particularly where property prices (farm land,
indutrial land and home land use) surge or boom.
"U.S. government to pull back from these operations would be to accept a decline in U.S. global
power."
IMHO
We are loosing global power not due to military projection but, that military projection is in
support of financial projection which is a plague – responsible for global destitution in all
the plenty the planet offers – we are obviously doing something wrong? yes. Further to that, we
should not have weaponized finance and unleashed it on ourselves or anybody else. Yes, let us
cede all to private interests – look how well that goes..snarc.
"The potential danger in this situation is twofold. On the one hand, the costs of these operations
and the resulting strain on the U.S. government's budget can weaken the operation of the domestic
economy. "
IMHO
The costs of these (assume military) operations have not put a strain on US government budget
but, the biggest strain on the budget is our unjust revenue system and finacialization of our
economy where "investment" drives asset appreciation, making everything more expensive for living
and working but, in no way involves the employment of labor to produce something worth having .say
something like a habitable planet.
So the real issue is we believe our own hubris to the point of mostly extincting the planet.
Sorry for the sad rant we need to look at the basis for prosperity and of the opposite, instead
we see the results and assume it to be a natural cause when in fact it is not natural.
Below is a quote from near a hundred years ago
GETTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
...The/reat sore spot in our modern commercial
life is found on the speculative side. Under present
laws, which foster and encourage speculation
business life is largely a gamble, and to "get
something for nothing" is too often considered
the keynote to "success." The great fortunes of
today are nearly all speculative fortunes; and
the ambitious young man just starting out in life
thinks far less of producing or rendering service
than he does of "putting it over" on the other fellow This may seem a broad statement to
some; but thirty years of business life in the
heart of American commercial activity convinces
me that it is absolutely true.
If, however, the speculative incentive in modern
commercial life were eliminated, and no man
could become rich or successful unless he gave "value received" and rendered service for service,
then indeed a profound change would have been
brought in our whole commercial system, and it would be a change which no honest man would
regret.-John Moody, Wall Street Publisher, and
President of Moody's Investors' Service. Circa 1924
Goods produced under conditions where workers' basic rights, to organize and to work under
reasonable health and safety conditions, are denied would not be given unfettered access to global
markets.
For policy-makers, decisions made on the basis of power, prestige, and profit are far more
palatable than those made on the basis of human rights and the environment. This may seem simple,
and the right thing to do morally, but it really is difficult. Your counterparties (let's say,
the Saudis) are known to punish minor crimes severely and they routinely abuse foreign workers.
So, you want to add a few dinars to the price of oil. "Not so fast," says the sheikh. "You have
the largest prison population in the world, so we're adding a tax to the price of wheat," and
midwest farmers are up in arms.
Don't get me wrong. I happen to think that trying to even the playing field and improve the
lot of workers and the environment worldwide is a great idea. I just think it would be very hard
in reality and would create both domestic and international tensions.
In this factual and historical state of affairs, is it necessary to prove in detail that there
is no room today for any so-called political neutrality – the neutrality of the trade unions with
regard to political parties and political struggles?
There needs to be a push to reshore manufacturing into the US.
I don't agree with Trump's other policies, but he's got an important point on this one. The
US began to lose its middle class as the worst of the outsourcing happened.
"... By Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to support these educational efforts. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Thin Reed? Authoritarian rule for the oligarchs ..."
"... Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. ..."
Posted on
February 6, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. As reader John Z pointed out, the policy program described in this
post is very much in synch with the recommendations Lambert has been making.
One small point of divergence is that Leopold reinforces the idea that taxes
fund Federal spending. Taxes serve to create incentives, and since income
inequality is highly correlated with many bad social outcomes, including more
violence and shorter lifespans even for the rich, progressive taxation is key
to having a society function well. However, he does get right (as very few do)
that the purpose of a transaction tax is to discourage the activity being
taxed, rather than raise money (aside from the MMT issue, the tax would shrink
the level of transactions in question, making it not very productive in
apparent revenue terms).
By Les Leopold, the director of the
Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community
organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall
Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to
Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to
support these educational efforts. Originally published at
Alternet
During the Bernie Sanders campaign I heard a high-level official
give a powerful speech blasting the Trans-Pacific Partnership Act for the harm
it would bring to workers, environmentalists and to all who cared about
protecting democracy.
Donald Trump now has signed an executive order pulling out of the
TPP negotiations.
Is this a victory or a defeat for the tens of thousands of
progressives who campaigned to kill the TPP?
On the same day Trump killed the TPP, he met with corporate
executives saying he would cut taxes and regulations to spur business
development. But
he
also warned
that "a company that wants to fire all of the people in the
United States and build some factories someplace else and think the product is
going to flow across the border, that is not going to happen." He said he
would use "a substantial border tax" to stop those practices.
Is this a victory or a defeat for workers and unions who for
three decades have been begging politicians to stop the outsourcing of decent
middle-class jobs?
Breaking the Spell of Neoliberalism
Our answers may be clouded by four decades of the neoliberal
catechism-tax cuts on the wealthy, Wall Street deregulation, privatization of
public services and "free" trade. Politicians, pundits and overpaid economists
long ago concluded that such policies will encourage a "better business
climate," which in turn will lead to all boats rising. Instead those very same
policies led to a massive financial crash, runaway inequality and a revolt
against neoliberalism which fueled both the Sanders and Trump insurgencies.
(See
enough
facts
to make you nauseous.)
This ideology is so pervasive that today no one is shocked or surprised to
see Democratic governors on TV ads trying to lure business to their states by
promising decades of tax holidays. No one gags when politicians lavish
enormous tax gifts on corporations-even hedge funds-in order to keep jobs
from
leaving
their states
.
Similarly, we have grown accustomed to the neoliberal notion that we should
go deeply into debt in order to gain access to higher education. Free higher
education, which was the norm in New York and California until the 1970s, was
"unrealistic" until Sanders rekindled the idea.
More troubling still, elites propagated the idea that public goods should
not be free and available to all via progressive taxation. Rather public goods
were denigrated and then offered up for privatization. Even civil rights icon
Representative John Lewis
used
the neoliberal framework
to attack Bernie Sanders' call for free higher
education and universal health care: "I think it's the wrong message to send
to any group. There's not anything free in America. We all have to pay for
something. Education is not free. Health care is not free. Food is not free.
Water is not free. I think it's very misleading to say to the American people,
we're going to give you something free."
Obama/Clinton Didn't, Trump did
Ironically, while Lewis is defending neoliberalism, Trump
actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and
unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he
also is clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without
the free movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and
their corporate partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy
unions and siphon off wealth into their own pockets.
In particular, we should be extremely worried about how Trump is
approaching the loss of manufacturing jobs. The neoliberal fog should not
cause us to miss the obvious: presidents Obama and Clinton did absolutely
nothing to stop the hemorrhaging of middle-class manufacturing jobs to
low-wage countries. (U.S. manufacturing fell from 20.1 percent of all jobs in
1980 to only 8.8 percent by 2013.) Not only did Obama and Clinton fail to stop
even one factory from moving away, but they truly believed that capital
mobility and free trade were good for America and the world. In other words
they had sipped plenty of the neoliberal Kool-Aid.
Meanwhile, Trump is all in. He is saying that jobs in the U.S. are more
important than the long-run benefits of capital mobility and TPP/NAFTA
agreements. If he keeps bashing corporations for moving jobs abroad and if he
manages to ignite even a mini U.S. manufacturing jobs boom, Trump could be
with us for eight long years.
But What About the Poor in Other Countries?
To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and
"protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less
so around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it
more moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and
Asia? After all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs
can be found at wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope
for in low-wage countries.
You can be sure corporations will be playing this tune if Trump tightens
the screws on capital mobility.
These arguments however have little to do with how the world actually
functions.
First, the big winners in the outsourcing game are the
corporations and their top Wall Street investors. (In fact Wall Street is
driving the process by endless pressure for
stock
buybacks
.) It's hard to make the case that the poor in Mexico have been
the beneficiaries of NAFTA.
Second, it is morally suspect to argue that someone else
should give up his or her standard of living so that the product made here
can be produced abroad by the same company and imported back into the U.S.
No worker can afford to donate his or her job to developing nations.
Third, outsourcing to low wage areas always involves
increasing health, safety and environmental hazards. In almost every case
production moves from more stringent standards to weaker standards. Plus,
the increased distances the products must travel mean there will be more
carbon emissions than if production remained here.
No, it's not possible to make a credible progressive case for outsourcing
your neighbor's job
What Do We Do?
The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump.
If he's for it, we must be against it. When it comes to immigration, civil
rights, abortion, freedom of the press and many, many other issues, that's a
sound strategy.
But trashing Trump for saving jobs in the U.S. is suicidal.
In opposing Trump, we must not slip into defending neoliberalism. It's not
okay for corporations to pack up and leave. We should have some control over
our economic lives and not leave all the crucial decisions to Wall Street and
their corporate puppets. Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the
highest health, safety, environmental and labor standards. And those measures
must be enforceable by all the parties. The race to the bottom is real and
must stop.
In the U.S. We Should Be Mobilizing the Following Areas:
1. Organize the outsourced
: We should identify
and organize all those at risk from off-shoring. We need to make sure Trump
and Congress hear from these actual and potential victims. Trump needs to be
reminded each and every day that there are millions of jobs he must protect.
At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders
bill
to stop off-shoring
.
2. Resist:
Trump has made it clear to corporate
America that in exchange for job creation in the U.S. he will cut their taxes
and regulations. We should demand that all tax "reforms" include a new
financial speculation tax (
Robin
Hood Tax
) on Wall Street to slow down their insatiable greed. Also, we
need to fight tooth and nail against any weakening of workplace health, safety
and environmental regulations. We have to destroy the Faustian bargain where
jobs are protected but the workers and the communities are poisoned.
3. Connect:
More than 3 million people protested
against Trump. But it is doubtful that dislocated workers and those facing
outsourcing were involved in these marches. That's because the progressive
movement has gotten too comfortable with issue silos that often exclude these
kinds of working-class issues. That has to change in a hurry. We need to reach
out to all workers in danger of off-shoring-blue and white collar alike.
4. Expand:
Many key issues-from having the
largest prison population in the world to having one the lowest life-spans-are
connected through
runaway
inequality
. Outsourcing is deeply connected to the driving force behind
runaway inequality-a rapacious Wall Street and its constant pressure for
higher returns. We need to broaden the outsourcing issue to include stock
buybacks and the other techniques used by Wall Street to strip-mine our jobs
and our communities. It's time for a broad-based common agenda that includes a
Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street, free higher education, Medicare for All, an end
to outsourcing, fair trade and a guaranteed job at a living wage for all those
willing and able.
5. Educate:
In order to build a sustained
progressive movement we will need to develop a systematic educational campaign
to counter neoliberal ideology. We need reading groups, study groups, formal
classes, conferences, articles and more to undermine this pernicious ideology.
Some of us are fortunate to be part of new train-the-trainer programs all over
the country. We need to expand them so that we can field thousands of
educators to carry this message.
Yes, all of this is very difficult, especially when it seems like
a madman is running the country. It is far easier to resist than to tear apart
neoliberalism. But we have to try. We need to recapture the job outsourcing
issue and rekindle the flames that ignited Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders
campaign.
Les Leopold explained some of his beliefs on the Smirking Chimp. I made a comment
to that article that I think should be repeated here ==>
At the moment, it's hopeless because we do not have a platform.
Most of the supposed liberals out there cannot defend welfare of any kind, cannot
defend Social Security and cannot defend most of what they supposedly stand for in
any kind of intelligent way.
There are circumstances where "welfare" is a moral necessity. There are also
circumstances where you tell the claimants to get a job. Sometimes you help them to
get that job.
It's necessary to be able to tell the difference and to be able to explain the
difference.
Too many supposed liberals do not understand how the labor movement became corrupt
enough that "right to work" looked good to people who were paying dues and getting
little back.
If you do not understand your own "liberal" beliefs, some uneducated red-state
buffoon will make you look like the bad guy
You not only need to understand your own beliefs, but you need to be able to
debate them with other wanna-be liberals until you have a platform that means
something.
Yep, everything Trump will do to bait Liberal "resistance," they will
eagerly fall for. It leaves a LOT of wiggle room for a movement to get between
DC's Kleptocrats and Trump's supposed constituency (victims? marks?) about to
lose their jobs, homes, equity, retirements & kids to imperialistic wars. If
there's a Left in this country, it simply HAS to be more than white kids on TV,
in black face masks we need to dodge Trump's trolling and fight unremittingly
FOR living wages, job safety, healthcare, upwards mobility & AGAINST a
predatory FIRE sector, ALEC kleptocracy & their media's 24/7 reality
infomercial. For way too long, the whole good cop/ bad cop scam has been Yuppie
liberals vs Oligarch's running dogs, we've tried to live off any chunks that'd
trickle down through the maelstrom above our heads, to which we were not
invited
Quite. No reason Sanders' platform can't be used. There's also a 5-point
platform right in plain sight at the end of Leopold's article.
Some people seem to have this urge to outsource the platform to somebody else -
the Democrat Party, or maybe others. No. No need to go elsewhere. There's two
platforms right here. Use them.
The problem is that economic systems are complex, emergent phenomena. They
influenced by culture, chance, ideas, tribal instincts, technology (including
financial technology), geography, tradition, the environment, human nature,
migration, religion, and on and on.
This notion that something as complex as human society can be analyzed under an
intellectual construct, whether neo-liberalism, socialism, or Rastafarianism
defies common sense. Centuries of intense theorizing by some very smart people
have led to an understanding of parts of social systems. But, for example,
economists disagree profoundly on basic aspects of macroeconomics.
Neo-liberalism is not even a well defined concept. I don't know of any
politician in the US who declare themselves "neo-liberal." Read the Wikipedia
article to see just how poorly this concept is defined.
Among some self-imagined progressives it's become a perjorative term to apply
to leaders who they disagree with. IMO, politicians do not govern according to
abstract concepts. The honest ones are simply trying to govern, in the context of
the society they live in. At times, historically unique situations arise, and
political leaders are stumped for solutions. At such a time, some kind of think
tank might propose their pet theory to be considered as a factor in making
decisions (the "neo-cons" had their chance in the build up to the Iraq war).
I want Trumps ability to wreak havoc on the economy and civil infrastructure
minimized, and him gone as President as soon as possible. This is not going to be
easy. If, at the same time, think you can throw in the reform of global economic
structures, and succeed, you're delusional.
FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton are
influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas. People can change
their mind, or have it changed, on things like this. Quickly. In contrast to
something like pro-Zionist policies, to which a polician might have a deeper
attachment, very resistant to change.
The first two paragraphs are making a broad sort of argument, which if taken
with its full force seems to mean that any attempt to use theoretical
generalizations to understand the world is oversimplifying and therefore
questionable.
The third and fourth paragraphs take issue more specifically with the term
"neoliberalism."
However, the fifth paragraph seems to imply that anti-neoliberalism involves
"reform of global economic structures," and therefore maybe isn't as poorly
defined as the previous paragraphs would have led one to assume.
Meanwhile, the sixth paragraph undercuts the fifth. The fifth implies that
opposing Trump is so important that we should temporarily abandon any attempt
to move the discourse on the overall economic direction of the country or the
world. The reason given is that moving said discourse is supposed to be a
herculean, nearly impossible task. The sixth paragraph, instead, suggests that
Schumer and HRC can have their mind changed "quickly" on these sorts of issues,
and so maybe the overall project isn't so infeasible after all.
"FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton
are influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas."
I'm skeptical about this. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are influenced
by neo-liberal ideas at the level of massive donations to their campaign
committees or family foundation.
If you just get Trump gone, another Trump or worse will be produced in a
decade or so (never mind Pence in the meantime, that we could endure, I'm
focusing longer term). An awful system, that makes everyone poor (mass
impoverishment), stupid, and exhausted, produces awful results in terms of
governance (money in politics does not help of course).
I always took neo-liberalism to mean world domination by banks FIRE sector
and neoconservatism by the military and their suppliers and also oil which
greases the military wheels. Farms fall into the latter I guess for the defense
of the "landed gentry". Watched the farm reports lately and they are quite
upset by the non-passage of the TPP which would have given them higher price
supports. All of it is ruled by multi-nationals' money and clout so there is
overlap.
Don't equate the giant corporate agri-biz sector – Monsanto, ADM, IBP, et
al – with small family farms. Factory farms might be for TPP. The small
family farm, the independent farmer, not so much.
adding: Wall St speculates in grain and farm/food commodities. Wall St
isn't happy with the demise of TTP. This from a few years back, but still
relevant.
" Futures markets traditionally included two kinds of players. On one
side were the farmers, the millers, and the warehousemen, market players
who have a real, physical stake in wheat .
"On the other side is the speculator. The speculator neither produces
nor consumes corn or soy or wheat, and wouldn't have a place to put the
20 tons of cereal he might buy at any given moment if ever it were
delivered. Speculators make money through traditional market behavior,
the arbitrage of buying low and selling high. And the physical
stakeholders in grain futures have as a general rule welcomed traditional
speculators to their market, for their endless stream of buy and sell
orders gives the market its liquidity and provides bona fide hedgers a
way to manage risk by allowing them to sell and buy just as they pleased.
"But Goldman's index perverted the symmetry of this system. The
structure of the GSCI paid no heed to the centuries-old buy-sell/sell-buy
patterns. This newfangled derivative product was "long only," which meant
the product was constructed to buy commodities, and only buy. At the
bottom of this "long-only" strategy lay an intent to transform an
investment in commodities (previously the purview of specialists) into
something that looked a great deal like an investment in a stock - the
kind of asset class wherein anyone could park their money and let it
accrue for decades (along the lines of General Electric or Apple). Once
the commodity market had been made to look more like the stock market,
bankers could expect new influxes of ready cash. But the long-only
strategy possessed a flaw, at least for those of us who eat. The GSCI did
not include a mechanism to sell or "short" a commodity. "
More neoliberalism in action. It doesn't benefit either the small
farmer or the person buying groceries.
I agree many people here get caught up in labels. I think there is value in
iconoclasm, but ultimately we have to take practical actions if we want to
avoid trouble. Or, at least, avoid the worst trouble.
Many who comment do not seem to take seriously the danger of right wing
fanaticism. I am not sure what would convince them.
You might be right. I certainly don't take right wing fanaticism
seriously. Moreover I don't think it should be taken seriously, and unless
things seriously changed recently, I live in a state that, statistically,
has a lot of right wing fanatics.
They're not organized, they don't have a message that truly appeals, they
don't have messengers with mass appeal, there's nothing there anyone can
build on. Moreover, anti-immigrant sentiment comes and goes. In the 1840's
we were having riots and people were beating Irishmen in the street because
the economy sucked. But when things don't suck so bad economically, that
evaporates like the morning fog.
Until right wing fanaticism can look like anything other than some angry
guy with too many tattoos shouting angry slogans, or some weird dude who
wants to actually create White America that srsly nobody listens to, y'know,
until there's some unifying figurehead who can take it further and make it
sensible-sounding and mainstream to the folks at home who work a 9-to-5,
it's not even worth worrying about. I'm more worried about left wing
extremists who show up in huge mobs and cause property damage, personally.
By that I mean, they want neoliberal econoimcs with a socially left wing
platform. No wonder they hate the left and supported Clinton so much. They want
the status quo. Many are safely in the upper middle class, as the comments on the
Women's March in Washington DC have revealed. They will never have to deal with
the consequences of neoliberalism.
The Sanders base by contrast wants left wing economics and socially.
The neoliberals don't even want left wing social identity progress. They
just use it as a tool to capture voters. Team Blue types did jack to advance
social issues until they were forced too or were simply bypassed. Obama's
"personal endorsement" of gay marriage was covered by his support of state
rights.
Is anyone all that safely in the middle class these days? Even if they have
a nice middle class job, so much that they don't have to worry about age
discrimination as they get older? I don't think so. So much that even if they
have a nice plum insurance plan at work, they never have to worry about
healthcare for themselves or their loved ones? I'm not so sure
But sure it's not as immediate a threat, doesn't have the immediacy of say
facing immediate eviction for the lack of a rent payment or something.
What appeals to me most is the recognition here (item 3.) of the same concern for
visa holders being locked out of entering the country needing to be shown to the
laboring class already in the country.
For those laborers, seeing a few hundred (or goodness gracious, a few thousand)
people protesting another production line being shipped off is better "messaging"
than anything our ruling class will ever manage to conceive.
Seriously, I can think of no better image than social justice warriors standing up
for workers desperate enough to vote Trump (or resigned enough to not vote at all).
There are potential friendships – or allyships if you prefer – to be created that
could do wonders for much beyond economic concerns.
This has been my position from the early days of the Tea Party movement when I
couldn't understand why the Democratic Party immediately sent organizers to help
them with both organization and more importantly consciousness-raising.
My problem is that I'm in a Red state. Democrats don't win elections here. I need
a political organization that can give me the best possible republican. This would
look like America first economics to protect American jobs (there is a huge appetite
for this among the Republican voters I talk to.) It would mean accepting conservative
social positions. The democratic party might be able to this but it would require one
hell of a make over.
It would, but it might be doable. A lot of the divide in American politics is
around "the culture wars." I think people can adopt new ideas, and ways of looking
at things, if they get that "tribal sanction."
This is just arm chair theorizing, but one of the big hang ups is that cultural
difference is interwoven with historical precedents that operated at a more
substantive, fundamental level in the society. For example, the theories of white
supremacy were used to justify the appalling institution of slavery in the US. At
that time, this enabled the dominant culture to benefit at the expense of the
exploited.
But when cultural conditions change, such that economic systems like slavery
are no longer operative, the ideas of white supremacy can live on as simply
cultural identity.
For all the problems of our society, we have made progress, and the overt,
legal racism that existed just 50 years ago has been minimized. So perhaps people
interested in social justice can relax the hyper-vigilant, hyper-accusatory
attitudes of political correctness, to make common cause with populations they
have common interests with.
When social justice activists use the label of "racist" as a badge of shame on
someone who transgresses whatever social line, it tends to cause hurt feelings.
And accusations of reverse racism. Sigh. It could be different.
The Kulture Wars were specifically designed to put economic and Class issues
on the back burner, Divide and Rule. What is the point of Lady Gaga waving her
pussy in our faces at the super bowl, but to drive the socially conservative
working class into the Republican party. Frankly the issue of who sleeps with
who, who marries who and who has a baby, is done , covered by the assertion of
privacy protection by the constitution. In any case, economic justice should
take precedence. Time to move on from socially divisive issues.
Love your line about Lady Gaga. It is as if the powers that be understand
completely the "backfire effect" and deploy it consciously to their
advantage.
I completely disagree. While party organizations in red states may have little
impact on those elected from their state, a hostile takeover of a state party can
have real impact in terms of control of the national organization.
Democratic Parties in red states especially are interested in keeping their
invitations to Inaugural balls and holding Jefferson-Jackson (one would think
these would have been renamed by now given how totes woke Team Blue types are,
sarc) dinners. Who knows what could happen if they cared about results?
I disagree. "Good Democrats" can win. People respect people who fight for their
values or seem to fight for those values more than say a Hillary. The messaging of
Hillary as a defender for women and children wasn't an accident.
The problem for the "deplorables" in regards to Team Blue is the neo liberals
treat their concerns with contempt and have a recent history of betrayal.
It might take a while, but Virginia's fifth congressional district is the
largest district by area east of the Mississippi. It's bigger than New Jersey and
a relatively good Democrat (probably not the most pro choice person) won in 2008
against a Republican who won by huge numbers every years. That win didn't start in
early 2008. It started in 2001 with a couple of sacrificial lambs to build
operations to register voters, making sure the blue precpincts were registered and
to go into the precincts that should be blue believed they can win.
I believe people will make good choices when presented with options, but
putting up a non entity with cash who bemoans partisanship especially those "tax
and spend liberals" is why Democrats fail. How did Alan Grayson get into Congress
despite running in a district that went for Bush/Cheney twice while an adjacent
district that went for Gore and Kerry keeps sending Republicans to Congress? The
answer is people respect when they aren't being pondered too, and that is all
Clinton Inc knows how to do.
Entirely home grown for all intents and purposes. Lynchburg produced a
fair amount of volunteers and money despite not being in the actual
district.
Dean's 50th the strategy didn't come from no where. The Internet existed
before Facebook, and people have long memories of Democrats that did
organization before 1994 (gee, I wonder who was in charge of Team Blue) and
the destruction of the then permanent Democratic majority. People discussed
this all over. Admittedly, I didn't entirely buy it until Kaine thumped a
well liked Republican in 2005 running up the vote tally in areas where
people had been organizing.
There is a reason why Clinton Inc is despised by otherwise seemingly,
sensible Democratic types. The Clintons under perform because they run
childish goldilocks campaigns. In 1992, Bill mustered 43% of the vote
against 41 and a guy who basically wanted to bring back prohibition.
Thanks for bringIng up Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy. What the heck
happened to that? I'm convinced that the strategy was a good part of
Obama's victory in 2008. In Kansas, the Dems took a seat from the
Republicans that year, and won Indiana and North Carolina. Lost Missouri
by only 4000 votes. We could compete in these states and others (Arizona,
Texas, Georgia) if the state Democratic parties would arouse themselves
and do a bit of listening to people in their state.
Not sure study groups are the answer. Couldn't hurt, I suppose.
The article makes it sound like there was nothing but a clash of ideas for 40
years.
Out of the 70's there was a lot of racism and resentment at the stagflation that
got channeled into Reagan. The right wing think tanks started an Amen chorus,
abortion wars reached a fever pitch, and Dems started scrambling to try to win
elections that they used to win on a FDR platform.
Then came the bubble of the 90s, and Wall Street Dems looked like geniuses.
A lot of people were drinking the Koolaid. Not just sold out Dem pols.
New day now. Lessons have been learned. Unfortunately, many people have learned
the wrong lessons, nodding to the siren call of fanatical nationalism and Trump.
I am not sure what plan the proprietors of this blog favor, but I hope it includes
the Dem party because that thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian
rule for the billionaires.
The Dems are the very embodiment of neoliberalism, representatives of oligarchs
and soft sellers of authoritarian rule. Far far on the wrong side of the thin
reed.
As the post mentioned – Largest imprisoned, in the world. Lowest life
expectancy, for highest expenditures.Allowing millions to be foreclosed upon while
further enriching the banksters who rigged the system. That's authoritarian in an
extreme and only a few oligarchs benefit. Neoliberalism/Liberalism is
authoritarian. Dems are the first to shoot down those who challenge them with so
much as polite rhetoric. Feckless as Sanders was he clarified that for anyone who
dare look-see, admit it to themselves.
If Dems were the only party in existence we would be where we are today, if not
far worse. Just the way they structure and operate their party is more than enough
to prove these points.
Love the post title but I would wear a t-shirt which say either of these
things:
Who said prefer? The thing with siding with the Democrats in opposing
Trump is that in four or eight years we're left with nothing but siding with
somebody else in opposing the Democrats. How about getting something done,
finally? Crazy dream: make the Democrats side with us in opposing Trump.
Naked Capitalism is both a reading and study group hey here's a thought, why
don't the dems try to include usians, we're not democrats we're americans, after
all, and we don't need them if they're going to continue to play the game as they
have been playing it, supporting authoritarianism and heaping favors on
billionaires. I don't see lessons having been learned, none of the hillary
marchers I know can have a cogent , fact based conversation, it's just omg trump,
marching is good, globalization o care what will the poor illegal immgrants do,
cheap labor is essential, self driving trucks blah blah blah bail out wall st
while fraudulent MERS documents are fabricated to steal peoples homes, remember
linda green, remember non dischargeable student loans? Have you noticed all those
tents under the bridges? The dems ruled for the 10% but it's a big country and a
numbers game. You need to get out more. If the dems wanted to win bernie was the
ticket. Instead they chose wall st and war then lost like they deserved to lose.
In a representative democracy they are supposed to represent us, we're not
supposed to represent the dems. They'll be included when they deserve to be, no
one owes them allegiance.
"And at this point in time (where we are now) that means organizing
through the Dems, through the Repubs, or some third party."
Sometimes I figure it may as well be the Repubs (but not of course with
their current platform, yea I know people think the Dems is an easier party
to take over, but due to LOTE voting I'm not so sure.
Maybe you can tell me which is better? Cory Booker voted to prevent
importation of Canadian drugs to lower the outrageous rx costs. Ted Cruz
voted to import drugs so that we are not held hostage to US companies
raising drug costs with impunity. Unless the dems are benefiting citizens
why should we support them. Bernie's bill would have passed except for 14
dem senators voted to keep drug costs high . Who should we vote for in the
next election?
I hope I am not posting too late. Please delete this if you think I am.
Booker is a phony. Cruz is a creep. Not much to cheer for in either
case.
I am not suggesting that you owe allegiance to any candidate or party.
I am suggesting that party politics is an avenue for organizing, and
Dem party and traditional coalition is the better avenue for action. Not
to do the same things, but to work for peace justice and tolerance.
Where to target work for change.
The Repubs are not what some people here imagine. And they will do
great harm.
"That thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian rule for the
billionaires."
No, that "thin reed" would have continued to obfuscate the existence of
authoritarian rule
for
the billionaires through cynical, insincere
manipulation of
idpol
wedge issues.
The regime change we are witnessing, here in the U.S., is the cutting out of a
layer of cynical, professional grifters between the kleptocrats and the people. In
other words authoritarian rule
for
the billionaires is morphing into
direct, in-your-face kleptocracy
by and for
the billionaires.
There was an important discussion earlier, here at NC, that I think is relevant to
our current situation, sparked by Kalecki's observation that:
"One of the important functions of fascism, as typified by the Nazi system, was
to remove capitalist objections to full employment."
It is understandable that American workers would find a genuine commitment to full
employment, after so many decades of neoliberal job outsourcing, exhilarating.
Yet, smashing unions and "othering" large segments of the population didn't end
well for the Germans in the mid-20th century, and there's no reason to believe it
would work out any better over here.
Maybe that was a significant aspect of the rise of Nazi rule, but it seems to
me a bit reductionist to see the Nazis through such a narrow lense.
Similarly, I think we should resist the temptation of seeing Trump exclusively
through the lenses of our anger at Bluedogs for getting us into this mess. I am
angry. And those soulless climbers are still running the show in Congress. I am
angry about that too.
But these are dangerous times. We need to organize. We need to win elections.
And we do not have ANY easy path that I can see.
In my view, we need to channel our energy into primary challenges in the Dem
party.
The US Democratic Party has more than a little in common with the British
Labour Party sadly.
I wouldn't pin your hopes on their resolve to stand up for the average
working voter in the face of big money interests.
Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their erstwhile
core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris, contempt,
obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous ideologies, a
reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign misadventure' and much
more besides.
Their currency, in the eyes of swathes of once loyal voters, has been so
devalued under the leaderships of flag of convenience crypto-neoliberal
politicians like Blair, Brown, the Clintons and Obama that this is going to be
a Herculean task to row back from in order to recentre and reconnect with
betrayed, bruised voters.
Trump might be a crass out and out shameless, populist, self-serving
sociopathic assh#le, but unlike those mentioned above, in the eyes of many of
those disenfranchised who backed him, some most likely out of desperation, at
least he's currently less of a lying hypocrite and, more importantly, he hasn't
let them down badly yet.
"Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their
erstwhile core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris,
contempt, obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous
ideologies, a reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign
misadventure' and much more besides."
This is not quite right "Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the highest
health, safety, environmental and labor standards."
Labor in the underdeveloped countries consider some of this to be the developed
countries' trick of preventing the people in the underdeveloped countries from
getting jobs. There is some truth to this idea. When we negotiate trade deals, we
must remember that in a fair negotiation neither side gets everything it wants, but
each side must get enough of what it wants to agree to the terms of the negotiation.
The trouble with past trade pacts is that only the corporations on both sides of
the deal were represented. In the future, labor and environment on both sides must be
represented in the negotiations.
not quite right, the stateless multinationals play both sides off each other.
Globalzation deals like TPP with ISDS clauses are designed to limit sovereignty.
We have free trade, you can go anywhere in the world and buy whatever you want to,
your "fair negotiation" is a canard and misdirection.
One may also refer to USA communities who will accept higher levels of
pollution caused by an EPA targeted local industry/plant that provides local jobs
where they are in short supply..
This is very similar to a foreign country accepting higher pollution in trade
for jobs for their citizens.
When someone is desperate to support their family, compromises are made, and
the USA has plenty of examples.
That's kind of representative of the basic problem: before the white working
class morphed into The Middle Class during Reagan's Miracle, they'd long since
abandoned hell with the lid off, for suburbia (the nation's economy was based
upon this; unions, political parties, finance all fed off of upward mobility,
basically away from the poor, polluted, neglected, heavily policed industrial
areas (bottom feeders like Trump's dad or DNC's slumlord super-delegates hardly
invented this). EZ Credit, Bail Bonds, Party Stores, doc-in-a-box, PayCheck
Loans sucked-up what the politicians' business associates left behind. As Trump
moves on from trolling liberal elites to fomenting race war, mass
incarceration, etc, as LBJ, Nixon, Reagan & Clinton did with urban renewal, the
war on drugs, welfare reform some of us will scrambling to figure out just how
we're not just another part of the problem?
A contemporary version of that Sinclair quote could be stated as such :
"When Neo-fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a Lady Gaga
p#ssy-gown and carrying a case of birth-control pills . while screaming
'White, Deplorable, F#cker' !!"
Offshore tax sheltered wealth in the trillions must be reigned in, but nobody in a
position of leadership is allowed to touch it, only to make token noises about it
like Sen. Warren does.
It appears that Leopold misses another issue that hits American workers, that
being the "insourcing" of foreign workers, either legally (H1-B's) or illegally to
the USA.
American workers are certainly aware that some jobs can be outsourced via
computer/phone networks to other countries, but are also aware that neo-libs have
been more than willing to also let jobs that require a physical presence in the USA
be wage arbitraged down via increasing the domestic labor supply via immigration.
I don't believe the old assertion that "an immigrant displacing an American worker
frees the American to find a better job" gathers much support from American
workers/voters, if it ever did.
Trump tapped into this, and the Democrats will ignore this issue at their peril..
Neither political party wants to enforce employer sanctions, via mandatory
E-Verify, as that would be frowned on by both party's paymasters.
"Trump actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and
unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he also is
clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without the free
movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and their corporate
partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy unions and siphon off wealth
into their own pockets."
Given the ease with which Trump reverses himself, I wouldn't take these utterances
seriously.
At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders bill to stop
off-shoring.
I couldn't find "Outsourcing Prevention Act" at Congress.gov. It is possible that
the bill hasn't been introduced yet? Or maybe it has another name? I found these
possibilities:
Good article but needs an addendum: don't side with
Democrats
in opposing
Trump. There's a case to be made that Trump himself is really an independent even
though he has by necessity stuffed his administration with some GOP trogs. Therefore
when Trump does something our side likes he should be praised even though it might
diminish the chances of the dearly sought Trumpexit. The US public at large
increasingly see themselves as independents rather than supporters of the duopoly and
the left–including and perhaps especially Sanders–should stop fooling themselves that
they will ever reform the Dems. In fact the thing that might do the most to reform
the Dems would be some vibrant third party competition that forces them to protect
their left flank.
But we have enough time to hope the Democratic Party who is completely
subservient to corporate interests will suddenly decide to forget about all the
money they are making and side with the workers, poor, and the environment?
Voting in all new people would take many years, not to mention the party
structure that cannot be changed by voting. The majority of registered
democrats support neo-liberal candidates. How do you propose this quick change
of the democratic party to support traditional leftist policy will take place?
Note to self: I will not be bamboozled into self-destructive political adventurism
by mindlessly opposing the perfectly legitimate President Trump when ever he happens
to do something so swell that helps pay the rent, buys food and keeps a roof over my
head. I will stop going to ALL of those protest marches that demands that rowhouse
Philadelphia give up their jobs in reparations for neo-colonial and hegemonic
neo-liberal bad stuff by sending them to Mexico and the Dominican Republic or even
Viet Nam or China. I understand that people in America are people too, and need their
jobs and do not have trust funds to live off of when they donate their employment
with no hope for a replacement job to prevent a downward spiral into poverty.
I get it, by not focusing on real pocket book issues and major social programs,
like the ones we used to get in the afterglow of post WWII economic expansion, we
just left the barn door open for all of the wronged white guys in coal mines, all
57,000 of them nationally, to come out in the full force of democracy in action under
our definition of democracy, the electoral college. By not recognizing that the iron
law of democracy, where the consent of the majority of people is the deciding
principle in American politics, and marching after a political loss instead of going
out in front of the coal mines and factories and laying down in front of the trucks
hauling jobs away, I am a dope. I promise to fete The President Trump in editorial
pages, blog sites, graffitti on walls and other public property when he creates jobs
as a result, direct or indirect, of his policies. After all, it is axiomatic that if
Trump repeatedly fails to do anything of value for our nation, most of us will
suffer. If he puts forth an infrastructure financial package with the Japanese and
their global investment bank, I will hail as a partnership in progress.
After all, if we can fix up the country's faltering highways and bridges and air
ports and sea ports, we will modernized America, give people good paying jobs. And
that is a good thing. I am all for it. President Trump is supposed to be all for it.
So, when the jobs start pouring in with all of the concrete and rebar, I will not
protest. I will publicly applaud him. I will however be organizing behind the scenes
to crush him like a bug in the next election. I foresee a bidding war in jobs offered
to the forgotten and not so forgotten and I expect to come out on top as the highest
bidder.
Les Leopold is a smart guy and always has interesting things to say. But in this
case, I think he glosses over the biggest issue: people will not organize into unions
if they believe that doing so, or trying to do so, risks making their personal
employment situation worse, not better.
Anti-union activity by employers is now so routine and expected, and protections
for workers trying to organize, either from unions or government, are so weak that
the vast majority of working people have come to view trying to organize as insane.
(Yes, card check will help in a few situations but is not a game changer.) The
purported low unemployment rate does nothing to empower working people because
(except for the occasional exception that proves the rule) it is still overwhelming
the case that one's current job is better than any likely other job one would have to
get if one lost it. And irritating your boss is still the likeliest way to get fired,
or get your department outsourced, or get your entire workplace shut down.
And the fact that some public sector workers still have workplaces that make them
less likely to get fired or replaced for trying to exercise workplace "rights" just
points out how poor things are for most private sector workers, resulting in even
less sympathy for those workers.
What Trump gets is that, in this environment, most working people will support the
(anti-tax, anti-regulation) platform their boss supports, rather than the
(higher-tax, stronger-regulation) one their boss hates, if the (strong union)
platform that is good for them that their boss really, really hates is off the table.
Platforms and study groups are well and good but we need much more. As said above,
we need a new labor movement, in particular one that can organize in the private
export-sensitive sector. There is no such thing as a(n even moderately) successful
labor movement without strong unions in the private export-sensitive sector. But
there is no way to organize workers in this sector without being able to demonstrate
why being in a union is likely to materially improve their well-being. But one can't
get such a thing without strong government support to ensure trying to organize
doesn't in fact risk resulting in losing your job. Chicken-And-Egg problem.
Employers have so much power over workers now: right-to -work laws, tax
incentives, H1B and undocumented workers, Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists.
Probably the only way to have any clout would be to have a National Strike and
boycotts which would be tough to organize. I know that employers in an area will
collude with other companies to set and limit wages and benefits. I had a friend
that I worked with in a factory back in the 70s who was promoted to the office in
a secretarial position who told me about meetings our company had with other ones
in the community where they discussed and made agreements on labor issues. This
was back in the 70s. They were always threatening us about unions and I never had
heard anyone talk about joining one or any kind of union activity.
As regards the standard of living in third-world countries, it should by now be
apparent that the model of 'development' that uses low wages to attract foreign
businesses simply can not – and does not – increase general prosperity. How can it?
The model is that low wages ('affordable labor costs') are the engine, therefore the
wages need to stay low to keep the multinationals in place.
Look at the effects of NAFTA: the United States lost a lot of jobs, Mexico gained
jobs, but Mexican wages remain low. The NAFTA model is pulling the United States down
and not pulling Mexico up. That is now well established. Nobody need feel any guilt
about opposing trade agreements like NAFTA.
Ah, but what about China? Well China is a little different from Mexico – they are
more mercantilist. In the long run the established method of creating prosperity is
to have a stable or slowly growing population, and slowly but steadily build up
endogenous industries and a strong internal market. "Race to the bottom" trade
agreements yield exactly what the term suggests.
Where do I sign up? I'm ready to go. However, I think one aspect of this
transformational mission is missing: MONEY.
The RW has metric tons of billionaires who use their money to propagate their
ideologies and build "think tanks" and other institutions to provide the veneer of
respectability. I believe it's one of the primary reasons that they've been so
successful in pushing their extreme ideas on everybody. They have an ALEC branch in
every statehouse writing laws, which I'm sure they don't do for free. They can
gerrymander, buy off, and otherwise distort the entire process for little more than
walking around money for them.
I know Sanders nearly won with small donors, so perhaps that could be replicated
in this scenario, but long term, I think having some serious money to back up these
initiatives is going to make the job actually doable. And there are a few actual
billionaires who might be amenable to using their wealth for the greater good. Nick
Hanauer comes to mind.
The Antigonish Movement blended adult education, co-operatives, microfinance
and rural community development to help small, resource-based communities around
Canada's Maritimes improve their economic and social circumstances. A group of
priests and educators, including Father Jimmy Tompkins, Father Moses Coady, Rev.
Hugh MacPherson and A.B. MacDonald led this movement from a base at the Extension
Department at St. Francis Xavier University (St. F.X.) in Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The credit union systems of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI owe their
origins to the Antigonish Movement, which also had an important influence on other
provincial systems across Canada. The Coady International Institute at St. F.X.
has been instrumental in developing credit unions and in asset-based community
development initiatives in developing countries ever since.
It is noteworthy that the movement began with Adult Education: if people do not
understand what has brought them debt and poverty, it will be difficult to counteract
them.
I'm sure that in the US during the Depression, there were many such movements
which helped people understand and defeat the Depression.
Looking back at what succeeded in the past can help towards a better future. Of
course, it will have to be adapted for the present problems, but starting with
education is a really positive move.
How about online adult education drawing on the talents of charismatic teachers
and more local face-to-face seminars to provide the core activists we need.
Good article which made some good points.
"The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump. If he's for it, we
must be against it."
One instance of this is the huge play the immigration fight is getting. I don't agree
with how Trump enacted his immigration "reform" but I agree that immigration needs to
be curtailed. Significantly curtailed. H1B visas pretty much need to be done away
with, and if you are in this country illegally, you need to leave. And any further
immigration needs to be reduced. This outcry against immigration reform by the
liberals, what many in this country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any
hearts and minds in flyover country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected
and he wasted a lot of time and political capital on the gays i the military issue.
Only this time the Dems are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital.
In my mind this whole immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity
politics by the Democrats. What progressives need to focus on is campaign finance
reform, jobs, health care reform, education, and increasing taxes on the wealthy and
corporations. Those issues resonate with everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It is why Trump won. Don't fix these problems and immigration will be the least of
our worries as a nation. If things get worse in our economy, immigrants and refugees
are going to be in a much worse place than they are right now. People who are going
hungry and who are sick with no hope on the horizon have to blame someone. And
Americans are not known for the high level of intelligence and knowledge of how the
world really works. Anyone who looks "different" will be blamed and there will be
blood in the streets. I think we are almost to that point now.
"This outcry against immigration reform by the liberals, what many in this
country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any hearts and minds in flyover
country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected and he wasted a lot of time
and political capital on the gays i the military issue. Only this time the Dems
are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital. In my mind this whole
immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity politics by the
Democrats."
The Dims maybe, but that's not why actual people protest, it's mostly because
they know illegals are those who serve their food when they order breakfast, are
on the train on the way to work, etc.. I know fly-over just doesn't get it,
because they don't live among and with illegals as part of their daily life, but
it's hard to see them driven out if one does.
All the points made in answer to that need to be memorized, because if you're to
the left of Andrew Carnegie or Ayn Rand that's what they'll throw at you. 'Americans
consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and blah blah!' We're
a little sick of it.
"Americans consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and
blah blah!' We're a little sick of it."
It's all true of course.
But yea they rely on left/liberals basic goodness (ok not all liberals have any
real goodness (or why don't they oppose the wars more?), most leftists are pretty
darn moral though) and they'll use it to enrich themselves, because they are not
good at all, but know how to get good people to be subserviant to their own
selfish ends.
Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. What do we plan
to do about that?
The cheaper the capital (e.g., low interest rates), the easier it is to substitute
capital for labor. Whenever the Fed bails out a bubble via monetization, labor takes
another hit.
Solar's more cost-effective and adding more jobs now than the fossil fuel industry
– yet official policy now seems hell-bent on ginning up another oil reserve lending
bubble.
Wade is correct. I've posted a chart of the BLS statistics on long term
manufacturing employment in absolute and relative terms on this site.
Manufacturing employment's relative share of total employment has fallen in a
straight and steady diagonal line from upper right to lower left from its peak
in the 1950's to the present. Began long before off-shoring was a thing, and
off-shoring doesn't even clearly show as an independent variable. Otherwise
we'd see a significant bend in the curve. Instead, significant deviations are
conjunctural, connected to recessions.
The BLS charts can be easily researched by anybody on this site. I don't
want to hear conspiracy theories about how BLS has politically rigged the stats
for 60 years as lazy substitute for critical approaches to BLS statistical
methods. If you want to refute the evidence, that's what is required.
It fails to assess the real weight of off-shoring vs automation because
Smith doesn't base his analysis on the effects of automation, and then move to
assess the effects of off-shoring. Therefore Smith can never present a clear
quantification of the effects of off-shoring on employment in a metropolitan
country like the US.
At root Smith's limitations are found in his Andre G. Frank "development of
underdevelopment" bias. This cannot conceive of under- or uneven- development
in an "already developed" country like the US. But that is precisely, palpably,
what has happened. And it is inevitable under capitalist automation once it
reaches a tipping point. As I believe it has, where only some 25% of the total
available labor force is required to produce everything we (very wastefully)
consume now, today.
As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never produced
in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You can't
"off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a different
process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a contract
relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of *existing*
productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in his
"off-shoring" mix.
The Smith example shows this is a matter of the basic facts about
capitalism, not about left or right politics. That is exactly why people
gravitate towards off-shoring as a prime-mover in job loss, precisely because
something politically can be done about that. Yet if you somehow forced all US
corporations to 100% invest production in the US, you will only greatly
accelerate the trend of job loss due to automation, as it will be the only
lever they have left. Unless you want to halt all human progress in the
productivity that has already freed up 75% of our labor time to do something
other than maintain the current standard of living.
The real political problem we need to confront is that, despite these real
productivity gains, capitalism requires that the whole mob of proles be
continuously prodded onto the wage labor market, whether their labor is
necessary or not. That's the fundamental program of the Congressional snakepit
and its Statehouse auxiliaries. The wage labor social relation is the source of
the social power of capitalists, and without it they and their system go Poof.
A good reform proposal would be: a guaranteed *medium* income for all (or
alternatively, a guaranteed "job" for all at the same income or greater); a
system for equitably circulating the total potential labor pool in and out of
the pool of necessary labor. It will require a revolution to achieve such a
reform.
@Brad
"As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never
produced in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You
can't "off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a
different process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a
contract relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of
*existing* productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in
his "off-shoring" mix."
Doesn't seem like a different process to those needing work to survive.
This is why "economists" are being ridiculed and derided among large swathes
of the populace. Distinctions without differences which only serve to fit
data into precious formulae, based on preconceived ideals. If I develop a
new product in the US, and seek only China manufacture (to save myself the
labor cost, and evade the external costs of environment, etc.) the result is
the same. "New capital investment " is just a matter of timing. Lucky me, I
didn't have to go thru the expense of tearing down an existing facility, or
relationship, here first.
This seems to me one of the more incisive of the comments. So many are
coming at it from the framework of what solutions best get us back to a
situation that was better, like one we experienced between the 1950s to the
turn of the century. This was a unique period of advantage for the US
economically and industry-wise that is unlikely to be repeated, imo, and for
awhile seemed to have more easy opportunities for all.
The progressive platform recognizes how the pillars providing for more
equality of opportunity have been battered, and I agree with some of its
proposals. But just reversing the tax burden shifts and trying to reinstate
more affordable healthcare or education still leaves us with the situation
where the need for and nature of work may still be changing radically. I
have trouble seeing how a conservative half of the country with extremely
powerful propaganda outlets, interest groups, and fountains of money will
allow some if any of the ideas proposed in this article (hence Brad's claim
that it would require a revolution sways me a good deal).
I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big
negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the right's
smear machine was done with him. Even then, the republican congress would
have stopped cold any of his more significant proposals.
Progressives need to get realistic. This agenda will be slow in coming,
unless things get so horrible that a true revolution does occur. What that
would entail I do not know, but powerful forces are aligned against it. All
who spend time theorizing (including me) on keyboards will have to start and
sustain the very hard work of getting into the trenches, spreading and
fighting for ideas, and most of all, actually winning primaries and
elections and helping to get people out to vote. The right wing started
doing this methodically over 45 years ago, with patience and persistence.
Trump/RW domination needs to be stopped asap, by whatever plausible if
less than ideal tools we have. Protests are getting attention, and I hope
more participation and results will come next. Purity tests of progressive
ideals is a cancer that will only doom the cause. It will be hard and maybe
slow, but we're going to need more than just the faithful to get this turned
around. Bernie was a start, but too many are throwing up their hands just
because he lost the primary.
I plan to keep working to change the democratic party for the better, at
a pace that is realistic. Getting a more progressive tax structure again to
fund any of these ideas is critical first. I also can't see a guaranteed
income without a required work contribution to address the evolving economy,
given this country's attitude towards earning one's keep. A sort of advanced
CCC to work on massively fixing and improving our crumbling infrastructure
and public spaces, fighting forest fires, etc. using these tax funds is one
idea. Subsidizing quick as possible job training as new jobs evolve with the
radical changes in the economy is another. More support for local small
business and entrepreneurs (perhaps funding employees who they need for
awhile in startup phase as part of minimum guaranteed income in exchange for
work) until they prove to be an ongoing concern is another thought. Even if
these ideas are flawed, we need to rethink the paradigm of work with which
we grew up.
I don't agree. Obama could not only have done a Roosevelt 100 days, he
literally could have re-implemented many of his policies. This was a
window of opportunity that he ignored and bizarrely, the public at large
airbrushes out of its memory.
I don't at all buy that the US can't afford this. Did you forget we
spend ginormous amounts on our military, and that could instead be be
redirected to domestic uses? Japan, a less rich country generally
considered to be in decline, is vastly more egalitarian than America and
scores way above us and every other country in the world on social
indicators. Some of that, sadly, may prove out that ethnically mixed
societies don't "do" egalitarianism because some groups don't want to cut
less advantaged groups in.
The issue is that the elites (a word used only on sites like Alex
Jones before the crisis) are all in for increasing inequality. That means
not investing in education for the masses and much heavier policing,
since unequal societies are more violent, among other things.
I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big
negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the
right's smear machine was done with him.
Progressives need to get realistic.
Purity tests of progressive ideals is a cancer that will only doom
the cause. It will be hard and maybe slow, but we're going to need
more than just the faithful to get this turned around.
I have pulled these out of your comments, because they are generally
used by tribal Democrats to rationalize the party's incompetent,
destructive behavior. I am not saying that's why you're doing it. But I'd
like to address them.
I heartily concur with Yves' reply to you, to start.
Second, you mention in other places than the ones I quoted this idea
of doing what's "realistic" and being "realistic." What do you mean by
that? The neoliberal Democrats had a quarter of a century to demonstrate
that their way worked for the citizens of the United States and the
Democratic Party. They failed on both counts. More of strategy and policy
that has a proven record of failure would be unwise - do you agree?
If you do agree, and you want to reform the Democratic Party, as you
state above, then your choice is easy: focus your energies on getting rid
of all the entrenched neoliberals and corporate-aligned Democrats, both
party functionaries and elected officials. No positive change can occur
until that task is completed.
If you do NOT agree that the neoliberal New Democrats must be purged
from the party, what is your vision of realistic change, what makes it
realistic, and what makes it change?
Also, you are simply incorrect about Bernie and the general election.
All data we have demonstrates strongly that he would have won. There's no
smear machine in America better than the Clinton machine plus the major
corporate media aligned with it. He was smeared constantly with vile
falsehoods - one of which you clearly fell for, which is that he
wasn't
smeared. He would have held the Democratic states
unquestionably, and held the Rust Belt, and thus won the election. Tell
me what states you imagine he would have lost to Trump?
The realistic approach is get rid of the New Democrats utterly and
completely. They have failed catastrophically. That will be a hard task,
but that doesn't' make it unrealistic. To leave them in place and think
the party will win back governing power or do anything good for the
average citizen would be unrealistic.
Can anyone any longer deceive oneself about the primary meaning and purpose of the
Democratic Party? The DP, as it has been redefined and transformed since the
Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, is a political vehicle that primarily seeks to
represent the interests of mainly urban upper-middle suburban well-educated and
well-off professionals, managers, educators, and technologists, along with those
other racial/ethnic/social groups that happen to be privileged by elite opinion at
any given time.
If the quixotic Sanders run taught us anything, it is that there is no interest,
no room within the DP for critical economic and social argument. Not just radical
class-based neo-Marxist criticism but even the kind of economic issue-framing that
became a hallmark of the DP in the FDR regime and persisted with sometimes more,
other times less strength until the 70's.
The so-called "resistance" to Trump has only reaffirmed this conclusion. Insofar
as it is being led by DP and DP-leaning media and other talking-head
pseudo-intelligentsia, it has focused almost entirely on the same social lifestyle
and individual empowerment sexual/gender issues that have characterized it over the
past 40 years. This inability to think outside of what too often reduces in final
analysis to solipsistic "me-isms", for example by framing important political
questions like immigration, imperial reach, and deregulation in ways that transcend
the usual racial-ethnic-gender identity differences, prevents the DP and its
sycophants from suggesting deeper grounds for solidarity-in-opposition. Most readers
of NC understand what these deeper grounds are!
As I wrote another time a few years ago, DP players and pundits, often urban in
residence and outlook, and often themselves financially well off, ensconced in
high-priced city dwellings, shopping at Whole Foods, frequenting high-end fashion
boutiques, attending the best schools on mommy and daddy's dime, often appear more
transparently hostile and condescending to what they judge to be the unsophisticated
prejudices and religious backwardness of lower, working, and middle class Americans
than do the Trumps of the Republican Party. The latter, equally or even more
well-heeled than their ersatz opponents, have learned beginning in the Nixon-Colson
"silent majority" days, how to project a kind of "rural, small town folksiness",
filling their rallies with country music stars and NASCAR heroes, and who know enough
to drag out a "social-cultural conservative" every now and then to show that they
"hear and care" for the "forgotten American" even if they consistently ignore these
very people in the political arena.
To be sure, the Republicans don't give a rat's ass about these things. Applying
the categories of the silent-majority Americans, they are as "amoral" as the Democrat
special-interest spokespeople. However, when it is a case of neither party addressing
the causes that underlie the real deep-rooted rottenness that has become 21st Century
America, the blue collar "ordinary" American will often fall back on the party of
lip-service that at least to him or her seems to be listening to the anxieties and
resentments felt by them. The irony of course is that neoliberal policies
consistently applied will destroy (have destroyed) whatever was real and true about
the America they think has been left behind.
Great post. As an example of what you are talking about, I see very little
concern from Democrats and liberals about the current Republican efforts to pass a
national right to work law, even though this will hurt unions which are supposed
to be one of the core elements of the Democratic coalition. Is this surprising? Of
course not, given Obama's failure to fight for card check and to give support to
the embattled unions in Wisconsin during their fight with Scott Walker. What
happened to those comfortable shoes? Did Obama lose them? Unions give the
Democrats money and troops during election years and are then kicked to the curb
when the Democrats are in power or at most given scraps.
The upper-middle class professionals and managers who dominate the Democratic
Party want to continue the identity politics emphasis with regard to opposition to
Trump because they are making out well under neoliberalism and are opposed to
anything that would tilt the economy in a direction that is more favorable to
ordinary workers because they would lose their relative status. Upper-middle class
types don't want to go back to the days of the mid-20th century when doctors and
lawyers might have to share a neighborhood with factory workers.
To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and
"protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less so
around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it more
moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and Asia? After
all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs can be found at
wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope for in low-wage
countries.
May I just say that as a deplorable member of the poor white working class who is
a bone-deep progressive that these are classist views of people who sit in their
comfortable middle-class bubbles and pretend there are n't people in
this
country who are suffering from the very things they are so nobly seeking to protect
workers in the third world from suffering?
If you want to know why otherwise sensible, intelligent people voted for Trump,
that paragraph right there is a major example. The content is bad enough, but that an
author who has written an excellent overview of the situation would automatically
attribute that kind of thinking to "progressives" shows just how insidious the
academic mindset is, and why the working class, regardless of race, gender, religion,
or sexual preference, automatically shuts out both categories when they stroll in to
"educate."
Any attempt to equalize wages in "poorer" countries, would also have to
address cost-of-living differences, as well.
You are not allowed, in "developed" nations, to live a subsistence lifestyle,
any longer.
With higher living standards, comes an obligation to provide citizens with a
level of income which can sustain that standard.
Thank you. Better-put than I could have done. Might I add to this that I wasn't
voting for the president of Uruguay or Mexico or whatever, who could reasonably be
expected to look out for those people. I was voting for the next president of the
United States, who I should be able to reasonably believe will look out for me, as
an American, first and foremost.
The recent primaries and Presidential election made clear to me how little the
concerns of ordinary people mean to the two national parties. However Trump was and
remains something of a wildcard - at least promising actions reflecting the concerns
of the hoi polli. He has indeed delivered in short order on several of his promises.
I have trouble characterizing the opposition and protests against Trump. Are they
inspired by the Democratic Party's knee-jerk opposition to anything Trump or
Neoliberal opponents to Trump's dismantling of the grand corporate take-over embodied
in the TPP or upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues
of the moment like immigration or climate change - issues which Trump seems
determined to throttle. My daughter was tempted to join the women's march because she
will sorely miss planned parenthood clinics when their funds are cutoff - they were
for her the only place she could find real healthCARE at any price.
At this point I tend to agree with Bernie Sanders assessment of Trump (ref.
today's links -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/05/after-trump-moves-to-undo-financial-regulations-sanders-calls-him-a-fraud/
).
I am glad the US seems more cozy with Russia - worried about the US and China and
Iran - glad the TPP has been - at least temporarily - dismantled - in short I view
Trump as a very mixed blessing whose actions and intents remain opaque. I believe
Trump will benefit the obscenely wealthy classes but I'm not sure yet which portions
of the obscenely wealthy. I believe there is a power struggle ongoing between
different behemoth factions of the uber-rich but the waters they fight in are darkly
murky.
"upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues of the
moment like immigration or climate change "
Yeah, climate change an 'issue of the moment'.
Here is the bedrock of modern political stupdity. A total unconcern for the future
of all of us. I don't care where you think you are on the left/right BS, anyone with
your view is just another instance of the great problem.
I cannot read all the comments & know my own will be but a wisp in the wind. I am
grateful to naked capitalism, Yves & Lambert for publishing the best thinking on the
subjects.
"Workers of the World Unite" is about all I can see as the real option to pursue. How
to really do that means using all the means of the winners.
It's seems simply impossible on one hand to be nationalistic, and fair to labor
internationally at the same time.
I keep looking at WWI.
Workers of the World Unite? How? Fair Trade, Internationally the world is a struggle
between the Rich who have inherited wealth & get compound interest, pass on deeds
that survive as if a neofeudalism is just ordained.
Ah hell, I say if you cannot even imagine a utopia you ought not call yourself a
human being.
Purchasing Power Parity & World Government?
Without private property things get weird & corruption grows from elites getting
access to all.
In my Transcendia Insurodollar I overcome the flaw of Communist theory.
I have a part of it going. I have a gov. in govs. concept workable as permanently
small.
Time to expand. Doubtful, really really doubtful.
I do recognize Les is on the right track and has the correct goals. The puzzle is how
to really work at the Two Nation Solution of Workers & Power, corporate Power is
immense.
They throw out regulations we know are necessary.
Force & mind control propaganda are levers at their fingertips.
Force? 8 have so much wealth the majority divided by language & borders a challenge
is seen as doomed.
I shall imagine.
I found myself agreeing with most of the points in the post. We must be clear that
Donald Trump is anti-Globalist but to get GOP support and appointees he assimilated
their tribal beliefs. If he is stupid or crazy we must say so and explain why. If he
is right and does something that benefits American citizens such as ratcheting down
the Cold War 2.0 with Russia, we must applaud. I am fairly certain that to spite him
and keep the bribes flowing, Democrats will not support the re-branding of "Medicare
for All" to "TrumpCare".
It may be my history or old age; but, I am afraid that the global elite have
decided the USA is ripe for a final harvest and have gr
"... Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you? ..."
"... Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation. ..."
"... It's almost a negative feedback loop. ..."
"... Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour. ..."
"... Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have worked were once part of the company. ..."
"... Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure, and temper the precarious middle-class. ..."
"... So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT. ..."
"... "how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment has declined and is expected to fall further." – ..."
"... Story of my life! I'm still trying to get paid for freelance work that I did in December. This payment delay is wreaking havoc with MY cash flow. ..."
"... Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping, payroll, etc). ..."
"... I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants" has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company to be effective. ..."
"... Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company B next week. ..."
"... It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks to avoid it as much as possible. ..."
"... Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules. ..."
"... Michelle Malkin ..."
"... “The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path to his own destructionâ€. ..."
The Wall Street Journal has an important new story,
The End of Employees
, on how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further.
Some key sections of the article:
Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave
that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely
to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.
The men and women who unload shipping containers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. warehouses are provided
by trucking company Schneider National Inc.’s logistics operation, which in turn subcontracts with
temporary-staffing agencies. Pfizer Inc. used contractors to perform the majority of its clinical
drug trials last year .
The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for
companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for
workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer
part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted
For workers, the changes often lead to lower pay and make it surprisingly hard to answer the simple
question “Where do you work?†Some economists say the parallel workforce created by the rise
of contracting is helping to fuel income inequality between people who do the same jobs.
No one knows how many Americans work as contractors, because they don’t fit neatly into the
job categories tracked by government agencies. Rough estimates by economists range from 3% to 14%
of the nation’s workforce, or as many as 20 million people.
As you can see, the story projects this as an unstoppable trend. The article is mainly full of success
stories, which naturally is what companies would want to talk about. The alleged benefits are two-fold:
that specialist contractors can do a better job of managing non-core activities because they are specialists
and have higher skills and that using outside help keeps companies lean and allows them to be more "agile".
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth
.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how complex they are.
While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple to hand off, the larger ones are
not. For instance, for IT outsourcing, a major corporation will need to hire a specialist consultant
to help define the requirements for the request for proposal and write the document that will be the
basis for bidding and negotiation. That takes about six months. The process of getting initial responses,
vetting the possible providers in depth, getting to a short list of 2-3 finalists, negotiating finer
points with them to see who has the best all-in offer, and then negotiating the final agreement typically
takes a year. Oh, and the lawyers often fight with the consultant as to what counts in the deal.
On the one hand, the old saw of "a contract is only as good at the person who signed it" still holds
true. But if a vendor doesn't perform up to the standards required, or the company's requirements change
in some way not contemplated in the agreement, it is vasty more difficult to address than if you were
handling it internally. And given how complicated contracting is, it's not as if you can fire them.
So as we've stressed again and again, these arrangements increase risks and rigidity. And companies
can mis-identify what is core or not recognize that there are key lower-level skills they've mis-identified.
For instance, Pratt & Whitney decided to contract out coordination of deliveries to UPS. Here is the
critical part:
For years, suppliers delivered parts directly to Pratt’s two factories, where materials handlers
unpacked the parts and distributed them to production teams. Earl Exum, vice president of global
materials and logistics, says Pratt had “a couple hundred†logistics specialists. Some handlers
were 20- or 30-year veterans who could “look at a part and know exactly what it is,†he adds .
Most of the UPS employees had no experience in the field, and assembly kits arrived at factories
with damaged or missing parts. Pratt and UPS bosses struggled to get the companies’ computers in
sync, including warehouse-management software outsourced by UPS to another firm, according to Pratt..
The result was $500 million in lost sales in a quarter. Pratt & Whitney tried putting a positive
spin on the tale, that all the bugs were worked out by the next quarter. But how long will it take Pratt
& Whitney to recover all the deal costs plus the lost profits?
There's even more risk when the company using contractor doesn't have much leverage over them. As
a Wall Street Journal reader, Scott Riney, said in comments:
Well managed companies make decisions based on sound data and analysis. Badly managed companies
follow the trends because they're the trends. A caveat regarding outsourcing is that, as always,
you get what you pay for. Also, the vendor relationship needs to be competently managed. There was
the time a certain, now bankrupt technology company outsourced production of PBX components to a
manufacturer who produced components with duplicate MAC addresses. The contract manufacturer's expertise
obviously didn't extend to knowing jack about hardware addressing, and the management of the vendor
relationship was incompetent. And what do you do, in a situation like that, if your firm isn't big
enough that your phone calls get the vendor's undivided attention? Or if you're on different continents,
and nothing can get done quickly?
We've discussed other outsourcing bombs in past posts, such as when British Airways lost "tens of
millions of dollars" when its contractor, Gate Gourmet, fired employees. Baggage handlers and ground
crew struck in sympathy, shutting down Heathrow for 24 hours. Like many outsourced operations, Gate
Gourmet had once been part of British Airways.
And passengers blamed the airline
, not the wprkers.
Now admittedly, there are low-risk, low complexity activities that are being outsourced more, such
as medical transcription, where 25% of all medical transcriptionists now work for agencies, up by 1/3
since 2009. The article attributes the change to more hospitals and large practices sending the work
outside. But even at its 2009 level, the use of agencies was well established. And you can see that
it is the sort of service that smaller doctor's offices would already be hiring on a temp basis, whether
through an agency or not, because they would not have enough activity to support having a full-time
employee. The story also describes how SAP has all its receptionists as contractors, apparently because
someone looked at receptionist pay and concluded some managers were paying too much. So low level clerical
jobs are more and more subject to this fad. But managing your own receptionists is hardly going to make
a company less flexible.
Contracting, like other gig economy jobs, increase insecurity and lower growth.
I hate to belabor the obvious, but people who don't have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major
financial commitments, like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids, or even buying
consumer durables. However, one industry likely makes out handsomely: Big Pharma, which no doubt winds
up selling more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or
depression. The short-sightedness of this development on a societal level is breath-taking, yet overwhelmingly
pundits celebrate it and political leaders stay mum.
With this sort of rot in our collective foundation, the rise of Trump and other "populist" candidates
should not come as a surprise.
I would add this. It was deplorable for Trump to have fired Acting AG Sally Yates after she ordered
Justice Department lawyers to stop defending Mr. Trump’s executive order banning new arrivals to the
U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.
But Sally Yates was a hero for another reason. Yates was cracking down on systemic abuses by holding
top healthcare executives personally accountable for false Medicare and Medicaid claims and illegal
physician relationships.
I remember hoping: Well, maybe Obama will actually get some decent folks into the Judiciary bring
kids home from Iraq, maybe try for Medicare over 55 (to the advantage of the insurance & Pharma sectors?)
But the one thing I'd actually expected him to accomplish was enact
https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2044
which would get the Kleptocrats a
few more years out of the moldering corpse of American Labor (and not hurt multinationals, who'd off-shored,
outsourced or speciously re-classified their largely undocumented, 3rd party, contingency/ gig employees
decades previously).
Wage-theft Democrats was a new concept to some of us more easily deluded working
class Yankees, reeling from Bush. I think a strong fantasy life's essential nowadays.
I imagine that this is among the pesky downsides of living in our YOOJ autocratic neo-Confederate
theocratic kleptocracy; wage theft has always been right at the top of both parties' platforms?
If they can't hide it, who will they blame it on?
"people who don’t have a steady paycheck are less likely to make major financial commitments,
like getting married and setting up a new household, having kids"
"more brain-chemistry-altering products for the resulting situationally-induced anxiety and/or depression."
Decline in family formation and a populace seeking to anesthetize itself are indications of a civilization
in decline. Our problem is much bigger than employment.
You can employ deplorables, you can enslave deplorables, you can kill deplorables. The only way
that a "return maximizing" system won't choose killing, is if the unit cost of killing is higher
than enslavement or employment. I can hope that the bureaucratic effect of increasing costs will
work faster on the cost of killing or enslavement. Reducing the cost of employment (regulations)
wouldn't hurt.
We'd guessed this was why Dickens, NiccolĂ² Machiavelli, Frederick Douglass, E. A. Blair &
Marx were being burnt by the DeVos Christians. Why teach management for FREE, when the drooling
Know Nothings will PAY to send their dead-eyed vipers to seminars or A Beka online curricula?
Eliminate environmental protections and the entire industry that investigates, researches,
enforces, litigates, and mitigates environmental impacts are likewise eliminated. These are generally
highly skilled professions, and has wide ranging impacts from workers all the way to the global
ecosystem. Then there are economic ripple effects on top of that.
If we are going to eliminate an entire career tree, health insurance is a better choice.
Not sure what this has to do with the article, but yes people will LOSE jobs to Trump, skilled
and socially beneficial jobs like at the EPA.
For heaven knows what, jobs building useless walls to nowhere I guess, which somehow in
Trumps warped mind is a more productive line of work (it won't even work to curtail immigration).
Thank you for your astute, pertinent & seldom mentioned comment (which to those of us in
QA, is something we've believed central to the issue, not a tangent or unexpected side benefit
of our sharecropper corporatocracy).
We'd noticed contract buy-outs & forced early-retirement
in the steel industry, in the 90's, our clients' engineers (scruffy & cantankerous, who'd stand
by us if we were right & replace us if we got out of hand) were all replaced by clueless, gullible
desk jockeys, devoid of empirically honed judgement eventually, we'd have 2-3 gnarled old
timers, amidst crews of neophytes (first they tried very well trained & knowledgeable foreign
nationals, then pensioners, let go from the vendors) finally, they tried to 1099 the desperate
ones, on the run from skip-chasers, deputies & repo-men.
They'd try sending us half way across
the country, mention nothing, then see what we'd do (once we figured out we'd earned no overtime?)
We'd be in Indian or Russian owned mills where 80% of the employees were totally undocumented
foreign nationals, many of the balance wildly underpaid temps.
And the good-old-boy management
resembled characters outa Harriet Beecher Stowe. Lots of our counterparts were straight back
from Afghanistan & Iraq, verifying that most of their gig- economy contingency employment had
all been the same, regardless of industry sector: off-shored aircraft, as well as bridge, structural,
water, nuclear, inspectors what regulation?
Leveraging guilt to rationalize the Invitation of the least educated into your nation from the
most barbaric failed states and cultures in the world is another sign of civic decay.
Yup, many of the Taxi and Uber drivers around here arrived and took out private loans to
get "educated" and now are deep in debt and are too ashamed to go home.
Start focusing on the predators at the top of the pyramid scheme and then watch how those
same culprits and their networks "come to the rescue" in order to capitalize on the "pain
and suffering" they help to create. I see a pattern, don't you?
Barbarians are at the gates but you may be looking in the wrong place. Beware all types
of people are "vulnerable" and they will more easily identify with other human beings living
under a variety of diminished circumstances. Victim shaming won't be a viable option in the
not so distant future.
Dave, I hope you are not including Syria in your "failed states and cultures" description.
Syrians are
very well educated
and will add much to any nation's economy.
It is not a sign of "civic decay"
in the Syrian culture, but a sign of civic decay in a nation that will not accept people from
a war zone. An invitation should not be dependent on one's education but on one's need and desire
to survive a war zone..
Iraqis were also comparatively educated, right up through university, under its autocratic
leader. Libyans were, by and large, well educated, or at least getting so, under its autocratic
leader. The most poorly educated, probably, are those countries which have been under US or
European hegemony for generations: a lot of Central and south America, a lot of Africa, etc.
Not to mention the US itself, which has been colonizing its own hinterland for many decades.
The same applies to countries like Canada, Australia, etc. particularly in terms of their indigenous
populations.
Don't forget student debt. Not only are many recent graduates underemployed or unemployed, they're
in the hole tens of thousands. Further incentive not to make any sort of financial commitment. Student
debt should be cancelled to promote earlier family formation.
This trend matches up with the trends of dropping life expectancy, especially among the lower half
of income earners, and with slowing economies globally.
It's almost a negative feedback loop.
Politcal implications: the rise of far right politics; if you are a monarchist, or want to create
an aristocracy, these trends are probably in your interest.
Sure, it is partly psychological but it also has direct connection (by DESIGN) to the fact that
such people don't have healthcare, even with Obamacare insurance. The idiots that sing the praises
of Obamacare and how millions now have insurance seem to think that means those people have HEALTHCARE
to go with it.
Insurance is theft. Insurance is not even remotely "healthcare". Much of those newly insured have
their insurance, thanks to a government subsidy, but STILL lack healthcare because their premiums
and deductibles are too high to allow them to see doctors. Thus, they're dying or going to die sooner
due to untreated maladies, but at least they paid insurance company CEOs their bonuses with their
subsidized insurance payments!
Mutual insurance however is (was) socialist by nature. The true mutuals were crushed out of
existence by share for share conversions to private companies that ripped off policy holders and
gave a big payday to the C suites and the lawyers. Thanks to inept state insurance commissioners
and assemblies for that one.
while having health insurance doesnt mean you have health care, not having it does mean not
having health care at all, short of having a life or death condition, as hospitals (for now an
way) are only required to stabilize you. they arent required to cure you.
but then the high deductible insurance is one of those scams that some politicians gave us
because they could suggest that the patient (customer) could just shop around for better deals.
course that depends on us patients knowing what medical treatment is best for us, and which is
the cheapest of those., the former pretty much requires patients to be as knowledgeable as doctors.
the latter means we have to know what the treatments cost. could luck with that
I would force policy-makers in every advanced western nation to read and reflect on the last paragraph,
because it describes a mindset and a series of practices that are now found everywhere in western economies.
As David Harvey reminds us in his book on the Contradictions of Capitalism, Marx identified long ago
that there was a contradiction between holding down employees wages, and still expecting them to have
the purchasing power to buy the goods their cheap labour was making.
This problem has become more acute
with time, simply because we buy a lot more "stuff" than they did in the 19th century, and we take a
lot longer to pay for it, often on credit. Houses, cars, household goods, even computers, are now significant
expenditure decisions, repaid at least over months, if not years and even decades. The social corollary
of mass home ownership, after all, is some assurance that you will be employed over the life of the
mortgage. Otherwise, not only won't you buy the house, you won't improve or extend it, or even maintain
it, so a whole series of other purchases won't get made, and the construction and maintenance industries
will have less work. Instead, you'll save money, so removing purchasing power from the economy.
I assume there are people in large private sector companies clever enough to under stand this, but as
always they are focused on how much money they can extract from the system in the next few years. After
that, if the system crashes, well, who cares, They're all right.
Very true. Capitalism only works as long as enough people (or states) are able to take up ever-larger
debt, to close the gap (called "profit") between expensive goods and comparatively cheap labour.
Watching developments in recent years, this very source of profit and thus base of the economic system
is, even on a global level, quite limited
Sure. Marx Capital 1 on the crisis of production. Marx capital 2 on the crisis of realization but
this constitutes just one undesirable aspect-this one indeed very macro- among the many others which
the expansion of the "contracting-subcontracting chain" has brought and will bring about.
The Wall
Street Journal article is-as it is to expect- late, blind to the core problems of workers and incapable
to see and understand the true practical raison ( & reasons) d'Ăªtre of outsourcing. I guess Yves
Smith purpose was just to broadly replicate WSJ article
Good to point out Gat Gourmet. Almost all outsourced jobs in the beginning of places where I have
worked were once part of the company. The entire art department save two management employees were played
off and rehired by a new company doing the same work with less benefits.
Then that company was later disolved. I have seen this many times in the corporate design field now. Usually ends with disaster
and he hire of folks some back to full time but most to freelance. So I guess in a way it works out
for the company in the end and not for the worker. Amazing the amount of money a company is willing
to lose this way then use the same to pay workers better.
An excellent critique, for those who were wondering. The take away paragraph, summing up
the actual work done and purpose of, the Freelancers Union:
Still, it's hard not to notice there could be nothing more convenient to the corporate
and governmental powers-that-be than a nonprofit that takes it upon itself to placate, insure,
and temper the precarious middle-class.
So which ivy-league management school / guru is most culpable in unleashing the whole lean-mean-outsourcing-machine
monster because it's slowly destroying my ability to remain in IT.
I don't know the answer to your question, but you would have to go back over twenty years to find
it. What I find remarkable is that even though everybody affected in the early stages could see what
a dumb, destructive idea it was, the MBA types never caught on, even though most of them were not
so far up the hierarchy they could not ultimately be affected.
Contractors need Guilds or Trade Associations that are well organized and legally able to set minimum
standards for billing and performance. This is an area where Trade Unions have failed with respect to
some professions, and apparently (from what I've heard) the RICO statutes need to be amended to allow
for this. It's time to rig the other side to make companies think twice before replacing employees with
temp workers or contractors, to keep jobs within the US, and to provide a cushion and a "floor" to those
that take the risk of entrepreneurship, preventing a race to the bottom.
Yes! Geographically bound temp unions or hiring halls for all temp workers allied with low-wage
worker associations. This is NOT something that established unions want, so who will agitate for
it?
Something like the I.W.W is what I'd like to see. Yea I know the response is: they are still
around? Well not what they were long ago of course, but with the prison strike, yes around and
rising.
"how the big company love of outsourcing means that traditional employment
has declined and is expected to fall further." –
This line pissed me off this morning more than most other mornings. I literally just said goodbye
to a long-time colleague (Big Pharma) who is being outsourced as of today. The kicker(s):
The job is not high tech
Employee(s) trained their replacement who are H-1B from India
The company is moving the division to India
Of note, my state (MA) is responsible for over one-quarter of all H-1B's every year. Thankfully a
few in the industry are helping get the word out, like Nanex's Eric Hunsader yesterday. The outsourcing,
off-shoring, and H-1B abuse has to stop, but not sure The People have the will to hold political office
holders accountable enough to truly change this paradigm.
Agreed, but I've been saying the exact same thing since 1980, so I've been lobbying and being
a volunteer activist against this for many years, and yet I still run into women (not too many men
anymore) in their 60s and 70s who believe offshoring of American jobs, and insourcing foreign visa
replacement workers is fantastic (truly, we are a dumbed down society today, where they routinely
protest on behalf of the financial hegemons).
Best book on this (and I am no conservative and have never voted r-con) is Michelle Malkin's book
(with John Miano),
Sold Out!
This has been going on for a long time, and by design: with every "jobless recovery" one-fifth
of the workforce is laid off, and one-half of that one-fifth will never find another job, while one-half
of the remainder, will only find lower-paying jobs.
And each and every time, more jobs are restructured as temporary or contractor type jobs. We've
had a lot of "jobless recoveries" to date.
A recent study from Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger found that 94% of the new jobs created over
the past some years were all part-time, while a study from Rutgers University a year or so ago found
that one-third of the new jobs created couldn't be verified as actually existing!
Nothing particularly new here, as it has been going on for quite some time (another great book
is Ron Hira's book,
Outsourcing America
).
In every category of labor – blue and white collar – the press is on to increase the supply and reduce
the demand for labor.
The book ends: The Clintons in 92′ put thru the WTO / NAFTA – shut down 10's of millions of jobs
and factories – blue & white collar. Obama did the same, with anticipating Hillary would be elected,
put forth the TTP to enable unlimited H1-b for tech workers from off shore. The Neo Liberal Democrats
were at the forefront of of this 25 year Plan for labor devaluation (with Republican help).
The Immigration Policy by government both illegal and legal were at the epicenter of increasing the
supply in all categories with various programs while Obama also increased the regulations to wipe out
more factories and deliberately reduce demand.
The solution is eliminate immigration in all forms until the 95 Million are employed and wages rise
by the equivalent of what was lost in the past 15 years plus Tariffs to enable a marginal cost compared
to imports to allow domestic factories to expand demand.
Increase the demand and lower the supply of labor will mean potentially a switch will occur from
1099 to W-2 as companies have to secure labor reliability in a short labor market which is squeezed.
The Millennials sooner or later will figure it out. Identity Politics which enables a greater supply
of labor and diversion of attention to intangible values at the expense of tangible values has to be
substituted for Labor Only Politics.
These young people have been duped based on the recent focus of the demonstrations. They don't understand
they were screwed deliberately and with great malice by "Going with Her".
I've been keeping count over the years, and as close as I can find, over 170,000 production facilities
were shipped out of the country. (Or, as David Harvey phrased it: "Identity politics instead of class
analysis.")
One aspect of outsourcing that the article does not hit upon is the impact on company cash flows,
which has some importance to large outsourcing initiatives. A company must pay its employees within
6 (it might be 7) days of the end of the pay cycle, which is typically two week. By contrast, when outsourcing,
at the end of the month the contractor will provide an invoice, the company will then pay according
to its payment cycle. This could be 30, 45, 60, 90, or even 120 days. The contractor still must pay
its bills, in essence it's providing a low cost loan to firm (which often has a lower cost of capital).
This approach, including the extension of payments has been largely driven by financial/business consultants.
It can actually get worse – they might not pay you at all, hoping that you'll file a lawsuit,
which will be interpreted according to the contract, rather than legislation which covers employment
issues. The litigation costs might exceed any payments you'd receive.
My guess is that this wouldn't happen to an individual working under a 1099 (as word might
get around), and very large firms often have leverage (not providing continuing services), but
medium-size firms often get held up for months and years (especially once the contract has
ended).
Another thing the article glosses over is that most outsourcing is simply wage cutting. I have
never once seen confirmation of the notion that "specialist" firms provide better services at comparable
labor costs than firms can do in-house. The double-bubble is that firms (and public sector employers)
often spend more on outsourcing than they would doing the work in house despite the wage savings,
which all accrue to the outsourcer of course.
When the airlines went on their deliberate BK spree in the 90's, they outsourced flying to
regional carriers. Regional a/c (45-90 seaters) have higher CASM's than the a/c the airlines actually
owned. In brief, it is cheaper to transport 100 passengers on a 100 seat a/c than to transport
100 passengers on two 50 seat a/c. That's been a fact since the Wright brothers broke the ground.
FWIW, SouthWest never went the regional route, never went BK and pays their unionized employees
quite well.
The BK spree was all about breaking labor, not operational efficiencies that would actually
save money.
but now it seems the majors are not to happy with the regionals , cause customers cant tell
the difference between them, the next problem is that for some reason the regionals cant find
pilots. seems that pilots dont want to work for less than 30,000 a year.
Another area of friction and waste with IT consulting and other contracting, is that an employee
of a company simply and efficiently plugs into their existence administrative system (HR, timekeeping,
payroll, etc).
With a consultant, there has to be reconciliation between the vendor's records and the
company's records, which means work hours burned matching everything up. And that assumes they do match
up neatly; If the vendor says "our consultant worked 50 hours this week, pay them as such" and whoever
oversees the consultant at the company claims they only approved for 40 hours, now you've got a mess
on your hands, could potentially go to the lawyers.
The idea that companies who use contractors are more flexible is largely a myth.
The difficulty of entering into outsourcing relationships gives you an idea of how
complex they are. While some services, like cleaning, are likely to be fairly simple
to hand off, the larger ones are not.
I work in engineering at a gigantic multinational vehicle manufacturer and the role of "consultants"
has been expanding with time. Rather than consultants being people with specific technical expertise
who work on one subsystem component with clear interfaces to other things, it now encapsulates project
managers and subsystem / function responsible people who need to have large networks inside the company
to be effective.
Considering the huge amount of time it takes to get a new hire up and running to learn
the acronyms and processes and the roles of different departments, it's a bit absurd to hire people
for such roles under the assumption that they can be quickly swapped out with a consultant from Company
B next week.
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability and seeks
to avoid it as much as possible.
"
It's pretty clear that management sees permanent employees on the payroll as a liability. "
No doubt correct. But why is that? Over time, mandates on employers - particularly large employers
- just keep escalating. Health care; pensions; overtime; layoff notifications: regulators just keep
raising the ante. Employers respond by trying to reduce their profile and present a smaller target
to their predators. Staying under 50 employees wins a lot of exemptions from federal regulations.
Taken to an extreme, some developing countries (Argentina being one example) have European-style
labor regulations guaranteeing job security and mandating generous compensation when employees are
laid off. With hardscrabble small businesses being in no position to shoulder such risks, the result
is that about 40 percent of employment is
trabajo en negro
, with no benefits or protections
whatsoever - a perfect example of unintended consequences.
Editorial comments such as "these [contracting] arrangements increase risks and rigidity" ignore
that government employment regulations
also
increase risks and rigidity. There's a balance
of power. Overreaching, such as Obama's surprise order to vastly increase the number of employees
subject to overtime pay, leads to employer pushback in the form of more contracting and outsourcing.
Getting whacked out of the blue with a big new liability is unfair.
Concur about costs, and health care is the big one. Every other industrialized nation we compete
against has national health care. Given that, why doesn't business support Medicare for all and
get health costs off their books? Plus it would be a damsite easier to start up a business if
one had health care.
Because they, unlike us, understand class. I can state for a fact that the Big Three
auto companies are well aware of how much cheaper health care costs are for them in Canada
and how much better off they would be here, cost-wise, with a national health care system
where McDonald's and Wal-mart have to pay the same per hour or per employee cost as they
do. But it turns out cost isn't everything. Corporate (capitalist) solidarity rules.
Yes, yes, damn yes!! It's about your class, not your race, not your education, not
your gender. As Lambert might say, identity politics (your race, your education, your
gender) is used to keep your eye
off
the prize: economic opportunity
and security.
It is also easier to have part-time workers because they are still covered by health insurance
in some sort of national health insurance system. In the US, the part-time workers will have
high turnover as they look for full-time jobs to get access to health insurance.
Workers are also more likely to start their own businesses to provide services since the
health insurance is just a fee they pay instead of an astronomical non-group insurance bill.
COBRA insurance premiums are ginormous if you need to continue coverage after you leave a company.
Economists have been decrying the lack of employee mobility and small business formation
over the past decade or so. Health insurance is probably a primary reason for this. Obamacare
hasn't been around long enough and with enough certainty to change that dynamic yet.
It's probably part of it, though I suspect the bad labor market is part of it as well.
It's one thing to quit a job to start a business when you think "if it doesn't work out,
I can always go back to my old career and easily be hired", another when quitting a good
job means one might not land another ever.
haven't seen any more info on Hollande's "Flex – Security" plans to give corporations a way
to lay off workers to improve the corporation's revenue. French Labor was having none of it and
then Hollande went negative in the polls and was done for. Our contracting out former corporation
departments sounds like bad quality control at best. If the state – whatever state you can name
– is going to prop up all corporations everywhere because they can no longer successfully compete
then something is fundamentally wrong with the system that demands such murderous and mindless
competition.
well there also that wage theft rules, that employers don't like. course if you look at work
mans comp, you will find that it no longer works to protect employees any more. and maybe that
is also why employers are get rid of employees. plus there is all of that needing to manage them.
but you still end up having to manage vendors too, and while i suppose you could hire another
vendor to manage the vendors (not really sure this will work out well), it still leaves the biggest
problem
since consumers are about 70% of the entire economy (always wonder if this is true. because
almost all corporate 'investment' is done because of customer demand), seems like this business
fad, will end up with fewer customers (which seems to be the way its working too, as evidenced
by the falling sales figures from companies, even Apple), so it like business is like lemmings,
going a cliff, because some one else started
So are you a proponent of Medicare-for-all? It would be a tremendous benefit to corporations
to get out of the healthcare business and also increase employees' willingness to become freelancers
and consultants, since they'd never have to worry about healthcare.
The truth is that citizens expect a certain amount of social welfare and security. This can
be provided by 1) individuals themselves, 2) private players e.g. corporations, or 3) public players
e.g. govt. Each has downsides. If you expect individuals to provide for themselves, it will less
inefficient than having professional managers, and individuals will cut down on other consumption
and save more, thereby hurting an economy such as ours which is highly dependent on consumption.
This leaves companies and government. If companies lobby against public welfare programs like
nationalized health insurance, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., they shouldn't be
surprised if government foists those requirements back on them through back-door regulations.
To be fair to companies, most of the ones engaged in the "real economy" e.g. manufacturing,
actually wouldn't mind medicare for all, or some other program that relieves them of the burden
of providing healthcare to their employees. But they're being drowned out by the financial economy
of Wall St., banking, insurance, etc. who depend on putting more money in the hands of individuals
from whom they can extract much higher fees than they ever could from govt or corporate HR depts.
If companies don't want increased health mandates, for example, their enemy wasn't Obama: it
was the private health insurance companies that didn't want a public plan.
Yeah when I worked for one of the big 3 at an assembly plant, I felt that the use of temporary
contractors could have very negative implications.
Most of the staff though were reasonably well paid, although asked to work long hours. I think
though that overall, highly paid permanent workers pay for themselves many times over.
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don't get is how the IRS allows whole departments within
a company to be outsourced: If people show up at your plant or office every day to work on your tasks,
they are your employee, not a contractor. Is this melting away of the idea of an employee because of
lack of enforcement or some change in IRS rules that I am not aware of?
Basically, if you control a worker's day, and if that worker works regularly for you, the person
is your employee. I don't see how companies get away with this sleight of hand–avoiding, at the most
basic legal level, who is on staff or not. [Unless the result, as many note above, is to increase class
warfare.]
The company doesn't get away with it if someone is willing to whistleblow to the IRS and said
company fails the IRS 20-Factor Test (IC vs. employee). The nice thing there too, is that the tax
burden will be on the company and not the employee. While I don't advocate being a stoolie, if a
company wants to screw me over turn-about is fair play. I do the best I can to avoid those kinds
of companies in the first place.
"
One aspect of the whole fandango that I don’t get is how the IRS allows whole departments
within a company to be outsourced
. . "
If I understand your question correctly it is because a federal regulation was enacted by congress
(I believe one of them was faux-progressive, Jim McDermott, no longer in congress but co-founder
of the India Caucus, to replace American workers with foreign visa workers from India) which
forbids
oversight of the foreign visa program
- and yes, they established a federal regulation killing
oversight of the program by the government!
Someone quoted Norm Matloff (a known bigot) above. You are now quoting anchor child Filipino
bigot
Michelle Malkin
of all people ? It's not helping your case.
The H1-B program is a few hundred thousand
legal
tax paying people a year. There are
21 million Mexican illegals in this country. What do you think has more downward pressure on wages
? .005% H1-B (yeah, you read that right) of the total immigrant/wage pressure ? It's idiotic and
a purely bigoted worldview.
We are supposed to regard "a few hundred thousand" as bupkis when they are concentrated
in one sector?
The H1-B visa program has has a huge impact on wages in the IT sector and has virtually
eliminated entry-level computer science jobs. This is strategically foolhardy, in that the
US is not creating the next generation of people capable of running critical infrastructure.
And the illegal immigrants do pay taxes: sales, gas, and property taxes through their rents.
And many actually do pay FICA. The Treasury recognizes that certain Social Security numbers
are reused many times, and it's almost certainly for illegal immigrants. In fact, the IRS encourages
illegal immigrants to "steal" Social Security numbers:
That article whinges about possible tax credit scamming, but even that estimate is well
below what they pay in FICA, $12 billion. And pretty much none of them will draw benefits.
This is from memory, but I believe they collect over $4 billion from these SSN per year.
And most of these jobs are seasonal and/or too low wage for them to pay much in the way of
income taxes when they are being paid in cash.
H1-B is not in one industry, the .005% is spread across entry level jobs in all industries:
finance, automotive, insurance, arts, film, automation, etc. The total amount of H1-B is
minuscule, vanishingly close to zero in a country of 300+ million and 20+ million illegals.
You don't seem to be complaining about the tens of
millions
that used to concentrated
in one sector..actual manufacturing. Wonder why ? Here's a hint: that sector
used
to make computer peripherals, keyboards, mice, terminals, monitors, LCD's, chips, motherboards,
pretty much everything in the USA.
Employees in china, taiwan, etc pay zero USA taxes and they displaced millions of manufacturing
jobs. And ironically, you are using an entirely outsourced computer (that actually displaced
tens of millions of jobs in the aggregate) to complain about the minuscule .005% H1-B effect.
A few hundred thousand entry level coding jobs (which are ridiculously simple and lo-tech,
google
13 year olds
getting Microsoft certified to see how low down on the value
chain this is). You genuinely think writing a few for-loops (I am simplifying a little but
you get the idea) is hard ?
Certainly, way way less capital intensive and way way less barrier to entry than Hi-Tech
manufacturing. It's all going to be outsourced much faster than manufacturing was, since
there is literally no barrier to entry. And H1-B is a good thing, relatively speaking, compared
to full on outsourcing (just like manufacturing was).
Like I said, the only explanation for these anti H1-B posts is plain old bigotry. No
other explanation comes close.
Might as well finish my train of thought..then I'm outta here.
There are less H1-B visas this year than
refugees
, Refugees (not to mention
the 20 million illegals) also put downward pressure on wages across all industries, but
of course, those are all food servicing/picking/janitorial jobs and who cares about those
people right ? (sarcasm for the impaired)
So, coming back to H1-B's..let's take the logical alternative and ban all H1-B's entirely
and deport the ones on H1-B visas. What happens then ?
1) They can do the job exactly as well remotely (all they need is email/internet/skype).
2) They get paid even less (but more than zero).
3) They pay no taxes.
4) Their output is words..code is the same as prose and math. Good luck banning math/words..if
it can be printed on a t-shirt, it ain't bannable. (See the famous bernstein crypto case
from the early 90's for a illustration of this).
5) And finally..there are zero new jobs added for native USA'ians (which would now cost
more, given the alternative).
It makes the situation far worse than it is today. There is fewer local coffee shop
selling coffee, fewer rental units getting rented, fewer groceries getting bought, cars
being purchased, etc.
For a easily displaceable and low barrier to entry coding gig, there isn't any easy
answer. H1-B's are actually the best
solution
(or at the very least neutral),
not the problem.
The H1-B visa program is operated so as to wreck the bargaining power of native born young
U.S. workers. Young Americans are increasingly likely to be nonwhite AND from the less valued
(not Asian) subgroups of nonwhite. The damage H1-Bs do to our white Baby Boomers is almost
incidental at this point; they are aging out of the workforce. And given the intense age bigotry
of the IT subculture, they are not a factor within it at all at this point.
H1-B visas lock our striving, capable working class young people out of upward mobility.
Kids who are now graduating from say, San Jose State with skills as good as those of South
Asians don't get jobs that they are qualified for, because they are shut out of entry to the
business. They are disdained in Silicon Valley because the majority of entry level conduits
to employment are now locked up (via social contacts, and "who-you-know" relationships) by
men from the subcontinent.
Your race argument is pernicious and I suspect, promoted in the full the knowledge of this
fact. It is a great shame that we are relying on kooks like Malkin to promote obvious truths,
but the shame belongs to our morally derelict 'liberal' chattering class, not those who listen
to her and her ilk for lack of other sources.
An underappreciated aspect of contracting versus cultivating your own employees is that it hollows
out the organization to the point that it may no longer have competence to perform its mission. Having
an apparent success at contracting out menial tasks, the temptation is to keep going and begin to contract
out core functions. This pleases the accountants but leaves the whole organization dependent on critical
talent that has very little institutional loyalty. When an inevitable technical paradigm shift occurs,
who can you count on to give you objective and constructive advice?
Costs of training and cultivating employees are high, and it is tempting to think that these costs
can be eliminated by using contractors. It is strictly an apparent, short-term gain which will in due
time be revealed as a strategic mistake. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?
yes, and when I read that Pfizer farms out research, I also wondered if retention of the outsource
company contract is results-related. could new drug results hinge on a company wanting to keep their
Pfizer contract by telling them what they want to hear?
Agreed. Every time a company offshores jobs or goes through another round of layoffs, it loses
its institutional memory. This is particularly acute in the mainframe IT systems that prop up the
TBTFs (yep, they offshored these too). After a while, nobody understands exactly how these systems
work and can only get to the bottom of them by reading code, which is a pretty flawed way to learn
the business. This has been going on for years and nobody cares.
Centralized bargaining - a.k.a., sector wide labor agreements - is the only strategic answer to contracting
out. Done in continental Europe, French Canada, Argentina, Indonesia.
(Take a vacation from reality with Soma - one gram and I don't give a damn.)
The one word I don't see in your excellent writeup is
loyalty
. Companies, like countries
depend to a great extent on social constraints to keep people committed to the group. You cannot monitor
all people all the time and doing so causes them to turn against you. But companies staffed with contractors
and temps and temps supervising contractors have no loyalty to the company. Ergo no one employee has
any reason to go the extra inch or to turn down the chance to sell out for personal gain should the
opportunity arise.
All that imposes real costs that companies conveniently ignore because they are not always realized
in share price.
I was going to add the same thought, but use the label "goodwill." It is something that appears
on balance sheets in enormous amounts depending on what the accountants think it may represent.
There is a "goodwill bank" in the labor pool of any given company, and when the balance hits zero,
the company will fail, "emigrate" its capital, or go public to the greater fools. Companies are engaged
in a savage race to the bottom that is inherent in corporate structure: executives are now playing
with somebody else's money, and somebody else's life. If corporate liability were suddenly returned
to the days of the partnership, what a change we would see. And those days were not so long ago:
Wall Street remembers the 1960s.
PS What a treat to come here and see informative journalism and commentary instead of the monkey
cage.
My daughter was recruited and interviewed by Genentech and then sent to work for an organization
called PPD. PPD did nothing in this relationship, other than take money from Genentech pocketed about
1/2 of that and then pay her the rest. I really couldn't figure out what the heck the point of this
was, other than some long running strategy to ultimately depress salaries of Genentech chemists.
One of my kids works in a unionized metal foundry (they still exist in the US!). When they need
new workers, they bring several in through a temp agency for several months. If they can cut it and
are acceptable, then they get pulled into the union or into the plant management team. This allows
them to try out several people on a rent-to-own basis, but in the long run they become loyal company
employees with very low turnover.
Contract-to-hire is not new. The problem from an employee perspective is trying to evaluate
when a company is actually serious about hiring if the contractee does a good job, and when it's
just empty promises and they have no intent of making full time job offers at all.
BTW – the Genentech scientists probably get a bunch of benefits like bonuses and stock options,
etc. that are not available to the contract workers. They probably have more protections if they
are terminated or laid off whereas the contract workers would be done that day. The really good contract
workers may get offers to work at the company for the long-run.
Outsourcing is done in the public realm, too; my first job after grad school was with a major housing
authority – except it wasn't for them (despite me having a "housingauthority.org" email address). I
worked for a contractor of the housing authority, who paid us shit and treated us like cattle. I lasted
three months.
One area not discussed in this post is municipal outsourcing. What this means in practice is the
loss of organizational memory . assuming that records are not adequately maintained since the "old-timers"
were still around. But with the loss of human memory banks, no new ones (digital?) have taken their
place. Further, when consultants are hired for a specific project, when they have completed that project,
what they have learned as ancillary knowledge is lost cuz the end-product is all that counts, not the
process.
i.e. Rip up the entire street to find where the pipe is because the old public works director
who was replaced with a bright young woman with a degree before he qualified for his pension, got
even and deleted the maps on the software. :-)
Didn't Yves mention this loss of institutional memory in reference to fianancial services, or
was it banks, and their IT?
Further to government outsourcing:
Back a few years my wife and I worked for a school district on the East coast of Canada. The janitorial
service had been outsourced a few years previously, with the former head janitor becoming the main
contractor, who then hired other cleaning staff to work for him. He/she was already being squeezed
to reduce his rates, leading to work not done or his working from 8AM to midnight to save an after-school
employee. So–lower employment overall, all at minimum wage, including the main contractor.
One district had bucked the province-wide trend by keeping its own cleaning staff. Visiting the
schools in that district those few years later, one could see the result, in vastly superior level
of cleanliness, better co-ordination between admin and teaching staff with cleaners, and much better
relations with students as well.
The staff weren't bosses, the cleaners weren't minions, and the students weren't customers. They
were a team.
I don't think there will be a change in this because it's too profitable for the CEOs to strip mine
the companies assets (knowledgeable employees are an asset) for maximum "shareholder value" (always
replace "shareholder value" with "my compensation"). I suppose this will change when all companies are
stripped to the bone and go under. But we now call these "too big to fail" and prop them up with taxpayer
dollars.
We need to change incentives. These might help:
Make corporations really pay taxes so that it makes sense to invest in the company rather than strip
it.
Don't prop up TBTF companies, let them fail so that many small companies can grow.
Stop all the fraud and corruption. Send corrupt CEOs to jail.
Medicare for All would be a boon for businesses, especially the smaller and mid-sized ones.
Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest, was once asked where he ranked shareholders vs employees. He replied
employees were first (because if the employees are not happy, then the customers are not happy), customers
(they pay the bills), and shareholders (they buy and sell shares in seconds). If the company is successful,
the shareholders will come. We somehow need to get back to these company values. A successful company
starts with the employees.
This is a pretty ugly development in our history. The 'end of employees' is a very accurate description
of what is going on in our gig economy related to a specific legal contradiction. In the U.S., we've
adopted a vast body of labor laws ( many in response to the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression
) that are primarily designed to protect "employees" from exploitation. Buried deep in our tax law is
a second designation for worker called "independent contractor", defined as a self-employed person providing
services to other businesses that is exempt from most labor laws on the principle that a self-employed
person can't exploit themselves. The key here is labor laws protect 'employees' from 'employer' abuses.
Changing a workers classification from employee to ( self-employed ) contractor, will change an employers
classification to customer, and remove the workers legal protections from exploitation. Labor law protections
include minimum wage and hours, workplace safety and health, wrongful dismissal protections, anti-discrimination
protections, employee benefits security, and worker compensation protections. This contradiction is
allowing many companies to sidestep centuries of laws enacted to stabilize and and protect our society.
Some companies push this power imbalance even further by transferring many of the business costs associated
with their revenue to employee contractors ( see Uber ).
Hopefully when there is enough public outcry, regulators and prosecutors will decide to challenge
these interpretations of existing laws and force businesses back in line regardless of their political
influence.
Incidentally, the slippery logic that removes labor law protections by classifying a worker
as self-employed ( both employer and employee ) might also grant businesses protections from their
workers via consumer protection laws against fraud and unfair practices ( when businesses become
customers of their now self-employed former employees ).
As has been stated several times, sometimes government entities are the worst offenders here. Grover
Norquist & Co. insisted on shrinking the size of government. The obedient elected officials and managers
immediately replaced employees with contractors and could claim that they had indeed reduced the size
of government. Unfortunately the budget probably went up since we now have to provide profit for the
rent extracting contract vendors.
A few years ago I was working for a family of local weekly papers, run on a shoestring (of course)
with pathetic salaries for the tiny staff. At one point, they heard about possibly outsourcing design–layout
of modular pages–to cheap labor in Romania. But when they ran the numbers .our in-house designers were
already cheaper than the Romanians!
Second point: At my current magazine I am one of just two full-time staffers on the edit side. Our
copy-editor/proofreader is paid on an hourly basis, and works off-site. Our designer works on a monthly
retainer, off-site. And so on.
That makes the relationship between us and our workers competitive and antagonistic: They try to
do the least amount of work, and we try to pay the least amount of money. So when the publisher wants
to be "innovative" or try something different, the designer resists. He doesn't want to spend any more
time on us than he normally does. So we don't do anything well, we get by with just good enough.
Point 3 – institutional knowledge: One of our key competitive advantages has been/is being eroded
because there are things we haven't done in two years due to turnover. When I arrived and took up one
such project, hugely important to the company's bottom line, no one could tell me how it was done. Everyone
who had been involved in it was gone. We've now spent several months reinventing this particular wheel.
But the publisher doesn't see that as money. He only sees money as money.
BTW – the financial sector is ripe for this. Automation is taking over many positions and people
in active investing is getting slashed big-time. Ironically, places like Vanguard may actually be some
of the last bastions of actual employees.
The problem with these short term contract jobs are immense. Employees that don't have a steady income
have difficulty getting loans for cars or homes. They certainly have less protection too. Our son worked
for SKY TV as a part time employee through a temp agency for 3 years, working 40 hour weeks. But when
an unstable full time employee assaulted him, in front or several witnesses, he was the one fired on
the spot without explanation. He was a non-person. The temp agency didn't want to get involved for fear
of losing their contract. With no union, no rights and little money, there was little he could do. They
knew he couldn't afford a lawyer and involving the police wouldn't get his job back. This goes on all
the time now. 20 years ago would have been unthinkable. I see a revolution coming, in many countries
Given the long evident fact that our corporate owners and their servants in government will not do
a bloody thing to make life better for us, what can we do? As a first step toward any solution, we need
to recognize that nothing is possible within the narrow boundaries of our political and economic system.
What you describe as a first step seems a lot like a claim of inevitable failure. Rather than
expect failure, I recommend as a first step that we try to block a few of Trump's predatory cabinet
nominations. Andrew Puzder, the nominee to head the Labor Department, and Steven Mnuchin, nominated
to be the Secretary of the Treasury, seem to be very relevant to the scope of this article. Also
Tom Price, nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tell your Senators that you
don't want them to be confirmed. It's easy, although you might need to make a few extra phone calls,
because the Congressional phone lines are often busy these days.
I ask, Why can't banks be fully automated? You wouldn't need CEOs and COOs and CFOs in banks because
IT can do all those jobs automatically. Then we would find out that we only need ONE bank–the central
bank and, voila, the banks no longer can create money by making loans. (I'm sure there is a weak point
in this argument!!!) However, I can see something like this happening in the future if only we separate
investment banking from commercial banking.
Marx saw capitalism as an endless class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
He wasn’t far wrong.
1920s – high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
1970s â€" low inequality, worker and union power, high taxes on the wealthy (proletariat in the ascendency)
(probably more true in the UK than the US)
2000s â€" high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy, robber CEOs, reckless bankers,
globalisation phase (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
The pendulum swings back and forth and always swings too far in both directions.
If the human race could take a more sensible, big picture view they might see it as a balance between
the supply side (bourgeoisie) and the demand side (proletariat).
The neoliberal era has been one where a total ignorance of debt has held sway.
Redistributive capitalism was removed to be replaced with a capitalism where debt based consumption
has become the norm. without a single mainstream economist realising the problem.
The world is maxing out on debt, this system is set to fail due to a lack of demand. The Bourgoisie
have been in the ascendency and made their usual mistake.
“The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything except matters pertaining
to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably
down the path to his own destructionâ€.
Keynes thought income was just as important as profit, income looks after the demand side of the
equation and profit looks after the supply side.
He has the idea of balance.
Just maximising profit â€" The Bourgeoisie looking after their own short term, self interest with
no thought of the longer term.
1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can already meet every need,
want or whim. It is supply side capital.
2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods and services. It is
demand side capital.
You need to keep the balance.
Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away.
Too much capital at the top and there is no where sensible to invest and the Bourgeoisie indulge
in rampant speculation leading to the inevitable Wall Street Crash, 1929 and 2008.
Today’s negative yield investments?
Too much capital at the top, no one wants it and you have to pay people to take it off your hands.
"You need to keep the balance." The post war era was balance, that was the middle of the pendulum
swing, we have never seen you're next sentence:
"Too much capital at the bottom and inflation roars away." When? Name one instance outside of
extraordinary political situations like weimar germany and zimbabwe where this has occurred?
Inflation is the boogey man that the elite throw around to scare us into submission. They don't
care when its inflation of house prices, they don't care when its inflation of healthcare costs,
education costs, etc. etc. But they damn sure start sweating a lot when its the cost of labor that
goes up. Shocker.
"Gate Gourmet had once been part of British Airways. And passengers blamed the airline."
You can transfer expenses, you can transfer legal and regulatory liability risk, you can transfer
financial risk, but it is virtually impossible to transfer reputational risk. Companies who think they
can do so (or ignore the fact) do so at their own peril.
My d-i-l, a research professional, has survived five down-sizings, assuming an additional work load
each time. The last time she also got a small promotion (well, you'd think they'd give her something
positive after all this). To myself I thought, they're going to wear this woman out till she has nothing
left to give and dump her.
It's worse. The corporation (company is a concept from
my
early working days) just announced
that everyone would have to bid for their projects(jobs). What this means of course is "how much are
you willing to give?" not to mention pitting one employee against another.
I "work" (temp/contract/no benefits) at a large multinational electronics company in cust service
and have seen this first hand. In response to a couple years of dropping profits, they outsourced the
entire department (couple hundred employees) to the Philippines. They cut full time employees, replace
them with temps for half the pay, because people will do it, and we live in desperate times with no
bargaining power.
As someone mentioned, its a negative feedback loop, less demand, less employment, less demand, until
the whole world is greece. We won't make it through another world war, the world is too globalized,
too connected, too advanced technologically. We need a relatively peaceful populist revolution – which
we seem to be seeing the first real signs of – or our species is done for.. and the sad part is I'm
not even exaggerating.
One point you missed is that a company cannot manage, let alone write a contract very well unless
it has sufficient expertise on staff. It is not sufficient to hire a consultant unless that arrangement
is more or less permanent. Too many things can go wrong, as they often do even with competent staff
when projects are complex or innovative.
"... The 1970s stagflation hit these companies particularly hard, with the result that the whole was worth less than the sum of the parts. This made for an easy formula for takeover artists: buy a conglomerate with as much debt as possible, break it up and sell off the pieces. ..."
"... But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action. ..."
"... It produces short-termism, underinvestment, and a preoccupation with image management . We wrote in 2005 for the Conference Board Review about how the preoccupation with quarterly earnings led companies to underinvest on a widespread basis . Richard Davies and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England demonstrated that companies were using unduly high discount rates, which punished long-term investment. Pearlstein provides more confirmation: ..."
"... Obliquity gives rise to the profit-seeking paradox: the most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented. ICI and Boeing illustrate how a greater focus on shareholder returns was self-defeating in its own narrow terms. Comparisons of the same companies over time are mirrored in contrasts between different companies in the same industries. In their 2002 book, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras compared outstanding companies with adequate but less remarkable companies with similar operations. ..."
"... It is our social capital that is now badly depleted. This erosion manifests in the weakened norms of behavior that once restrained the most selfish impulses of economic actors and provided an ethical basis for modern capitalism. ..."
"... A capitalism in which Wall Street bankers and traders think peddling dangerous loans or worthless securities to unsuspecting customers is just "part of the game," a capitalism in which top executives believe it is economically necessary that they earn 350 times what their front-line workers do, a ..."
"... I think that you seriously underestimate Trump. Napoleon excelled in an environment where military success was primary; Trump excels in a mediated environment where PR and imagery are primary. IMVHO, there are some eerie parallels between the two men; whether you like them or not, both men could be characterized by: ambition, vision, vindictiveness, and a willingness obliterate traditional social and political boundaries. ..."
"... Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he represents is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him, went to Wharton Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants, profited handsomely from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively enabled much of its questionable thinking and conduct. ..."
"... That Wharton Business School model is oblivious to the human needs for: fairness, reciprocity, culture, and the need to penalize duplicity. (I would argue that the Wharton model exalts duplicity, if only to pass it off as some kind of exceptional superpower wielded only by Business Elites.) When you corrode trust, you damage economies. ..."
"... Trump is the apotheosis of neoliberal economics + junk-bond fueled casino empires in a media environment that worships 'shareholder value' and has lost sight of what genuinely creates sustainable value over the long term. ..."
"... did Friedman capture the growing political aggressiveness of capital, as capital gradually overcame the Great Fear of the 30s and prepared to mount, as Streeck has argued, a counteroffensive against the constraints of welfare capitalism? Likely all of the above, but in what proportions? ..."
"... It is that acme of Liberalism, Warren Buffett that created this fad. At a time when corporate dividends were taxed as ordinary income, whereas a stock price bump would be tax deferred - and ultimately taxed at long term capital gains rates - the scheme was merely tax avoidance. Warren Buffett's entire empire is based on this and other tax avoidence schemes. ..."
"... The maximize shareholder value ideology in practice looks like maximize CEO compensation and to heck with the company's long term prospects. imo. ..."
"... Considering relationship between share's liquidity and short-termism , any measure which reduces share's liquidity, for example a high tax on short term capital gain, will greatly reduce both short-termism and corporate governance issues as share holders will be forced to assume the risk they were supposed to bear in exchange of supermacy of their interest. ..."
"... While it has damaged corporate social responsibilities and banks' and corporations' long-term financial stability, actions taken pursuant to the Shareholder Value optimization model have served well many individuals on Wall Street, at private equity firms, CEOs of large publicly traded corporations, hedge funds, networked board members, their academic and professional servicers, and the political elite ..."
"... Reflecting back on developments like the dotcom bubble of 1999-2000; the underlying causes of the financial collapse of 2007-09; massive debt-leveraged corporate stock buybacks; socially damaging private equity LBOs; the current volumes of opaque OTC derivatives at large financial institutions; repeated episodes of environmental damage caused by firms in extractive industries seeking short-term financial returns; and the license it provides to exert power over legislation and regulation by those who own and control these corporations in a Citizens United legal framework; etc., it is difficult to see much in the way of redeeming social value in this corporate governance model. ..."
"... Is it simple greed, stupidity, cynicism, groupthink, false consciousness, sociopathy, the 'attractions' of a certain lifestyle, daddy-didn't-love-them-enough or what that leads certain types to behave the ways they do and seek to justify it? ..."
From the early days of this website, we've written from time to time about why the "shareholder
value" theory of corporate governance was made up by economists and has no legal foundation. It has
also proven to be destructive in practice, save for CEO and compensation consultants who have gotten
rich from it.
Further confirmation comes from a must-read article in American Prospect by Steven Pearlstein,
When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town. It recounts how until the early 1990s, corporations
had a much broader set of concerns, most importantly, taking care of customers, as well as having
a sense of responsibility for their employees and the communities in which they operated. Equity
is a residual economic claim. As we wrote in 2013:
Directors and officers, broadly speaking, have a duty of care and duty of loyalty to the corporation.
From that flow more specific obligations under Federal and state law. But notice: those responsibilities
are to the corporation , not to shareholders in particular ..Equity holders are at the
bottom of the obligation chain. Directors do not have a legal foundation for given them preference
over other parties that legitimately have stronger economic interests in the company than shareholders
do.
And even in the early 1980s, common shares were regarded as a speculative instrument. And rightly
so, since shares are a weak and ambiguous legal promise: "You have a vote that we the company can
dilute whenever we feel like it. And we might pay you dividends if we make enough money and are in
the mood."
However, 1900s raiders who got rich by targeting companies that had gotten fat, defended their
storming of the corporate barricades by arguing that their success rested on giving CEOs incentives
to operate in a more entrepreneurial manner. In reality, most of the 1980s deals depended on financial
engineering rather than operating improvements. Ironically, it was a form of arbitrage that reversed
an earlier arb play in the 1960s. Diversified corporations had become popular in the 1960s as a borderline
stock market scam. Companies like Teledyne and ITT, that looked like high-fliers and commanded lofty
PE multiples, would buy sleepy unrelated businesses with their highly-valued stock. Bizzarely, the
stock market would value the earnings of the companies they acquired at the same elevated PE multiples.
You can see how easy it would be to build an empire that way.
The 1970s stagflation hit these companies particularly hard, with the result that the whole
was worth less than the sum of the parts. This made for an easy formula for takeover artists: buy
a conglomerate with as much debt as possible, break it up and sell off the pieces.
But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock
awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action.
One of their big props to this campaign was the claim that companies existed to promote shareholder
value. This had been a minority view in the academic literature in the 1940s and 1950s. Milton Friedman
took it up an
intellectually incoherent New York Times op-ed in 1970 . Michael Jensen of Harvard Business School
and William Meckling of the University of Rochester argued in 1976 that corporate managers needed
to have their incentives better aligned with those of shareholders, and the way to do that was to
have most of their pay be equity-linked. In the late 1980s, Jensen in a seminal Harvard Business
Review article, claimed that executives needed to be paid like entrepreneurs. Jensen has since renounced
that view.
Why The Shareholder Value Theory Has No Legal Foundation
Why do so many corporate boards treat the shareholder value theory as gospel? Aside from the power
of ideology and constant repetition in the business press, Pearlstein, drawing on the research of
Cornell law professor Lynn Stout, describes how a key decision has been widely misapplied:
Let's start with the history. The earliest corporations, in fact, were generally chartered
not for private but for public purposes, such as building canals or transit systems. Well into
the 1960s, corporations were broadly viewed as owing something in return to the community that
provided them with special legal protections and the economic ecosystem in which they could grow
and thrive.
Legally, no statutes require that companies be run to maximize profits or share prices. In
most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Lynn Stout, a Cornell law professor,
has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share
price. So far, she hasn't found one. Companies that put shareholders at the top of their hierarchy
do so by choice, Stout writes, not by law
For many years, much of the jurisprudence coming out of the Delaware courts-where most big
corporations have their legal home-was based around the "business judgment" rule, which held that
corporate directors have wide discretion in determining a firm's goals and strategies, even if
their decisions reduce profits or share prices. But in 1986, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
that directors of the cosmetics company Revlon had to put the interests of shareholders first
and accept the highest price offered for the company. As Lynn Stout has written, and the Delaware
courts subsequently confirmed, the decision was a narrowly drawn exception to the business–judgment
rule that only applies once a company has decided to put itself up for sale. But it has been widely-and
mistakenly-used ever since as a legal rationale for the primacy of shareholder interests and the
legitimacy of share-price maximization.
How the Shareholder Value Theory Has Been Destructive
The shareholder value theory has proven to be a bust in practice. Here are some of the reasons:
It produces short-termism, underinvestment, and a preoccupation with image management . We
wrote in 2005 for the Conference Board Review about
how the preoccupation with quarterly earnings led companies to underinvest on a widespread basis
. Richard Davies and Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England demonstrated that companies were using
unduly high discount rates, which punished long-term investment. Pearlstein provides more confirmation:
A recent study by McKinsey & Company, the blue-chip consulting firm, and Canada's public pension
board found alarming levels of short-termism in the corporate executive suite. According to the
study, nearly 80 percent of top executives and directors reported feeling the most pressure to
demonstrate a strong financial performance over a period of two years or less, with only 7 percent
feeling considerable pressure to deliver strong performance over a period of five years or more.
It also found that 55 percent of chief financial officers would forgo an attractive investment
project today if it would cause the company to even marginally miss its quarterly-earnings target.
As we've stated before, we've been hearing this sort of thing from McKinsey contacts for more
than a decade. And the "55 percent" figure likely understates the amount of short-termism. First,
even in a presumably anonymous survey, some CFOs might be loath to admit that. Second, for any project
big enough to impact quarterly earnings, the CFO is almost certain not to have the final say. So
even if his team approves it, it could be nixed by the CEO out of concern for earnings impact.
It empirically produces worse results . We've written from time to time about the concept of obliquity,
that in a complex system that is affected by interactions with it, it is impossible to map out a
simple path to a goal. As a result, other approaches are typically more successful. From
a 2007 Financial Times article by John Kay , who later wrote a book about the concept:
Obliquity gives rise to the profit-seeking paradox: the most profitable companies are not
the most profit-oriented. ICI and Boeing illustrate how a greater focus on shareholder returns
was self-defeating in its own narrow terms. Comparisons of the same companies over time are mirrored
in contrasts between different companies in the same industries. In their 2002 book, Built to
Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras compared outstanding
companies with adequate but less remarkable companies with similar operations.
Merck and Pfizer was one such comparison. Collins and Porras compared the philosophy of George
Merck ("We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The
profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we
have remembered it, the larger they have been") with that of John McKeen of Pfizer ("So far as
humanly possible, we aim to get profit out of everything we do").
Collins and Porras also paired Hewlett Packard with Texas Instruments, Procter & Gamble with
Colgate, Marriott with Howard Johnson, and found the same result in each case: the company that
put more emphasis on profit in its declaration of objectives was the less profitable in its financial
statements.
Some more commonly-cited reasons for why a focus on shareholder value hurts performance is that
it dampens innovation. Pearlstein describes another, how it demotivates workers:
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of shareholder–über-alles is how at odds it is with every
modern theory about managing people. David Langstaff, then–chief executive of TASC, a Virginia–based
government-contracting firm, put it this way in a recent speech at a conference hosted by the
Aspen Institute and the business school at Northwestern University: "If you are the sole proprietor
of a business, do you think that you can motivate your employees for maximum performance by encouraging
them simply to make more money for you?" Langstaff asked rhetorically. "That is effectively what
an enterprise is saying when it states that its purpose is to maximize profit for its investors."
And on a societal level, it erodes social capital and trust, which are the foundations for commerce:
It is our social capital that is now badly depleted. This erosion manifests in the weakened
norms of behavior that once restrained the most selfish impulses of economic actors and provided
an ethical basis for modern capitalism.
A capitalism in which Wall Street bankers and traders think peddling dangerous loans
or worthless securities to unsuspecting customers is just "part of the game," a capitalism in
which top executives believe it is economically necessary that they earn 350 times what their
front-line workers do, a capitalism that thinks of employees as expendable inputs, a capitalism
in which corporations perceive it as both their fiduciary duty to evade taxes and their constitutional
right to use unlimited amounts of corporate funds to purchase control of the political system-that
is a capitalism whose trust deficit is every bit as corrosive as budget and trade deficits.
As economist Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago concludes in his recent book, A Capitalism
for the People, American capitalism has become a victim of its own success. In the years after
the demise of communism, "the intellectual hegemony of capitalism, however, led to complacency
and extremism: complacency through the degeneration of the system, extremism in the application
of its ideological premises," he writes. "'Greed is good' became the norm rather than the frowned-upon
exception. Capitalism lost its moral higher ground."
Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he represents
is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him, went to Wharton
Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants, profited handsomely
from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively enabled much of its
questionable thinking and conduct. As CEO pay rose, so to did the pay of top advisers. They couldn't
be all that good, after all, if they were in a wildy different income strata.
So as Lambert has warned, unless we hear a different economic and social vision from The Resistance,
which looks troubling to have more failed Democratic party influence behind it than either of us
like, the best we are likely to get is a restoration. And if you remember the French Revolution,
strongman Napoleon was succeeded by the Bourbon Restoration, which then led to the Second Empire
under his nephew. So if we want better outcomes, status quo ante is not good enough.
I beg to differ. First, you ignore the fact that equity is a residual claim. Everyone else comes
first. Every party that holds more senior instruments than equity, along with other parties that
have enforceable claims, like the IRS and those with solid contracts that would give them the rights
to damages in certain circumstances, have rights that are more enforceable under the law. You can't
overturn that via exchange rules.
Second, Amar Bhide explained in the Harvard Business Review in 1994 why public companies will
always have deficient governance. My recap of his main points:
Disenfranchised shareholders are an inherent feature of liquid stock markets. In 1994, Amar
Bhide argued in a Harvard Business Review article that efficient equity markets inevitably led
inevitably to deficient corporate governance. Bhide explained that an ambiguous promise like equity
is not suitable to be traded on an arm's length basis. Historically, equity investors typically
acted like venture capitalists: they knew the owners personally and were involved in the company's
affairs. The securities laws of 1933 and 1934 tried to make it safe for distant, transient shareholders
to invest by providing for timely, audited financial statements, disclosure of information about
top executives and board members, and prohibiting insider trading and other forms of market manipulation.
But that turns out to be inadequate. No outsider can be told enough to make an informed judement
about a company's prospects; critical information, like acquisition and plans for new products,
must be kept secret until well advanced because they are competitively sensitive. Boards are protected
from liability by directors' and officers' insurance (plus hardly anyone even bothers pursuing
board members. For instance, have any Lehman board members been sued?). Moreover, only a comparatively
small cohort of people are deemed public-company-board worthy. Their incentives are to make nice
in their community and not rock the boat, which means not making life difficult for the CEOs,
since a nominating committee (of the current board) is responsible for nominating directors, which
means the entire process is incestuous.
This system has been fairly impervious to outside challenge. Once in a while, a company is
so abysmally run that an activist investor will take up a proxy fight. But that dog seldom catches
the car; instead, they might get a bad CEO to exit or force a restructuring. The stock trades
up and the rabble-rousers take their winnings and depart. More polite efforts, even by large,
powerful shareholders, are much less effective. For instance, some major institutional investors
met with Goldman to object to the idea that the firm would pay lavish bonuses for 2009. The session
appears to have had no impact.
Main categories of complain about "Maximize Shareholder Value":
Category 1 – Other things should get more weight alongside shareholder value – e.g. societal
responsibility – this is valid, but not our current topic/issue.
Category 2- Current practices aren't leading to the election of smart, capable BOD members
acting primarily for shareholder value in their decision-making including hiring/fire of executives
and voting on their proposals. This shown by, among other things, the very high levels of executive
compensation relative to profit, the lack of correlation between executive compensation and profit,
and the huge severance packages for released executives. This is my topic – what would improve
that.
Your points don't seem to fall in those categories. Seniority of debtto equity is a respected
feature of the common business landscape, not normally thought of as a problem. Lack of complete
information when voting on corporate actions is also a feature of the corporate setup – representational
government. It doesn't stand in the way of the possibility of smart, conscientious executives.
Other issues like cronyism, bad BODs, etc. are in the way, poor rules, poor communication, lack
of interest by short term stakeholders, etc. are viewed as much more problematic.
You are omitting a key point in the post, which is that seeking to maximize shareholder value
results in lower returns for shareholders. It is empirically a bad idea.
There are many views as to why this is so, but the biggest are likely the short-termism and
obliquity. Electing more outspoken board members won't solve that.
My narrower point was addressing why this notion had never been enshrined in any corporate
charter: it would be seen as created undue conflicts regarding directors making sure clearly senior
obligations are met. Again, under very well settled law, directors and officers have duties of
loyalty and care to the corporation, and those take precedence to serving shareholders. Go read
any law firm guide to director duties.
One picky point: the analogy to Bonaparte really doesn't hold up. We haven't had our French
Revolution yet. And I'm rusty on my nineteenth century French history, but I don't think there's
much of a valid comparison between him and Trump anyway. "Strong man" is way too vague. Whatever
is going on with Trump, he's not a brilliant military tactician and strategist moving into a power
vacuum from inside the existing government.
Agree about the "Resistance." But I don't see how the corporate Democrats return to power at
this point - I mean real, governing power. Whatever comes next, it won't be that.
I don't know yet whether to hope for oaths on tennis courts or not. That's a really, really
last resort, obviously. These people running around punching alt-right Teen Beat cover boys and
breaking windows are either fools or something worse.
Also, it's nice to have data to go with my loathing of this "theory." I feel like we need a
different word for this stuff, though. All these intersecting economic beliefs that are not based
in facts and are easily repudiated by facts can't really be called theories, can they? They're
more like belief systems. They were never really about figuring out something about reality. They
were always about manipulating behavior through assertion to get desired outcomes, weren't they?
I think that you seriously underestimate Trump. Napoleon excelled in an environment where military success was primary; Trump excels in a mediated
environment where PR and imagery are primary. IMVHO, there are some eerie parallels between the
two men; whether you like them or not, both men could be characterized by: ambition, vision, vindictiveness,
and a willingness obliterate traditional social and political boundaries.
I thought this was particularly brilliant:
Many elite professionals are deeply upset with Trump's win. Yet the ideology that he
represents is very much in line with the logic of corporate raiders, many of whom, like him,
went to Wharton Business School. And many elite professionals, in particular lawyers and consultants,
profited handsomely from the adoption of the buccaneer capitalist view of the world and actively
enabled much of its questionable thinking and conduct.
That Wharton Business School model is oblivious to the human needs for: fairness, reciprocity,
culture, and the need to penalize duplicity. (I would argue that the Wharton model exalts duplicity,
if only to pass it off as some kind of exceptional superpower wielded only by Business Elites.)
When you corrode trust, you damage economies.
Trump is the apotheosis of neoliberal economics + junk-bond fueled casino empires in a media
environment that worships 'shareholder value' and has lost sight of what genuinely creates sustainable
value over the long term.
Isn't this just a side effect of optimization for one variable? And which variable to optimize
is a question of governance? Since the invention of quantifiable economy, and the move from haggling
to fixed price, particularly since the invention of monetary valuation in place of barter the
mathematics becomes relentless to get the last drop of blood out of whatever turnip you are
squeezing. And the invention of spreadsheets makes it that much easier to lean toward the quantitative,
over the qualitative. We saw a similar process in "value engineering" in automotive engineering
in that case to get the last ounce of weight out of the car, in order to optimize mileage, regardless
of less quantifiable values.
Awesome article. Great explanation of how wall street orchestrated casino capitalism controls
today's economy, and in a manner that is detrimental to everyone but the casino operators. Milton
Friedman's perverse views on "free markets", have turned the economy into a casino, first by destroying
the controls on the money supply, and then by destroying corporate governance and responsibility.
And we all know who makes all the money in any casino operation.
Agree, awesome article. And interesting Clearpoint addition that the Street has every incentive
to orchestrate volatility, to the detriment of many firms' greatest stakeholders, the neglected
employees.
This question is of central importance, I only wish you'd find reason to bring it up more often.
It raises another important question, although one that cannot be addressed so neatly: why has
the capitalist project tended to turn away from long term commitments to profit-seeking through
the production of (material) commodities?
Was Friedman's short-termist view simply foolish, a
mistake that has had very damaging impact but which can be reversed?
Or, was it an idea that somehow
picked up on declining opportunities for profit via sales of commodities, as writers like Amin
and Harvey variously argue?
Or - and the article skips over this - did Friedman capture the growing
political aggressiveness of capital, as capital gradually overcame the Great Fear of the 30s and
prepared to mount, as Streeck has argued, a counteroffensive against the constraints of welfare
capitalism? Likely all of the above, but in what proportions?
A lot of corporate governance is controlled by legal decisions.
These legal decisions are rendered by judges.
Future judges are well-socialized into free market views long before they ever hear cases or render
judgments. We are seeing this trend continue with the current SCOTUS nomination in the hands of
a GOP controlled Congress.
Some of these people truly believe that 'free markets' can somehow 'improve and perfect' Human
Nature. (See also: Ayn Rand, 'John Galt', Alan Greenspan) In other words, it's has more than a
whiff of Nietzsche's 'Uber-man' ideology in the mix. It's an ideal system for equating human worth
with net worth, and justifying vast inequalities in money and power.
Thus does the snake swallow its tail.
These judges fail to notice there is a large bump somewhere in the snake's body; at some point,
it ate the Golden Goose, and is slowly digesting.
This does not directly mention the "increase shareholder value" action of a company buying
its own stock.
That should be viewed as a red-flag admission from the senior executives that the company doing
a share buyback does not see a way to grow its markets, does not see suitable investments for
R&D. sees no pressing need to improve corporate infrastructure, sees no reason to train their
workers, and can't find suitable acquisitions that would enhance their business.
Effectively, the management team has scoured the globe searching for the best use of their
spare cash, and, surprisingly, determined that one financial security, THEIR own company's stock,
was the best use of the corporation's cash.
A share buyback plan could be viewed as a warning shot indicating that management lacks ideas
and is poorly managing the corporation.
Instead it falls under a "increase shareholder value" tactic.
+1. Used as an attempt to ward off a hostile takeover stock buybacks might be justifiable.
Mostly, however, this usually looks like a simple attempt to prop up prices.
It is that acme of Liberalism, Warren Buffett that created this fad. At a time when corporate dividends were taxed as ordinary income, whereas a stock price bump
would be tax deferred - and ultimately taxed at long term capital gains rates - the scheme was
merely tax avoidance. Warren Buffett's entire empire is based on this and other tax avoidence schemes.
Then, coupled with stock options for corporate management, the path was set.
Common criticisms of "Maximize Shareholder Value: 1) Should give more weight to something else
– e.g. societal concerns. 2) Execs – prioritize other things; 3) BOD's prioritize other things,
including their personal relationship to execs. Improving corporate governance can, in theory,
setup procedures and rules to fix 2) and 3) by making sure BOD's in publicly listed corporations
really have the legal power, and by making elections more open, including the selection of the
initial selection of BOD candidates. However, this still requires interest from a majority of
voting shareholders – it would be better to ask people not interested to not vote at all. (I tried
to thread this comment as a reply above but it repeatedly disappeared).
For a UK example of a company choosing not to maximise shareholder value, the disastrous acquisition
of HBOS by Lloyds is instructive. Management claimed to be looking through the (ridiculously underestimated)
short-term issues to the resulting long-term competitive advantages which the government assured
them (falsely) wouldn't subsequently be challenged.
Of the c95% acceptances supporting this lunatic
deal, some proportion of the institutional shareholders must have been idiots, a few must have
feared for the stability of the banking system were the deal rejected, and a great many must also
have been HBOS bondholders
"But CEOs recognized how the newly-installed leaders of LBO acquisitions got rich through stock
awards or option-type compensation. They wanted a piece of the action. "
The maximize shareholder value ideology in practice looks like maximize CEO compensation and
to heck with the company's long term prospects. imo.
I doubt that any of the CEOs which have said that they are being pressurized to short-termism
are actually willing this stupid concept to be removed considering they are the prime benefactor
of this.
I believe that supermacy of shareholders interest was originally adopted because they were bearing
risk. Shares being an illiquid asset were supposed to be a source of income not capital gain.
Due to this shareholders were forced to ensure that short-termism is avoided and corporate governance
is adequate. Things started to reverse slowly as liquidity of shares increased gradually.
Presently,
when shares can be sold in seconds of owning them, risk a share-holder bear is greatly lower
than they beared a century ago. Also , shares are bought for capital gain not income.
Considering
relationship between share's liquidity and short-termism , any measure which reduces share's liquidity,
for example a high tax on short term capital gain, will greatly reduce both short-termism and
corporate governance issues as share holders will be forced to assume the risk they were supposed
to bear in exchange of supermacy of their interest.
1. Profit – Objective: to achieve sufficient profit to finance our company growth and to provide
the resources we need to achieve our other objectives
2. Customers- Objective: To provide products and services of the greatest possible value to
our customers, thereby gaining and holding their respect and loyalty.
3. Fields of Interest- Objective: To enter new fields only when the ideas we have, together
with our technical, manufacturing and marketing skills, assure that we can make a needed and profitable
contribution to the field.
4. Growth – Objective: To let our growth be limited only by our profits and our ability to
develop and produce technical products that satisfy real customer needs.
5. Our people: Objective: To help HP people share in the company's success, which they make
possible; to provide job security based on their performance; to recognize their individual achievements;
and to insure the personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment in their work
6. Management- Objective: To foster initiative and creativity by allowing the individual great
freedom of action in attaining well-defined objectives,
7. Citizenship – Objective: To honor our obligations to society by being an economic, intellectual
and social asset to each nation and each community in which we operate.
*****
Note, Hewett and Packard, themselves, may have owned 40-50% of the company stock at this time,
so they had great control of the company's direction at this time.
No corporate objective about shareholder value even though they were very large shareholders.
Yes, but. I remember someone from UMichigan business school (Gary Hamel, I think) speaking
to a group of top 2% Ford Motor Co. execs in the late 1980s. He asked, "Come on, guys how many
of you were thinking about shareholder value in the shower this morning?" The room laughed, but
one pudgy hand in the back went up. It belonged to Edsel Ford.
This takes us back, HP was so honest it almost sounds quaint. And 1974 was just before Reagan's
supply side economics stuff in the aftermath of the awful stagflation that hit us after Vietnam.
According to Paul Craig Roberts, supply side was embraced because it was thought to prevent inflation
(wage price spiral) and still provide sufficient jobs and products.
He goes on to say that supply-side/trickle-down
was a reasonable idea but it was hijacked by Wall Street who took it to heart and then used it
to justify offshoring jobs to enhance corporate profits, and eventually shareholder value. Because,
as PCR puts it, Wall Street forced companies to get lean and competitive and if they didn't nobody
invested in them: aka no shareholders if no timely shareholder value. So it was almost an extortion
racket. This was accompanied by all the corporate raiders and the real prosperity of the country
was quickly retarded and siphoned off. Great post, thanks Yves.
I have a rather naive question which I should have asked long ago in my one and only finance
class at college. Why does it matter if a share price drops all other things being equal? A company
sells shares, effectively handing out "residual claims" against cold, hard cash. If the cash is
invested in a business – and assuming the business is at least "break-even" plus the risk-free
rate of return- other than investor panic and CEO's getting "refreshed" stock options, why would
this matter?
Some reasons are frequently given for preferring a high stock price.
1. A low share price encourages others to acquire the company
2. A high price is good when stock is used as currency to buy other companies.
3. Executive compensation schemes are sometimes tied to stock price.
But if a company is not selling stock to fund current operations, then the stock price could
go to zero with no operational effect. The employees who own stock would not be pleased. However,
an apparent artificially low price could help with hiring new employees who may be granted low
priced options.
Occasionally I see someone claiming a company is being killed by short sellers driving the
stock price down. I don't see how this could damage the ongoing operations or cash flow EXCEPT
if the company is selling stock to fund operations or is trying to make a truly worthwhile acquisition
with their stock.
If a company is doing well and cash flow positive and short sellers drive the stock price down
too low, the company should use their cash to buy their shares and squeeze the shorts.
In the case of Hewlett-Packard there was no official stock price set by the investment community
for years, as the company waited a few years before doing an IPO.
The company was founded in 1939 and IPO'ed eighteen years later in 1957.
Imagine, operating for 18 years without Wall Street supervision.
Agreed with your point and John Wright's explanation. The idea that a stock price must be high
is dogma that is never questioned. The big reason is for concern re a low stock price is it is
seen as the market voting against management and an invitation for raiders to take the company
over.
But otherwise, if a company can raise enough money to fund expansion through its own cash flow
(which is the biggest source of investment fund) and debt (the next biggest source), there is
no reason to issue more stock (save your point re employee/executive stock options) and hence
no reason to care regarding the price.
Equity is a form of HPM these days, for C-corps, which can be used as a tool of pleasure [c-suite
bonuses et al] or a weapon of destruction [excuse for diminishing labour and the enviroment].
disheveled . the religion of free markets has become the dominate meme in society and those
that benefit the most from it . wellie see history .
I'm struggling with the short termism argument. The cash flows from equity don't have a maturity.
Bonds due. If a company sought to maximize bond holder value, they would minimize risk (and R&D)
to make sure sufficient funds were available to pay the bond holders. Equity maximization should
be longer term focused than the maximization of limited life securities.
While it has damaged corporate social responsibilities and banks' and corporations' long-term
financial stability, actions taken pursuant to the Shareholder Value optimization model have served
well many individuals on Wall Street, at private equity firms, CEOs of large publicly traded corporations,
hedge funds, networked board members, their academic and professional servicers, and the political
elite
Reflecting back on developments like the dotcom bubble of 1999-2000; the underlying causes
of the financial collapse of 2007-09; massive debt-leveraged corporate stock buybacks; socially
damaging private equity LBOs; the current volumes of opaque OTC derivatives at large financial
institutions; repeated episodes of environmental damage caused by firms in extractive industries
seeking short-term financial returns; and the license it provides to exert power over legislation
and regulation by those who own and control these corporations in a Citizens United legal
framework; etc., it is difficult to see much in the way of redeeming social value in this corporate
governance model.
Topical article highlighting a way to subvert corporate governance: Corrupt US govt. supports
secret oil company payments/bribes to corrupt foreign govts., whose autocratic leaders may be
major shareholders in the oil company too.
Not by usury maybe, but wealth came to Renaissance Italy through use of interest , hitherto
prohibited. And advances in book keeping. This wealth financed the great artists mentioned by
Pound.
Thanks for this post. I always found the notion of "maximizing shareholder value" to be very
strange, and counter to common sense. The concept of "stakeholders" always made more sense. For
a company to be managed with a focus on the wellbeing of workers, customers, and community, in
addition to owners, struck me as being obviously the way it should work. (And sometimes does.)
The idea that parties who happen to own a share of the company should have their interests
served above all is counter intuitive, as employees will almost always have a greater stake in
the company than any individual owner, if shares are widely distributed.
If you think of an sole proprietor who ventures forth to do business who has made clear to
all that his interests are paramount in any transaction, I do not envision customers flocking
to such an individual.
The apparent lack of basic decency in corporate/management decisions that we see so often is
just hard to reconcile with how most of us intuitively feel about how we see ourselves in the
context of our community: most people have a significant level of self interest, but we are always
aware of the need to consider the interests of others when we act. Even for something as basic
as waiting in line for something.
Somehow people at the elite levels of, finance for example, feel quite OK about heavily prioritizing
their own interest above all.
As someone not privy to this social realm, I am just mystified about the social dynamics that,
if not encourage this, at least consider it a fine way to do business.
In a small example, from my personal experience, I am a professional user of audio software
from Avid. Avid has been losing money year after year. Over the past five years the company as
taken actions that have outraged the user base, far more than any other software company I know
of. Their forum is over run with vitriolic ranting, from longtime customers. (In fairness, this
has abated a bit, as the company has finally been making moves that are sensible, and that meet
the needs of the users.)
There have been several rounds of significant layoffs, and the frontline workers bear the brunt
of the customers wrath. Morale has been low.
In conversation, a previous employee told me he considered management to be white collar criminals,
who were looting the company.
This type of product has a unique feature of having very strong platform lock-in effects. In
few other product categories would you see such angry customers continue to buy the products.
Yet the board has been approving generous compensation increases for C level management, and
for themselves for the past few years.
I'm fascinated from an everyday, social point of view, how the board and management make these
decisions. Do they really think they are doing a good job? From the outside, it appears to me
that they do it simply because they can, and have little concern for the long term well being
of any of the other stakeholdes.
Does anyone here have insight about the social dynamics that enable this behavior?
This is something I'd welcome some insights on too as I find certain behaviours and attitudes
impossible to understand.
Is it simple greed, stupidity, cynicism, groupthink, false consciousness, sociopathy, the
'attractions' of a certain lifestyle, daddy-didn't-love-them-enough or what that leads certain
types to behave the ways they do and seek to justify it? If they acted with a degree
of shame or embarrassment, or even full on chutzpah , I'd understand them more, but it's
the ordinary types, those who outwardly seem to be of the same species as oneself and otherwise
appear to be perfectly normal people that I just don't understand. I can believe almost anything
of them, except for the possibility that they actually, genuinely, believe that they are on the
right side of things.
I have similar brain fade when it comes to much of what politicians of the Right have to say
on most things. So often, and try as I might, I just can't understand how supposedly sentient
beings can honestly believe the drivel they come out with, still less have the brass-neck to stand
up in public and display just how effing stupid and cynical they are. Feel much the same about
all shades of politician but it's far worse on the Right.
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OU ..."
"... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
"... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
"... Wealth and Democracy ..."
"... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
"... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
"... What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
"... TCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
"... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
"... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
Posted on
February 4, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good job of selling the idea
that inequality is the fault of those who come out on the short end of the
stick that academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what ought to
be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic growth have not been
shared with the lower-middle and working class is accepted across the
political spectrum in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and technological change.
That view is contradicted by the comparison of income growth and
distribution statistics between the US and three others rich countries,
France, Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max Roser and
Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford.
Writing in Vox on the database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen
note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an individual needs to be right
at the 10th percentile of the income distribution to the evolution of the
income of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these two groups the
'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look at how much incomes grew for the
poor and the rich in absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely shared. We measure
income after taxes and transfers, and adjust for differences in prices over
time and across countries using inflation and purchasing power information.
Our database can be accessed online, with more information on our exact
measure and data for other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these countries, for reasons that
may have more to do with structure, institutions and policy. Roser and
Thewissen conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries and time imply that
increased globalization and technological change cannot be blamed as sole
causes for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders and should
affect all countries. The fact that other developed countries have been able
to share the benefits of these market forces suggests that policy choices on
the national level play a central role for boosting living standards.
Policies can make a difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic. Like two points
determine a single line. When you start out from an unequal position (not like
at the start of a foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one person
who crosses the finish line first vs the losers. And much of life is "first
across the finish line". Also since in this case, the winner of the last race,
gets an advantage on the next starting line the unequal advantage tends to
accumulate. Life is unfair. The point is to maintain the status quo, statically
and dynamically. Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers used to. The previous
winners continue to win these unequal contests, but the number of happy workers
gets fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits of inequality are
now being shared less equally ;-) The purpose of government is to benefit the
status quo. Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change will
occur but only when the current status quo maintenance system fails.
Conclusion: like the game of Musical Chairs there is no change until the
music stops, and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it is less
fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are content to play the
little pig, in Charlotte's Web. They forget where McDonald's McRib comes
from. Again, children's culture is illustrative and simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current generation" –
especially among those who don't have the "divided baggage" of the
generations that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern "evolution," it may not
be as easy for power to continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives like Gingrich put a
spin on the power of the "elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick to point out that
both parties are captured by global corporations). The future:
austerity, deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with probable war)
ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to
President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a
documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe
generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian
David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80
years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one".
Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve
particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from
Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark
theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be
trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and Howe I began thinking
how their ideas explained the histories of other countries as
well, and during our interview, I mentioned that crises in
countries like France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917 had led
to reigns of terror. Bannon included those remarks in the final
cut of Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the
film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the
domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of
Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he
pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved
a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the
American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World
War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the
current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the
prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of
international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly
pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as
the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during
crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of
the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all
concerned citizens in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of the madman's "movie"
and his authoritarian ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our eyes. Many lives will
continue to be severely impacted by these hateful, selfish,
abusive throwbacks from "central casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the sake of discussion,
let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by the judges. Starting
points for the race are then determined. If you are particularly comely, you
are given an advantage: that is, your starting point is moved up depending
on the judges. If you have a personality that people find attractive, you
are given further yards. If you happen to have had great success in school,
you are awarded so many yards because of your academic record. If you happen
to be good looking and personable, the academic success yards are added onto
your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational institution is
evaluated and you are given further yards to determine starting points with
certain schools worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences – including your finishing
position in previous races – advanced degrees, and connections and further
yards are added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the advantages strives as hard
as they can but they cannot win the race because some people only have to
simply step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind the starting line
because they could not even muster the necessary accomplishments to reach
the starting line: drop outs from school, people who have been convicted of
crimes and the rest. The worse the offense, the further you are moved behind
the starting line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win – even running faster
and harder than their competitors – are simply unable to do so because the
rules are such that winning is not even a consideration when the race is
rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality. Some of those factors
can either be mitigated or compensated for by the individual and/or the
social system.
There are other structural factors that influence inequality. Family
connections, inherited wealth, and other forms of social capital that can
make advancement easier is one. Savings and investment patterns that can
be engaged in to varying degrees depending on just how much surplus
income one has is another.
The social and political system in the US generally favors vigorous
competition, private self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can prosper, while those
who either can't or don't want to can suffer significant disadvantages in
outcomes. The influence of these structural factors in any social system
influences the degree of income/wealth stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social factors are fairly equal
among the individuals. Even though my various relatives have not
necessarily made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their outcomes have
been vastly different. The degree to which they have chosen to engagein
income/wealth maximization has generally been a large factor. In that
sense, the game is rigged away from living what many consider a humane
life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write stuff like this? You
simply have to look at the (re)distribution policies of the countries concerned
– and there are substantial differences between the three of them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what mechanism does
globalization necessarily increase inequality, and how does it work precisely
in a number of contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid good money to restate
the obvious, but using sesquipedalian language just to make it more
difficult to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much money as another.
Money is simply a tool created by human beings. Much like a hammer, human
beings could use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others about the
head. We humans seem to prefer the latter use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far outnumbered by those paid to
disprove it. We need the former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the obvious turned out to be
wrong when it was looked at carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie about these obvious
things and legislate based on those lies, and businesses make their profits
off the lies, so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to point
out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological change" are things
humans do for human reasons. To treat them as "forces" somehow exogenous to
human choices is self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic that
says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as heuristics, they are
pretty lousy unless you parse them quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar
investment in nukes creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological change." A kindle is
"technological change." Keyword searches readily available to academic
researchers was a big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change" here is the sort that
allows us to collectively make more stuff with less work. God forbid anyone
spell that out though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more for less
because we can now make more stuff with less work," would quickly lead to the
violent demise of economists and rich people. (more to say on "globalization"
but this post is already way longer than intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German manufacturing is far
more technologically advanced than manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages
to maintain high employment in that sector, probably because the companies
invest in worker training and feel some obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having powerful
representation on German corporate boards and smaller companies being owned by
families instead of faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the UK was a bit strange,
as well. Inequality in both countries has been increasingly massively in
recent years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the topic, if I'm
not mistaken. Japan would have been a much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a country that isn't
exactly known for egalitarianism, like the UK, is doing better than the
U.S. it kind of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media claims, the trick that
created the German economic miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their
banking system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by "municipally owned
banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe -have been working day
and night to drastically alter so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie
banks can take complete AND total control of the economy, as they have in
most of the developed world except North Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the
Bank of Canada – the Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal {municipally or
provincially} owned banks) – all three countries, like the German
municipally owned banks, are under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats
in the IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned by, and
minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly the corporate bought and sold
world's university economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to universities worldwide
than all of the rest of the donors combined!?! The proviso on these
donations is that they only hire economics profs who have been published in
one of the 37 journals published by the U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know
what kind of right agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists are
dedicated to serving up in order to get published by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany and you have a great
idea/product and require a one million dollar loan to build a factory and
set up production – here's what happens to you. Your local banks will never
lend you that money, so you have to go to the criminal Big Banks which will
also never lend you the money you need, which means you will have to sell
your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one of their huge corporate
clients, who will offshore production to a corrupted third world country
where workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are considered a criminal
enterprise. Leaving you, the creator of the product or service with pennies
on the dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero economic growth and
no well paid local employment opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product because it is better
than the (inferior) one they are currently making bags of money selling –
for which they have just eliminated your innovative and superior competitive
product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far different. In Germany you
would go to your local municipally owned bank which is only too happy to
give you the one million dollars you need to set up production (locally
providing employment and contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German economy and the reason for
the so called ":German economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no idea how it happened,
rather because the elites who own more than 80% of all corporate shares need
to confuse us plebs they want to economically and politically crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem? Well,
no sh*t,
Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago in his wonderful
book
Wealth and Democracy
. Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats
had been placed in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was in check. Then they
died-off and left their wealth to a new generation more interested in emulating
Mick Jagger than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their Hollywood pal,
who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so that they could party like rock
stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the scions of inherited
wealth and Studio 54. They could never have made it on their own, on their own
talents, and it is in their class interest to destroy any sort of meritocracy.
They have used materialism and greed to buy the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance," which is the extent to
which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different "tastes" or preferences for
inequality. For example, the Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other
parts of Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared to, say, the
Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for inequality between
countries go back to a nation's history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down
forces and factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle point, or a little
lower, as to taste for inequality. However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing
[probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences. In other words, we may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance preference is a fairly
durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves inequality, which is why
they are known for choosing dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders.
And how exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I can vote for
Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the
egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that
either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case,
given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a nation accepts inequality)
interactions with "distance to power" extent to which a nation influences
the powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise and Fall of American
Growth.' Gordon would say that American labor did well from 1870-1970 because
of the innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's productivity and
the value of their work. Since 1970, productivity has slowed down. It rose
again during the decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers, thanks to
the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now has continued to slow. That was a
recipe for income inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the rise
of digital industries has increased property values on the coasts and in select
inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality by facilitating the
decline of interest rates. This helps the haves, since their assets are
suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled from compensation,
and that has driven the rise of inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book contained the interesting
fact that, during the 1880's, wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some
places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by the oligarchs who buy
the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to make millions suffer and
die every day because excepting MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice
too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice directly but a consequence
of deregulation or "do nothing" policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any
hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they
could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes,
into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As long
as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us when you buy things,
you live a bare subsistence existence and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't die and could
reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the
poor lived in squalor and the rich lived in luxury, the same as it had always
been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom a larger slice of
the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing to the people who do the work apart
from a bare subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with organised labour movements
and the welfare state; it was interfering with the natural order where they
extract all the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the
University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military
dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing
of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar
techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people
into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed
when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty everywhere it's tested,
they decide it's a system that should be rolled out globally. It's just what
they are looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose business model and
advertising is built on serving the Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of
Commerce interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative journalistic
team or even an individual columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER
WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good
job of selling the idea that inequality is the fault of
those who come out on the short end of the stick that
academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what
ought to be intuitively obvious.
The fact that most of the fruits of US economic
growth have not been shared with the lower-middle and
working class is accepted across the political spectrum
in America. But that inequality is often treated as a
somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and
technological change. That view is contradicted by the
comparison of income growth and distribution statistics
between the US and three others rich countries, France,
Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max
Roser and Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New
Economic Thinking at Oxford. Writing in Vox on the
database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen note:
"We compare the evolution of the income an
individual needs to be right at the 10th percentile of
the income distribution to the evolution of the income
of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these
two groups the 'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look
at how much incomes grew for the poor and the rich in
absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and
thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely
shared. We measure income after taxes and transfers,
and adjust for differences in prices over time and
across countries using inflation and purchasing power
information. Our database can be accessed online, with
more information on our exact measure and data for
other countries."
The US performs poorly by comparison to these
countries, for reasons that may have more to do with
structure, institutions and policy. Roser and Thewissen
conclude:
"The differences we have identified across countries
and time imply that increased globalization and
technological change cannot be blamed as sole causes
for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders
and should affect all countries. The fact that other
developed countries have been able to share the
benefits of these market forces suggests that policy
choices on the national level play a central role for
boosting living standards. Policies can make a
difference not just in growth levels, but also in who
gets the benefits of that growth."
The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic.
Like two points determine a single line. When you start
out from an unequal position (not like at the start of a
foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one
person who crosses the finish line first vs the losers.
And much of life is "first across the finish line". Also
since in this case, the winner of the last race, gets an
advantage on the next starting line the unequal
advantage tends to accumulate. Life is unfair. The point
is to maintain the status quo, statically and dynamically.
Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as
white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers
used to. The previous winners continue to win these
unequal contests, but the number of happy workers gets
fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits
of inequality are now being shared less equally ;-) The
purpose of government is to benefit the status quo.
Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change
will occur but only when the current status quo
maintenance system fails. Conclusion: like the game of
Musical Chairs there is no change until the music stops,
and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it
is less fun in real life.
Unfortunately many in the current generation are
content to play the little pig, in Charlotte's Web.
They forget where McDonald's McRib comes from.
Again, children's culture is illustrative and
simplified.
I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current
generation" – especially among those who don't
have the "divided baggage" of the generations
that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated
historical circumstances aligned with modern
"evolution," it may not be as easy for power to
continue to "manipulate and control."
In this fear-mongering film, conservatives
like Gingrich put a spin on the power of the
"elite" destroying the middle class in a
revisionist approach (although they are quick
to point out that both parties are captured by
global corporations). The future: austerity,
deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with
probable war) ahead of us.
The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe
generational theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior
Counselor to President Trump is a prominent
proponent of the theory. As a documentary
filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of
Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation
Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who
was consulted for the film, Generation Zero
"focused on the key aspect of their theory,
the idea that every 80 years American history
has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth
turning', that destroyed an old order and
created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is
very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory
of crisis, and has been thinking about how to
use it to achieve particular goals for quite a
while." A February 2017 article from Business
Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with
a dark theory of history should be worrisome
commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring
about the 'Fourth Turning'."
When I was first exposed to Strauss and
Howe I began thinking how their ideas
explained the histories of other countries
as well, and during our interview, I
mentioned that crises in countries like
France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917
had led to reigns of terror. Bannon
included those remarks in the final cut of
Generation Zero.
A second, more alarming, interaction did
not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly
thought a long time both about the domestic
potential and the foreign policy
implications of Strauss and Howe. More than
once during our interview, he pointed out
that each of the three preceding crises had
involved a great war, and those conflicts
had increased in scope from the American
Revolution through the Civil War to the
Second World War. He expected a new and
even bigger war as part of the current
crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by
the prospect.
I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing
that the history of international conflict
was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed
me to say we could expect a conflict at
least as big as the Second World War in the
near or medium term. I refused.
Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic
thinking flourish during crisis periods.
This represents perhaps the biggest danger
of the Trump presidency, and one that will
bear watching from all concerned citizens
in the months and years ahead.
Thanks for the information. I'm aware of
the madman's "movie" and his authoritarian
ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves
will continue to unravel right before our
eyes. Many lives will continue to be
severely impacted by these hateful,
selfish, abusive throwbacks from "central
casting."
Every day there is a race you have to run. For the
sake of discussion, let's call it a 100 yard race.
The participants are called and then evaluated by
the judges. Starting points for the race are then
determined. If you are particularly comely, you are
given an advantage: that is, your starting point is
moved up depending on the judges. If you have a
personality that people find attractive, you are given
further yards. If you happen to have had great success
in school, you are awarded so many yards because of
your academic record. If you happen to be good looking
and personable, the academic success yards are added
onto your already determined starting point.
Then the quality and reputation of your educational
institution is evaluated and you are given further
yards to determine starting points with certain schools
worth a better starting position. And even the type of
training at the institution is evaluated and further
yards given.
Finally the judges add your total experiences –
including your finishing position in previous races –
advanced degrees, and connections and further yards are
added.
So when the gun sounds, the person without the
advantages strives as hard as they can but they cannot
win the race because some people only have to simply
step over the finish line.
And even more troubling some people are moved behind
the starting line because they could not even muster
the necessary accomplishments to reach the starting
line: drop outs from school, people who have been
convicted of crimes and the rest. The worse the
offense, the further you are moved behind the starting
line.
Every day this continues and those striving to win –
even running faster and harder than their competitors –
are simply unable to do so because the rules are such
that winning is not even a consideration when the race
is rigged.
The factors are certainly at work in inequality.
Some of those factors can either be mitigated or
compensated for by the individual and/or the social
system.
There are other structural factors that influence
inequality. Family connections, inherited wealth,
and other forms of social capital that can make
advancement easier is one. Savings and investment
patterns that can be engaged in to varying degrees
depending on just how much surplus income one has is
another.
The social and political system in the US
generally favors vigorous competition, private
self-dealing, and asymmetric information.
Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can
prosper, while those who either can't or don't want
to can suffer significant disadvantages in outcomes.
The influence of these structural factors in any
social system influences the degree of income/wealth
stratification.
In my own family, many of the starting social
factors are fairly equal among the individuals. Even
though my various relatives have not necessarily
made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their
outcomes have been vastly different. The degree to
which they have chosen to engagein income/wealth
maximization has generally been a large factor. In
that sense, the game is rigged away from living what
many consider a humane life.
You mean people actually got paid to research and write
stuff like this? You simply have to look at the
(re)distribution policies of the countries concerned – and
there are substantial differences between the three of
them, by the way.
Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what
mechanism does globalization necessarily increase
inequality, and how does it work precisely in a number of
contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong
answer.
No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid
good money to restate the obvious, but using
sesquipedalian language just to make it more difficult
to understand.
Inequality is caused by one group not having as much
money as another. Money is simply a tool created by
human beings. Much like a hammer, human beings could
use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others
about the head. We humans seem to prefer the latter
use.
The people paid to prove the obvious are far
outnumbered by those paid to disprove it. We need the
former because of the latter.
On the other hand, there are many cases where the
obvious turned out to be wrong when it was looked at
carefully. More research needed!
We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie
about these obvious things and legislate based on those
lies, and businesses make their profits off the lies,
so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to
point out the lies.
"Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological
change" are things humans do for human reasons. To treat
them as "forces" somehow exogenous to human choices is
self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic
that says the King is the King cause God likes him best.
They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as
heuristics, they are pretty lousy unless you parse them
quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar investment in nukes
creates "technological change." The destruction of local
agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological
change." A kindle is "technological change." Keyword
searches readily available to academic researchers was a
big "technological change."
I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change"
here is the sort that allows us to collectively make more
stuff with less work. God forbid anyone spell that out
though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more
for less because we can now make more stuff with less
work," would quickly lead to the violent demise of
economists and rich people. (more to say on
"globalization" but this post is already way longer than
intended.)
Germany should have been included in the study. German
manufacturing is far more technologically advanced than
manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages to maintain
high employment in that sector, probably because the
companies invest in worker training and feel some
obligation toward labor.
There's a structural reason for this, with labor having
powerful representation on German corporate boards and
smaller companies being owned by families instead of
faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term
interests naturally more in alignment with those of their
employees.
Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the
UK was a bit strange, as well. Inequality in both
countries has been increasingly massively in recent
years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the
topic, if I'm not mistaken. Japan would have been a
much better example.
I think it kind of makes the point, if even a
country that isn't exactly known for egalitarianism,
like the UK, is doing better than the U.S. it kind
of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.
Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media
claims, the trick that created the German economic
miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their banking
system.
In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by
"municipally owned banks"!!!
A situation that the elites – masters of the universe
-have been working day and night to drastically alter
so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie banks can
take complete AND total control of the economy, as they
have in most of the developed world except North
Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the Bank of Canada – the
Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all
Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal
{municipally or provincially} owned banks) – all three
countries, like the German municipally owned banks, are
under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats in the
IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned
by, and minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly
the corporate bought and sold world's university
economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux
economic B.S.
The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to
universities worldwide than all of the rest of the
donors combined!?! The proviso on these donations is
that they only hire economics profs who have been
published in one of the 37 journals published by the
U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know what kind of right
agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists
are dedicated to serving up in order to get published
by the U.S. Fed!!!
So what you say!! Well here's so what!
If you are in any other developed country than Germany
and you have a great idea/product and require a one
million dollar loan to build a factory and set up
production – here's what happens to you. Your local
banks will never lend you that money, so you have to go
to the criminal Big Banks which will also never lend
you the money you need, which means you will have to
sell your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one
of their huge corporate clients, who will offshore
production to a corrupted third world country where
workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are
considered a criminal enterprise. Leaving you, the
creator of the product or service with pennies on the
dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero
economic growth and no well paid local employment
opportunities. The corporate buyer of your
technology/product/idea may well just kill your product
because it is better than the (inferior) one they are
currently making bags of money selling – for which they
have just eliminated your innovative and superior
competitive product.
If you are in Germany however the story is far
different. In Germany you would go to your local
municipally owned bank which is only too happy to give
you the one million dollars you need to set up
production (locally providing employment and
contributing to local economic prosperity).
This is the basis for the strength of the German
economy and the reason for the so called ":German
economic miracle?"!
It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no
idea how it happened, rather because the elites who own
more than 80% of all corporate shares need to confuse
us plebs they want to economically and politically
crush!
American wealth inequality is a political problem?
Well,
no sh*t, Sherlock
.
Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago
in his wonderful book
Wealth and Democracy
.
Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats had been placed
in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great
Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was
in check. Then they died-off and left their wealth to a
new generation more interested in emulating Mick Jagger
than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their
Hollywood pal, who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so
that they could party like rock stars.
Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the
scions of inherited wealth and Studio 54. They could never
have made it on their own, on their own talents, and it is
in their class interest to destroy any sort of
meritocracy. They have used materialism and greed to buy
the political class.
Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance,"
which is the extent to which a nation accepts inequality.
According to Hofstede, countries have different
"tastes" or preferences for inequality. For example, the
Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other parts of
Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared
to, say, the Scandinavian countries, which have the
lowest.
I would guess that differences in preferences for
inequality between countries go back to a nation's
history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down forces and
factors.
The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle
point, or a little lower, as to taste for inequality.
However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to
believe that either our preference for inequality is
changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our
history is outrunning our preferences. In other words, we
may be getting more inequality than we like.
By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance
preference is a fairly durable characteristic of a nation.
Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves
inequality, which is why they are known for choosing
dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders. And how
exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I
can vote for Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street
and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the egalitarian one?
However, reading about the recent Gini index
leads me to believe that either our preference for
inequality is changing [probably not the case, given
Trump], or our history is outrunning our
preferences.
"
What about "power distance" (extent to which a
nation accepts inequality) interactions with "distance
to power" extent to which a nation influences the
powerful.
I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise
and Fall of American Growth.' Gordon would say that
American labor did well from 1870-1970 because of the
innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's
productivity and the value of their work. Since 1970,
productivity has slowed down. It rose again during the
decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers,
thanks to the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now
has continued to slow. That was a recipe for income
inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the
rise of digital industries has increased property values
on the coasts and in select inland cities.
Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality
by facilitating the decline of interest rates. This helps
the haves, since their assets are suddenly more valuable.
this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled
from compensation, and that has driven the rise of
inequality.
off topic, but the krugman review of the book
contained the interesting fact that, during the 1880's,
wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some places.
Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by
the oligarchs who buy the politicians.
Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to
make millions suffer and die every day because excepting
MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice too.
I think that inequality is not a political choice
directly but a consequence of deregulation or "do nothing"
policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.
They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed
themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual
matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to
elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility
rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the
initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus
created by the hard work of the rest.
The elites became the representatives of the gods
and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and
the harvests. As long as all the surplus was handed over,
all would be well.
Later they came up with money.
We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us
when you buy things, you live a bare subsistence existence
and we take the rest.
A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't
die and could reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile
maxim of the masters of mankind.
Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and
19th Centuries, the poor lived in squalor and the rich
lived in luxury, the same as it had always been.
Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom
a larger slice of the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing
to the people who do the work apart from a bare
subsistence existence.
The wealthy decided they needed to do away with
organised labour movements and the welfare state; it was
interfering with the natural order where they extract all
the surplus.
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as
poorest 50%
Nearly there.
They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.
Some of the world's workers are not living a bare
subsistence existence.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and
"liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two
mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and
impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together
just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton
Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical
they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile,
it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death
squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was
an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of
any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America
using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a
democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking
they were voting for something else, severe oppression was
needed when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty
everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that
should be rolled out globally. It's just what they are
looking for.
Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose
business model and advertising is built on serving the
Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of Commerce
interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative
journalistic team or even an individual
columnist\calumnist like recently deceased
VILLAGE
VOICE
early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html
What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's outsourcing to
a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and
beginning a series that seems historic in these parts as
the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series by dead investigative
journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was
shortly thereafter taken down off the web under pressure
by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business
Serving newspaper group anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast
before all trace of the findings of this Moonlighting
Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
SEARCHES on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party
so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC BLUE PARTY MACHINE in
OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor
Kate Brown neither of whom in long careers in State
Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever reviewed
these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news
hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa,
Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically
disadvantaged group to be assessed so much more in
penalties for minor infractions makes inequality even
worse.
TCOMES have resulted in even
PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP
's
outsourcing to a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and beginning
a series that seems historic in these parts as the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series
by dead investigative journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra
Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was shortly thereafter
taken down off the web under pressure by the
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
.
Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business Serving newspaper group
anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast before all trace of the findings of this
Moonlighting Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST SEARCHES
on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC
BLUE PARTY MACHINE in OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering
ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor Kate Brown neither of
whom in long careers in State Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever
reviewed these findings:
Keep on doing,
Punching way above your weight
PAMPLIN PAPERS
making a mockery of outside money-owned
OREGONIAN
and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole
available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or
Booze\Gourmet venture
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion Group
Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically disadvantaged group to
be assessed so much more in penalties for minor infractions makes inequality
even worse.
"... "I worked with Ronald Reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late '70s, along with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski and others," Gingrich declared at a recent town hall event. "We ended up passing it into law in '81. At the time it was very bold. People called it 'voodoo economics.' It had one great virtue: it worked." ..."
"... Their second key advantage was that nobody could say for sure what the results of the "supply-side" experiment would be. There was little empirical data to assess how radical tax cuts would play out in the modern economy. One could make common-sense judgments, as George H.W. Bush had done with his "voodoo" remark, but you couldn't see the future. ..."
"... Now, however, with three decades of experience with the experiment, the fallacies of "supply-side" economics are no longer a mystery. For instance, a major obstacle to today's economic recovery has been the absence of "demand-side" consumers, not the availability of money to build more productive capacity. ..."
"... And the reasons for this dilemma are now well-known: first, when companies have expanded in recent years, the modern factories have relied on robotics with few humans required; second, the companies put many manufacturing sites offshore so they can exploit cheap labor; and third, the shrinking middle class has meant fewer customers, leaving corporations little motivation to build more factories. ..."
"... Blessed with a talented pitch man named Ronald Reagan, "supply-side" became the new product to sell. After taking office, Reagan pressed for a sharp reduction in the marginal tax rates, slashing the top rates for the wealthy from around 70 percent to 28 percent. Along with the tax cuts, Reagan also initiated an aggressive military buildup. ..."
"... After George W. Bush claimed the White House in 2001, "supply-side" dogma was back in vogue. Bush pushed through more tax cuts mostly for the rich, reducing the top marginal rate to 35 percent and creating an even bigger tax break for investors, cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent. Combined with Bush's two wars and other policies, the surplus soon disappeared and was replaced by another yawning deficit. ..."
"... The Right also has worked diligently to create false narratives to convince many Americans that their hatred of a strong federal government links them to the Founders. Many Tea Partiers have bought into the historical lie that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to promote "states' rights" the near opposite of what the framers actually were doing. ..."
Exclusive: Any rational assessment of America's economic troubles would identify Ronald
Reagan's reckless "supply-side" economics as a chief culprit, but that hasn't stopped Republican
presidential hopefuls, led by Newt Gingrich, from selling this discredited theory to a gullible GOP
base, reports Robert Parry.
Despite Newt Gingrich's claim that "supply-side" economic theories have "worked," the truth is
that America's three-decade experiment with low tax rates on the rich, lax regulation of corporations
and "free trade" has been a catastrophic failure, creating massive federal debt, devastating the
middle class and off-shoring millions of American jobs.
It has "worked" almost exclusively for the very rich, yet the former House speaker and the three
other Republican presidential hopefuls are urging the country to double-down on this losing gamble,
often to the cheers of their audiences - like one Florida woman who said she had lost her job and
medical insurance but still applauded the idea of more "free-market" solutions.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich posing with his third wife, Callista
Gingrich even boasts of his role in pioneering these theories of massive tax cuts favoring the
rich, combined with sharp reductions in the role of government. That approach, once famously mocked
by George H.W. Bush as "voodoo economics," was supposed to spur businesses to expand production (the
"supply side"), thus creating jobs and boosting revenues from all the commercial activity.
"I worked with Ronald Reagan to develop supply-side economics in the late '70s, along with
Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski and others," Gingrich declared at a recent town hall event.
"We ended up passing it into law in '81. At the time it was very bold. People called it 'voodoo economics.'
It had one great virtue: it worked."
But that is not what the historical record really shows.
In 1980, I was working as an Associated Press correspondent covering budget and economic issues
on Capitol Hill and at the time, the "supply-siders" had two key arguments in their favor: first,
the economy had stagnated in the 1970s largely due to oil price shocks, inflation and an aging industrial
base.
Their second key advantage was that nobody could say for sure what the results of the "supply-side"
experiment would be. There was little empirical data to assess how radical tax cuts would play out
in the modern economy. One could make common-sense judgments, as George H.W. Bush had done with his
"voodoo" remark, but you couldn't see the future.
No More Mystery
Now, however, with three decades of experience with the experiment, the fallacies of "supply-side"
economics are no longer a mystery. For instance, a major obstacle to today's economic recovery has
been the absence of "demand-side" consumers, not the availability of money to build more productive
capacity.
And the reason that there are fewer consumers is that the Great American Middle Class, which
the federal government helped build and nourish from the New Deal through the GI Bill to investments
in infrastructure and technology in the Sixties and Seventies, has been savaged over the past three
decades.
Though many Americans were able to cover up for their declining economic prospects with excessive
borrowing for a while, the Wall Street crash of 2008 exposed the hollowing out of the middle class.
So today, businesses are sitting on vast sums of cash some estimates put the amount at about $2 trillion.
And the reasons for this dilemma are now well-known: first, when companies have expanded in
recent years, the modern factories have relied on robotics with few humans required; second, the
companies put many manufacturing sites offshore so they can exploit cheap labor; and third, the shrinking
middle class has meant fewer customers, leaving corporations little motivation to build more factories.
For Americans, this has represented a downward spiral with no end in sight. American workers,
whether blue- or white-collar, know that computers and other technological advancements have made
many of their old jobs obsolete. And modern communications have allowed even expert service jobs,
like computer tech advice, to go to places like India.
While painful to millions of Americans who find their talents treated as surplus, these developments
do not by themselves have to be negative. After all, humans have dreamed for centuries about technology
freeing them from the grind of tedious work and freeing up society to invest in a higher quality
of life, for today's citizens and for posterity.
The problem is that the only practical way for a democratic society to achieve that goal is to
have a vibrant government using the tax structure to divert a significant amount of the super-profits
from the rich into the public coffers for investments in everything from infrastructure to education
to arts and sciences, including research and development for future generations, even possibly Gingrich's
"big idea" of a colony on the moon.
In fact, that kind of virtuous cycle was the experience of the United States from the 1930s through
the 1970s, with the federal government taxing the top tranches of wealth at up to 90 percent and
using those funds to build major electrification projects like the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley
Authority, to educate World War II veterans through the GI Bill, to connect the nation through the
Interstate Highway system, to launch the Space Program, and to create today's Internet.
Out of those efforts emerged robust economic growth as private corporations took advantage of
the nation's modern infrastructure and the technological advancements. Millions of good-paying jobs
were created for the world's best-trained work force, giving rise to the Great American Middle Class.
The obvious answer was to keep this up, with the government investing in new productive areas, like
renewable energy.
Demonizing 'Guv-mint'
Instead, facing economic headwinds in the 1970s, caused in part by rising energy costs, Americans
grew anxious about their futures, making them ripe for a new right-wing propaganda campaign demonizing
"guv-mint" and telling white men, in particular, that the "free market" was their friend.
Blessed with a talented pitch man named Ronald Reagan, "supply-side" became the new product
to sell. After taking office, Reagan pressed for a sharp reduction in the marginal tax rates, slashing
the top rates for the wealthy from around 70 percent to 28 percent. Along with the tax cuts, Reagan
also initiated an aggressive military buildup.
The results were devastating to the U.S. fiscal position. The federal debt soared, quadrupling
during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, federal
debt was actually declining in the 1970s, dropping to 26 percent of GDP, before exploding under Reagan,
rising to 41 percent by the end of the 1980s. The shared wealth of the country also diverged, with
the rich claiming a bigger and bigger piece of the national economic pie.
The nation's debt crisis only began to subside after tax increases were enacted under President
George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, with Clinton's tax hike pushing the top marginal rate
back up to 39.6 percent. At the time, Gingrich warned that the Clinton tax hike would lead to an
economic catastrophe.
The actual result was a booming economy, spurred strongly by the federal government's new "information
super-highway," the Internet. The Clinton years also saw low unemployment and a balanced budget by
the late 1990s. The debt-to-GDP measure declined from about 43 percent to 33 percent and was on course
toward zero within a decade.
Ironically Gingrich also claims credit for that because as House speaker he worked with Clinton
on some cost-cutting measures, but Clinton credits the 1993 tax increase, which passed without a
single Republican vote, as the key factor in the budget turnaround.
After George W. Bush claimed the White House in 2001, "supply-side" dogma was back in vogue.
Bush pushed through more tax cuts mostly for the rich, reducing the top marginal rate to 35 percent
and creating an even bigger tax break for investors, cutting the capital gains rate to 15 percent.
Combined with Bush's two wars and other policies, the surplus soon disappeared and was replaced by
another yawning deficit.
Even as most Americans struggled to hold a job and pay their bills, America's super-rich lived
a life of unparalleled luxury. With this concentration of money also had come a concentration of
power, as right-wing operatives were hired to build a sophisticated media apparatus and think tanks
to push often with populist rhetoric the policies that were dividing the country along the lines
of a pampered one percent and a pressured 99 percent.
Many Americans, especially white men, heard their personal grievances echoed in the angry voices
of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck all well-compensated propagandists
for "the one percent."
Lesson Unlearned
Now, looking back over the economic and fiscal history of the past three decades, you might think
that few Americans would be fooled again by this sucker bet on "supply-side." But the Tea Partiers
and many rank-and-file Republicans seem ready to put what's left of their money back down on the
gambling table.
All four remaining Republican hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Gingrich have
proposed lower tax rates especially on the rich with the same enduring but fanciful faith in "supply-side"
economics.
Gingrich has gone so far as to advocate eliminating the capital gains tax entirely. It's already
down to 15 percent, meaning that many super-rich, from financier Warren Buffett to Mitt Romney, can
live off their investments and pay a lower tax rate than what many middle-class Americans pay on
their wages and salaries. In a recent Florida debate, Romney noted he would pay virtually no federal
income tax under Gingrich's plan.
The Republicans seem to be counting on the parallel propaganda campaign of demonizing "guv-mint."
They're pinning their hopes on an ill-informed electorate (especially white men) siding with "the
one percent" over their own working- and middle-class interests.
The GOP hopes also may hinge significantly on how determined some whites are to get the country's
first black president out of the White House. Historically, demagogic U.S. politicians have had great
success in exploiting racial resentments, although these days often with coded language like Gingrich
calling Barack Obama "the food-stamp president."
The Right also has worked diligently to create false narratives to convince many Americans
that their hatred of a strong federal government links them to the Founders. Many Tea Partiers have
bought into the historical lie that the Founders wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the
federal government and to promote "states' rights" the near opposite of what the framers actually
were doing.
Led by Virginians Gen. George Washington and James Madison, the Constitutional Convention in 1787
threw out the Articles of Confederation, which had made the states supreme and the federal government
a supplicant.
The Constitution reversed that situation, eliminating state "independence" and bestowing national
sovereignty onto the federal Republic representing "we the people of the United States." Contrary
to the Tea Party's false narrative, the Constitution represented the single biggest assertion of
federal power in U.S. history.
When the Tea Partiers dress up in Revolutionary War costumes, they apparently don't know that
their notion of a weak central government and state "sovereignty" was anathema to the key framers
of the Constitution, especially to Washington who had watched his soldiers suffer under the ineffectual
Articles of Confederation.
And, when the Tea Partiers wave their "Don't Tread on Me" flags of a coiled snake, they don't
seem to know that the warning was directed at the British Empire and that the banner aimed at fellow
Americans was Benjamin Franklin's image of a snake severed into various pieces representing the colonies/states
with the admonishment "Join, or Die."
Nevertheless, false narratives and false arguments can be as effective as real ones to a thoroughly
misinformed population. Thus, many middle- and working-class Americans still cheer when Newt Gingrich
references Ronald Reagan and his "supply-side" economics.
But the failure of Reagan's economic strategy should be obvious to anyone who is not fully deluded
by right-wing propaganda. Not only has the national debt skyrocketed over the past three decades,
but whatever economic benefits that have been produced have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthy while
the nation as a whole has suffered.
[For more on related topics, see Robert Parry's Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege and
Neck Deep , now available in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details,
click
here .]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press
and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written
with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at
neckdeepbook.com . His two previous books,
Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras,
Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.
Jimmy Dore makes some great points from time to time but this
particular rant has so many flaws that it would be a real
undertaking to itemize all of them.
Millions if not billions of people, including millions of
USAmericans have been horrified at US terrorism wherever it
occurs. We weren't OK with the US terrorizing these seven
countries or any of the other countries the US has terrorized.
We protested. We talked to our political representatives. We
advised young men to refuse to volunteer to kill and be killed
for money. We did whatever we could think of to stop the
carnage. We were unsuccessful.
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so
much as singling out people from specific countries, whether
Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did it. The ban
should be on all religious extremists including apartheid
Zionists and Christian extremists. Religious extremists from all
of the major religious have committed heinous atrocities.
I could go on, but those are the main points I wanted to make.
What? Fake news isn't enough for you, so now you're engaging
in fake debate? You have problems with Jimmy's points then
argue them. Too many for you? Then pick the top six and
critique them. Otherwise stop stuffing your fingers in your
ears and loudly singing patriotic songs to drown out the
unpleasant truths. P.S. There were significant protests when
Bush Jr. was running the show but they all died out after
Obama took over the nation's reins. After that all I heard
from the American left about his constant assault on the
Constitution, keeping Guantanamo, the country's wars of
aggression, U.S. support of the military coup in Honduras,
his unconditional and unlimited subsidization of Wall Street,
his unprecedented vendetta against government whistle
blowers, and his impressive accumulation of 306 golf outings
(at a gob smacking five hours a pop!) ... was crickets.
You read different stuff than I do. I heard a fire hose
stream of Progressive/liberal criticism of Obama's
policies and enormous disappointment in Obama - including
from people like Michael Moore, Rachael Maddow, and Amy
Goodman, and especially from Glenn Greenwald, Assange and
other brilliant political thinkers as well as from
Veterans for Peace, Pro-Palestine humanitarians, and
anti-nuclear activists. Medea Benjamin has been on the
front lines for eight years attacking Obama's war
mongering. Of course we need many more like her. Unless
you are her, using a fake name, then why weren't you right
there with her?
And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban;
hoping to get some easy votes for corporatist neo-con
hypocrites? Cynical demo pigs would love to impeach Drumpf and
wage nice with Pence. We are f*^ked unless we (us "lefty
ranters" and more) don't demand radical change from the
Corporatist neo-fascist establishments of both parties - the
party of dicks and the party of pant-suited V's. And the
media/wall street/military industrial complex can't get enough
of this.
BEWARE -- Why is the Zionist control media, and many Zionist
controlled organizations, so adamant about allowing people from
war torn Muslim countries come to the US ?
The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to
weaken him and then force him to take the positions the deep
state wants him to take. Among the many problems he has he is
only an apprentice.
Trump's Muslim ban is not about terrorism or keeping America
safe. Otherwise Saudia Arabia would have been on the top of
list. This is about countries that stand against the US/Israel
agenda.
https://www.darkmoon.me/ /dona..
.
This guy should take Wolf Blitzer's job and expose the truth on
the national media. Blitzer can be consigned to telling risible
lies on You Tube, as should most of the jokers in the so-called
mainstream media.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
All those demonstrating against Trump are a asset to the deep
state. I can't understand why those demonstrators in the UK/EU
bashing Trump, there are more pressing reasons to demonstrate
in the UK, poverty, austerity, families relying on food banks
that the supermarkets have thrown out, where are the marches
against that obscenity, instead of going along with the agenda
of the Clinton band wagon, those causing havoc in the US/UK/EU,
would be better employed in demonstrating against those who have
created all those immigrants Muslim or otherwise in the first
place, ie; bush blair obama the clintons etc; time those out on
the streets got their priorities right.
People attacking Trump after 11 days in office, NEVER criticized
Mrs. Clinton, Obama forblowing up and killing hundreds of
thousands in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, the phony bought and
paid for Establishment Liberals who only call them 'war crimes '
when an (R) is attached to the Presidents name like: Michael
Moore, Rachael Maddow, Medea Benjamin and Amy Goodman,
all frauds and liars like CNN, CBS and NBC, who ran this slimey
headline:
"Citizens" who speak at town meetings are hired, scripted actors
"Last December, the town council in Camarillo, a small town in
southern California, a man called Prince Jordan Tyson stood up
and delivered a three minute speech as a "concerned citizen"
about a planned construction project before the council.
Tyson is not a concerned citizen of Camarillo: he's a struggling
actor from Beverly Hills, who was paid $100 to deliver a
scripted position from the podium while misrepresenting himself
as a local, sincere citizen.
Tyson worked for Adam Swart, a recent UCLA grad, who runs a
company called "Crowds on Demand," which hires actors to attend
politicians' campaign meetings, and to deliver scripted dialog
in the guise of concerned citizens. Swart says that he has been
paid by "dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016
presidential candidates" whom he won't name, because if he "did,
nobody would hire us."
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/19/citizens-who-spe...
"... By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... Editor's note: This column first appeared as a chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History, Volume 1, available to download here . ..."
"... "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie." ..."
Posted on
February 1, 2017
by
Yves Smith
By Daron Acemoglu, Professor of Applied Economics, MIT and James
Robinson, Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.
Originally published at
VoxEU
Editor's note: This column first appeared as a
chapter in the Vox eBook, The Long Economic and Political Shadow of History,
Volume 1, available to download
here
.
The immense economic inequality we observe in the world today didn't happen
overnight, or even in the past century. It is the path-dependent outcome of a
multitude of historical processes, one of the most important of which has been
European colonialism. Retracing our steps 500 years, or back to the verge of
this colonial project, we see little inequality and small differences between
poor and rich countries (perhaps a factor of four). Now the differences are a
factor of more than 40, if we compare the richest to the poorest countries in
the world. What role did colonialism play in this?
In our research with Simon Johnson we have shown that colonialism has shaped
modern inequality in several fundamental, but heterogeneous, ways. In Europe
the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of a mass colonial project,
first in the Americas, and then, subsequently, in Asia and Africa, potentially
helped to spur institutional and economic development, thus setting in motion
some of the prerequisites for what was to become the industrial revolution
(Acemoglu et al. 2005). But the way this worked was conditional on
institutional differences within Europe. In places like Britain, where an early
struggle against the monarchy had given parliament and society the upper hand,
the discovery of the Americas led to the further empowerment of mercantile and
industrial groups, who were able to benefit from the new economic opportunities
that the Americas, and soon Asia, presented and to push for improved political
and economic institutions. The consequence was economic growth. In other
places, such as Spain, where the initial political institutions and balance of
power were different, the outcome was different. The monarchy dominated
society, trade and economic opportunities, and in consequence, political
institutions became weaker and the economy declined. As Marx and Engels put it
in the Communist Manifesto,
"The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh
ground for the rising bourgeoisie."
It did, but only in some circumstances. In others it led to a retardation of
the bourgeoisie. In consequence colonialism drove economic development in some
parts of Europe and retarded it in others.
Colonialism did not, however, merely impact the development of those
societies that did the colonising. Most obviously, it also affected the
societies that were colonised. In our research (Acemoglu et al. 2001, 2002) we
showed that this, again, had heterogeneous effects. This is because colonialism
ended up creating very distinct sorts of societies in different places. In
particular, colonialism left very different institutional legacies in different
parts of the world, with profoundly divergent consequences for economic
development.
The reason for this is not that the various European powers transplanted
different sorts of institutions – so that North America succeeded due to an
inheritance of British institutions, while Latin America failed because of its
Spanish institutions.
In fact, the evidence suggests that the intentions and strategies of
distinct colonial powers were very similar (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012). The
outcomes were very different because of variation in initial conditions in the
colonies. For example, in Latin America, where there were dense populations of
indigenous people, a colonial society could be created based on the
exploitation of these people. In North America where no such populations
existed, such a society was infeasible, even though the first British settlers
tried to set it up. In response, early North American society went in a
completely different direction: early colonising ventures, such as the Virginia
Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them running off into the open
frontier and they needed to incentivise them to work and invest. The
institutions that did this, such as political rights and access to land, were
radically different even from the institutions in the colonising country. When
British colonisers found Latin-American-like circumstances, for example in
South Africa, Kenya or Zimbabwe, they were perfectly capable of and interested
in setting up what we have called 'extractive institutions', based on the
control of and the extraction of rents from indigenous peoples. In Acemoglu and
Robinson (2012) we argue that extractive institutions, which strip the vast
mass of the population of incentives or opportunities, are associated with
poverty. It is also not a coincidence that such African societies are today as
unequal as Latin American countries.
It wasn't just the density of indigenous peoples that mattered for the type
of society that formed. As we showed in Acemoglu et al. (2001), the disease
environment facing potential European settlers was also important. Something
that encouraged the colonisation of North America was the relatively benign
disease environment that facilitated the strategy of creating institutions to
guarantee European migration. Something that encouraged the creation of
extractive institutions in West Africa was the fact that it was the 'white
man's graveyard', discouraging the creation of the type of 'inclusive economic
institutions' which encouraged the settlement and development of North America.
These inclusive institutions, in contrast to extractive institutions, did
create incentives and opportunities for the vast mass of people.
Our focus on the disease environment as a source of variation in colonial
societies was not because we considered this to be the only or even the main
source of variation in the nature of such societies. It was for a particular
scientific reason: we argued that the historical factors that influenced the
disease environment for Europeans and therefore their propensity to migrate to
a particular colony are not themselves a significant source of variation in
economic development today. More technically, this meant that historical
measures of European settler mortality could be used as an instrumental
variable to estimate the causal effect of economic institutions on economic
development (as measured by income per-capita). The main challenge to this
approach is that factors which influenced European mortality historically may
be persistent and can influence income today, perhaps via effects on health or
contemporary life expectancy. There are several reasons why this is not likely
to be true however. First, our measures of European mortality in the colonies
are from 200 or so years ago, before the founding of modern medicine or the
understanding of tropical diseases. Second, they are measures of mortality
faced by Europeans with no immunity to tropical diseases, which is something
very different from the mortality faced by indigenous people today, which is
presumably what is relevant for current economic development in these
countries. Just to check, we also showed that our results are robust to the
controlling econometrically of various modern measures of health, such as
malaria risk and life expectancy.
Thus, just as colonialism had heterogeneous effects on development within
Europe, promoting it in places like Britain, but retarding it in Spain, so it
also had very heterogeneous effects in the colonies. In some places, like North
America, it created societies with far more inclusive institutions than in the
colonising country itself and planted the seeds for the immense current
prosperity of the region. In others, such as Latin America, Africa or South
Asia, it created extractive institutions that led to very poor long-run
development outcomes.
The fact that colonialism had positive effects on development in some
contexts does not mean that it did not have devastating negative effects on
indigenous populations and society. It did.
That colonialism in the early modern and modern periods had heterogeneous
effects is made plausible by many other pieces of evidence. For example, Putnam
(1994) proposed that it was the Norman conquest of the South of Italy that
created the lack of 'social capital' in the region, the dearth of associational
life that led to a society that lacked trust or the ability to cooperate. Yet
the Normans also colonised England and that led to a society which gave birth
to the industrial revolution. Thus Norman colonisation had heterogeneous
effects too.
Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions of
different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at least
in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places that
managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal and
Thailand, amongst others, and there is a great deal of variation in development
outcomes within these countries, not to mention the great variation within
Europe itself. This raises the question of how important, quantitatively,
European colonialism was, compared to other factors. Acemoglu et al. (2001)
calculate that, according to their estimates, differences in economic
institutions account for about two-thirds of the differences in income
per-capita in the world. At the same time, Acemoglu et al. (2002) show that, on
their own, historical settler mortality and indigenous population density in
1500 explain around 30% of the variation in economic institutions in the world
today. If historical urbanisation in 1500, which can also explain variation in
the nature of colonial societies, is added, this increases to over 50% of the
variation. If this is right, then a third of income inequality in the world
today can be explained by the varying impact of European colonialism on
different societies. A big deal.
That colonialism shaped the historical institutions of colonies might be
obviously plausible. For example, we know that, in Peru of the 1570s, the
Spanish Viceroy Francisco de Toledo set up a huge system of forced labour to
mine the silver of Potosí. But this system, the Potosí mita, was abolished in
the 1820s, when Peru and Bolivia became independent. To claim that such an
institution, or, more broadly, the institutions created by colonial powers all
over the world, influence development today, is to make a claim about how
colonialism influenced the political economy of these societies in a way which
led these institutions to either directly persist, or to leave a path dependent
legacy. The coerced labour of indigenous peoples lasted directly up until at
least the 1952 Bolivian Revolution, when the system known as pongueaje was
abolished. More generally, Acemoglu and Robinson (2012, Chapters 11 and 12) and
Dell (2010) discuss many mechanisms via which this could have taken place.
Finally, it is worth observing that our empirical findings have important
implications for alterative theories of comparative development. Some argue
that geographical differences are dominant in explaining long-run patterns of
development. In contradistinction, we showed that once the role of institutions
is accounted for, geographical factors are not correlated with development
outcomes. The fact that, for instance, there is a correlation between latitude
and geography, is not indicative of a causal relationship. It is simply driven
by the fact that European colonialism created a pattern of institutions that is
correlated with latitude. Once this is controlled for, geographical variables
play no causal role. Others argue that cultural differences are paramount in
driving development. We found no role at all for cultural differences measured
in several ways. First, the religious composition of different populations.
Second, as we have emphasised, the identity of the colonial power. Third, the
fraction of the population of a country of European descent. It is true, of
course, that the United States and Canada filled up with Europeans, but in our
argument this was an outcome of the fact that they had good institutions. It is
not the numerical dominance of people of European descent today that drives
development.
Not that I want to defend colonialism, but growing inequality both in Europe
and in the ex-colonies makes it hard to argue that 'colonialism' is a driving
force.
I think colonialism could be a driving force without necessarily being
the sole driving force. Yes, inequality is on the rise in the first world as
well, but as of a few years ago the highest Gini bracket in Europe was still
the lowest in Central and South America. So there's a difference in scale.
Capitalism, especially neoliberal financial capitalism, is unstable on its
own and rapidly produces gross inequality independent of the starting point -
just like the game of monopoly. Colonialism, a particular type of theft
capitalism, may have created earlier states of inequality, but today's
inequality would exist independent of this earlier state. The root cause is
compounding growth/profits/ interest as Michael Hudson has explained.
One can expand this study by overlaying other types of colonialism. For
example Spain suffered more than 700 years of Arab colonialism and succeeded in
throwing off the Arab yoke just as they started their own colonial project in
the Americas. How much of the failure of the institutions the Spanish left in
the Americas is the result of faulty institutions the Arabs brought to Spain?
And how does one study areas the were first colonized by Arabs (North
Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, India, etc.) Are the problems in Algeria today more
the result of Arab colonialism or French colonialism?
And how many of the problems today in Russia are a result of Mongol
colonialism - and for that matter the same question could be asked about the
Middle East? That area has suffered so many layers of colonialism (Arab,
Mongol, Ottoman, European) that it would take a sort of archaeologist to figure
out which problems are a result of which colonialism.
There were no Arabs in India. Persians and Mongols, yes. Hindu India was
the coloniser in the East all the way to Indonesia. Also, both China and
Japan have been colonized by Hindu/ Buddhist Institutions whose legacy can
be seen even now.
Euhm, this isn't personal, but imagine your response if someone took that
para of yours and changed Spain to US, Arab Colonialism with Scots/Irish
Colonialism, and cheered on their eradication and marginalization at the
hands of, say, a realpolitik/nationalist politician, who justifies said
actions by talking about how he's "liberating" Appalachia. Problematic, no?
Arabs had been living in Spain for centuries under thug rule before a
bunch of "christian" thugs thought up the idea to "justify" a
handily-marketed "re"conquest of areas that had never really belonged to
them, and which did not contain "relatives", while the Christianity of the
people displaced by the arabs was pretty much equally novel - at best 200yo.
Not really sure it's apt to compare that to the western
colonization/eradication efforts that started with the expansion of Spain to
the south, then west.
It's worth pointing out that in the USA, extractive institutions WERE
created in places where tobacco and cotton can be grown. However, the yields
aren't great once you get north of Maryland (for tobacco) and I think even
further south for cotton. The northeast of the USA didn't really have much that
they could export to Britain, profitably.
It's clear that development is driven by good quality institutions, but the
real question is whether geography determined the nature of colonial era
institutions that took root.
But that's not to dispute the argument that colonial institutions created a
kind of path dependency that left a lasting legacy that still overshadows
present conditions.
I always suspected Social Sciences, especially Economics of being a mumbo
jumbo. This article strengthens my belief in that direction. It was not
"institutions" but guns and gun powder that created the European colonial
empires( though failing in China ). The genocide of native American peoples
coupled with slave African labour accelerated economic development and not
institutions. The same was the case with India.The article is very high on the
unreadability index; mumbo jumbo at least requires a minimum measure of style
that the authors lack in the English language.Savagery of Christianity in face
of more sophisticated and refined ways of life like those of the Hindus in
India is another factor that created inequality and not "institutions" which
Indian Hindu States had in enough supplies as even a cursory glance at the
history of colonialism in those parts will reveal. And now China has really
developed and it is time all European Parliaments must declare their activities
on other shores as Genocidal and apologise and pay compensations to those
countries where they did their Projects!
This did not make clear to me what colonialism is. A elite group from one
society or region moves into another region to exploit people and resources.
Tactics are to weaken defenses (war, destroy food supplies) and get buy in from
selected groups, yet maintain the majority of the gains for themselves.
I can't think of societies that haven't had some type of political system
nor inequality among individuals and groups so is colonialism referring to
inequality between nations (excluding regions) with an specific form of
governing (official elections) and distance? I'm thinking of a checkerboard .
if the elite from one region move into a neighboring region, install themselves
as the ruling class and institute slavery that is not colonialism. If the elite
from one region skip a couple of squares, install themselves as the ruling
class and institute slavery, that is colonialism.
Exploitation is universal, because of greed and fear. If you can exploit,
you most often do. When exploitation isn't about individuals, or companies
but about peoples and nations, that is colonialism. The West is suffering from
internal colonialism now as well, as Marx predicted.
Study the Romans, read about Augustus Cesar, reach and understanding
Plebs and Patricians. The west "is suffering" from the same rule it modeled
itself upon.
If this is a foretaste of the rest of the book, it is thin gruel, suffering
from the usual Anglo-American myopia. You want to talk about colonialism
without talking about the Portuguese and how they differed? Discussion of North
and South America with no mention of Brazil?
I am reminded again that in my advertisements and in many parts of the U S
of A, "bilingual" = speaking U.S. English + New World Spanish.
No wonder we are where we are, Gini-quotient-wise.
"such as the Virginia Company, needed to attract Europeans and stop them
running off into the open frontier"
"As a part of the early history of Virginia, Jefferson once made reference
to "The wild Irish who had gotten possession of the valley between the
Blueridge and Northmountain,"
It is difficult for me to detect any coherent argument in this very poorly
informed piece.
"Colonialism mattered for development because it shaped the institutions
of different societies. But many other things influenced these too, and, at
least in the early modern and modern period, there were quite a few places
that managed to avoid colonialism. These include China, Iran, Japan, Nepal
and Thailand, amongst others."
How does this make any sense at all? Have the authors even heard of the
Opium Wars, or Hong Kong? If so, how are they defining "colonialism?"
The vast slave labor plantations of the antebellum South reflect how the
Virginia Company "incentivized" people "to work and invest through
"institutions" "such as political rights and access to land."??!!??
The authors appear to believe that the Norman conquest of 1066 is a
"colonizing" event similar to that of the Belgian colonization of the Congo,
yet the British rule over Hong Kong isn't "colonialism" at all. Any
undergraduate student who proposed such nonsense– in a Western Civ. class–
would certainly fail the course!
Why do we continue to wade about in this trumped-up confusion as concerns a
clear understanding of the operations of the European colonial outbreak, and
especially Settler Colonialism?
Wherever possible, and by that I mean wherever there was arable land
available, the colonial powers, in particular, Britain, either enticed, or
forced a settler population to supplant the indigenous people, and if
necessary, kill them.
The history is confusing only because our masters wish us to remain ignorant
of its true nature, and its ramifications concerning modern political reality.
The Brits colonized Ireland and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized South Africa and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized North America and imposed 'order' by injecting a settler
population.
They colonized Palastine imposed 'order' by injecting a settler population,
which continues to this day.
The truth about all this was, and is actively suppressed, and obfuscated by
the very people who pretend to study, analyze, and explain history, both in
academia, and media.
Please excuse me if I point out my uncomfortable suspicion that articles
like this are intended to further cloud our collective ability to understand
the deep history of how and why we are 'managed' for profit.
For instance, does it make our current treatment at the hands of America's
elite more understandable if we consider the fact that maybe we've served our
'purpose' and are no longer needed, or appreciated except as a source of
end-game extraction?
At least based on the above, no mention of the Ottoman Empire either, which
had (and has) enormous influence on the development of much of the Middle East
and the Balkans (and of course the Ottoman Empire is not the same as the Arab
conquests). I seriously question, in fact whether "colonialism" is actually a
useful concept here or whether it's just too vague to tell us anything.
"He's what a lot of Americans would be if they had a
billion dollars."
Updated by Sean Illing
Feb 1, 2017, 9:30am EST
"Pull a lever for me and you'll horrify them all."
That's how journalist and author Matt Taibbi describes the
proposition Donald Trump made to the electorate in 2016. For
the past year, Taibbi has covered Trump for Rolling Stone.
His latest book, Insane Clown President: Dispatches From the
2016 Circus, is a collection of long- and shortform articles
drawn from that experience.
To read the pieces in chronological order is to witness a
familiar journey: In the beginning, like so many people,
Taibbi saw Trump's candidacy as a joke. But then he went to
Iowa and saw that something was afoot. Trump had tapped into
a reservoir of resentment.
And then there was the performative aspect. The way he
talked, the way he behaved, the way he treated other
candidates - it was obscene and spellbinding all at once.
Trump treated the campaign like a reality TV show, sucking
all the oxygen out of the room. It was a perfect marriage of
amorality and shamelessness.
"In a perverse way," Taibbi wrote in August 2015, "Trump
has restored a more pure democracy to this process. He's
taken the Beltway thinkfluencers out of the game and turned
the presidency into a pure high-school-style popularity
contest conducted entirely in the media."
The wave of spectacle-driven rage that Trump rode in the
primaries carried him all the way to the White House. The
people who voted for Trump knew they were voting for
dynamite, Taibbi argues, and that was the point: to extend a
giant middle finger to the establishment.
I sat down with Taibbi last week to talk about the seeds
of this resentment. I also asked him why he still felt
blindsided by the election, and why he thinks Trump was able
to circumnavigate all the institutional checks that normally
prevent someone like him from ascending to the presidency.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Sean Illing
In 2009, you wrote a book called The Great Derangement in
which you talked about various fringe political movements
around the country. A big theme was the loss of trust in
national institutions, like Congress and the media. You even
described a possible future in which politics "stopped being
about ideology and instead turned into a problem of
information."
That reads like prophecy now. What did you see in 2009?
Matt Taibbi
The main thing was that I saw people tuning out the media. A
lot of us have this idea that the truth has a kind of magical
power, that if the truth is out there it will convince the
country to unite behind it. But this isn't so. People can
simply decide to not believe a version of events now. They
can shop for information the same way they'd shop for
everything else, and they pick the reality they find most
pleasing.
Back when I was thinking about the rapture movement or the
9/11 truther movement, what struck me was that there are
bubbles now that you can stay in and you don't have to engage
with reality if you don't want to. So it occurred to me that
in the future, people might decide en masse to completely
tune out. Even the idea of having a debate with people about
a commonly accepted body of facts seemed to be slipping away
at the time.
And that's kind of what happened in this election. It was
one group of people believing one thing and another group of
people seeing something completely different.
Sean Illing
Some of this is justified insofar as people, some more than
others, feel left behind both economically and culturally.
When people feel disinvested in the system, it's a lot easier
to tune out.
Matt Taibbi
Exactly. We've had this slow, suffocating decline in the real
value of people's salaries. Real opportunities are shrinking.
Everybody has to work more. There's more debt. There's a
broad perception that the mainstream media was in league with
this group of elitist forces that were hoarding all of the
winnings from society and slowly squeezing everyone else out.
What I learned talking to people around the country is
that the press was seen as the enemy, as part of the
grinding, broken system. And that's why they didn't trust us
anymore. Fair or not, that was the perception.
Sean Illing
How much does Trump remind you of Nixon?
Matt Taibbi
When Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Nixon, he was responding
to a man he saw as symbolic of his time, a kind of monster of
his age. Nixon's personality represented this darkness that
was at the heart of everything wrong with America at the
time. And Trump is an equivalent figure in that way. But he's
not the same kind of person as Nixon. Nixon had many levels
to his personality; he was a thinker, well-educated, a
schemer. Trump is just a bundle of disorganized urges. He's
what a lot of Americans would be if they had a billion
dollars: They'd build grotesque castles, bang models, and
grow fat.
So in that sense, Trump represents something horrible
about all of us, and that's what reminds me of Nixon.
Sean Illing
I admit, I was slow to recognize what was happening last
year. For months I insisted Trump would fold, one way or the
other. Some of it was cognitive dissonance; some of it was
pure denialism. I just got it wrong.
At what point did you say, "Holy shit, this guy can win
the whole thing"?
Matt Taibbi
I went through a couple different stages with this. When he
first entered the race, I thought it was a joke. And then I
went through this period where I went to Iowa and realized
that the field of Republican candidates he was running
against were comically lightweight. At that point, I believed
he was absolutely going to win the nomination. I think when
he survived his attack on John McCain, it was even clearer.
But later, like everyone else, I fell victim to the
popular myths about the invincibility of the Obama coalition.
I ran into a Democratic operative at the RNC and he laid out
all these crazy things that had to happen in order for Trump
to win a general election, and I totally bought it. I knew
Clinton was weak, but I believed she would win. Obviously
that was a mistake.
I should've gone with what I was seeing, and what I was
seeing was Trump generating an enormous amount of energy on
the campaign trail, and also that Clinton was the perfect
opponent for him. It was all right there, in front of us, but
I didn't trust my instincts.
Sean Illing
I'm still convinced this guy never wanted to be president.
Hell, he hired a bunch of actors to stand in front of him
when made his campaign announcement speech. My sense is that
this was an exercise in brand promotion that, at some point,
exploded into something real.
Matt Taibbi
Ha! You know, Trump's foray into this campaign reminded me of
this boxer, Peter McNeeley, who fought Mike Tyson right after
he got out of jail. So McNeeley was this terrible white boxer
with a mullet who got a chance to fight Tyson at the right
time. The whole thing was like a frat dare. McNeeley got
himself all pumped up and he just ran to the center of ring,
right into Tyson's fist, and he just collapsed onto the mat.
I thought Trump's campaign would be like that: He'd go into
it with a full head of steam, and it would be fantastic for a
month or two.
But then he ran into the total stupidity of America that
embraced every dumb thing about him, and that chemically
interacted with his narcissistic personality and it turned
into this unstoppable force.
Sean Illing
Another part of this story is how craftily Trump played the
media throughout the campaign. The media was the perfect
punching bag, the perfect "cultural villain," as you put it.
He just rope-a-doped us all the way to the White House.
Matt Taibbi
He tuned in to the fact that all of us are slaves to ratings,
even if we pretend that we're not. To be fair, individually a
lot us try to do what we know we ought to do, but the reality
is that we work for companies that have to make money. Trump
understands that, and he understands that he was making
everyone money. He knew we'd keep the lights on. He knew we
needed him as much as he needed us.
Sean Illing
He was also tuned in to the rampant anti-media sentiment out
there. After every offense - insulting veterans, menstrual
jokes, mocking a disabled reporter, threatening to kill the
family members of terrorists, offering to pay the legal fees
of supporters who pummel protesters, the "grab 'em by the
pussy" scandal - he attacked the press, and most of his
supporters loved it. Whoever he offended or whatever he lied
about was an afterthought.
Matt Taibbi
Absolutely. We see ourselves as the defenders of the public
good, but so many of the people I talked to on the campaign
trail see the press as the agents of political correctness,
as self-important do-gooders who take every opportunity to
mock and punish people who don't think and talk and act like
we do. Trump was defying all of this, and peopled loved the
fact that he stood up to us.
Sean Illing
You say in the book that Trump basically went to the American
people and said, "Pull a lever for me and you'll horrify them
all." And 60 million people said, "I'm in."
Matt Taibbi
Again, you have all these people on the progressive side
asking themselves, "How can all these Trump voters not be
thinking about the reality of what a Trump presidency would
look like?" And it just reflects a total misunderstanding of
the thought process on the other side. This is about living
from second to second, and they just wanted that rush that
they were going to get when they saw the looks on our faces
when Trump got elected.
The reality of what comes next is totally secondary.
Sean Illing
An interesting question moving forward is how do we cover
Trump in a way that's illuminating but also not
counterproductive or amenable to the anti-media narrative
he's spinning?
Matt Taibbi
It's a really great question because Trump has this ability
to turn everyone in his orbit into a reality TV character,
and he's turned the media into one. We're starting to behave
radically, more emotionally, in a way we're giving in to the
demands that the public has to ditch our normal approach to
things and to be more alarmist in our reporting.
That's exactly the wrong approach, though I get it. I
realize this is ridiculous coming from a guy who just wrote a
book with the title "Insane Clown President," but I think we
should slowly, methodically focus on the hard facts of
everything he's doing and not get into flame wars and
distractions and soap operas.
It's not our job to take on Trump and beat him; our job is
to do what we do.
Sean Illing
In the book, you write that Trump is "as likely driven by gas
as ideology." He's got Steve Bannon, the intellectual light
of the alt-right, as his chief strategist. His Cabinet is
full of military generals, bankers, and billionaires -
there's really no coherent ideological thread holding it
together.
What prospect worries you more: that Trump is a
ratings-chasing nihilist or that he might actually believe
all the things he said on the trail?
Matt Taibbi
Both of those outcomes are extremely dangerous. If he's just
a tool for an evil racist revolutionary like Bannon, who
actually has a brain in his head and is capable of strategic
thought, that would be really bad. If he's just an amoral
narcissistic lunatic, as he appears to be, that's also bad. I
could easily see him hate-tweeting us into a war.
So neither scenario is terribly heartening. If it's just
him being crazy, well, the president has a lot of power and
that could go tragically wrong. If it's him being a puppet or
a willing conspirator in this alt-right revolution, that's
just as frightening.
It's like that scene in Goodwill Hunting: "Do you want the
belt, the stick, or the wrench?" Shit, I don't want any of
them.
Sean Illing
I talked to one of Trump's biographers recently, and he
echoed something I've heard from a lot of people, which is
that Trump only cares about his popularity and that he'll do
whatever he thinks will boost his ratings. That's almost
comforting, but every indication so far is that Trump is
pushing full steam ahead on the promises he made during the
campaign.
Now, signing executive orders doesn't mean things
magically happen, but it's an indicator that he intends to
advance policies that are popular with his base but not with
the majority of the country.
Matt Taibbi
I think he's spent so much time with these sycophants who
worship him and have responded positively to his loony ideas
about the wall and the Muslim ban that he feels pressure to
live up to the image of Trump as the savior and rescuer even
though it's not winning him a whole lot of popularity among
the majority of the country. He still seems to care intensely
about things like his ratings, otherwise why make all this
noise about mythical voter fraud or crowd sizes?
So I think the biographer is mostly right. I don't have
any idea what that will mean for the next four years,
however.
Sean Illing
Speaking of the next four years, your book ends on a
pessimistic note. You basically declare the dream of unified
country dead. Is it that dark?
Matt Taibbi
Yeah, I think it is.
Sean Illing
Are you encouraged at all by the massive protests or the fact
that Trump is historically unpopular?
Matt Taibbi
Not enough to feel especially hopeful about the future. I
lived in Russia for several years and one of the things that
struck me is how naive I had been growing up in the United
States. If you grew up in America, you have no idea how bad
it can get. The possibilities for awfulness in human
experience are far beyond what we're used to.
I think we're just beginning to see how bad things can
get. We have an illusion of stability thanks to our wealth
and geography and the fact that we're still a young country.
We take so much for granted. As Yeats said, things can fall
apart. The center doesn't hold forever.
I see things starting to fray here and it's unsettling.
Sean Illing
Political order is perilously contingent, and that's a lesson
America hasn't learned in a long time.
Matt Taibbi
That's exactly right. I'm not sure how this will play out,
but it feels like we're at the beginning of something.
Many, if not, most democrats also believe in "jobs" and look
on social welfare with puritan disdain. I think it will take
at least a couple of generations for USAnians to discard
their puritan economic beliefs and acknowledge that capital
should be shared (and/or even collectively owned).
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign
Terrorist Entry Into the United States." Following is the language of that order, as supplied by
the White House.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq
., and section
301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by
foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose
.
The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals
with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was
that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy
prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19
foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process
was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from
receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the
United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes
since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving
visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement
program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest
increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The
United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for
admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country
do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and
should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies
over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry
or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution
of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of
any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals
who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign
nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries
of Particular Concern
.
(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine
the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under
the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the
individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director
of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described
in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of
the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information,
within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy
of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period
described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization
of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards
are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the
United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12),
would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United
States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
(excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding
the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments
that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals
within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President
a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit
the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2,
G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary
of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional
countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential
proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security
may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report
on the progress in implementing this orderwithin 30 days of the date of this order, a second report
within 60 daysof the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order,
and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs
.
(a) The
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication
process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a
fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to
their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure,
such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure
that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include
questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that
the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood
of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions
to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to
commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director
of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to
the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this
order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days
of the date of this order.
Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017
.
(a) The
Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During
the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security
and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application
and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those
approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States,
and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process
may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that
is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only
for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures
are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law,
to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided
that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation
to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend
any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the
USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry
of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions
would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,
the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the
United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they
determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest - including
when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution,
when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting
international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause
undue hardship - and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of
the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals
on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit
a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable,
State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement
in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that
end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which,
consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the
process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall
devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility
.
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General,
consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating
to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking
system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress
of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted
within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of
the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this
order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is
fully deployed and operational.
Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security
.
(a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the
Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which
requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject
to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary
of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing
the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language
training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of
their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are
not unduly affected.
Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity
.
The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant
visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly
reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections
221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not
treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of
State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment
of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection
.
(a) To be more transparent with the American
people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent
with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and
every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged
with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses
while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity,
affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security
reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been
radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have
provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the
United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women,
including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order
or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary
of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of
foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report
on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Sec. 11. General Provisions
.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability
of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies,
or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
"... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
"... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
"... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'
President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence
and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.
Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out
of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."
Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the
head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining
to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."
"This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan,
DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."
DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.
In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee
is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989.
Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the
DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.
Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the
breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns
about Bannon.
"I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one,"
he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment
of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern
this quote reorganization."
Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings.
And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"
And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.
"Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."
And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from
Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."
The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked
to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.
There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January
22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I
love you. I respect you."
Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that
Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the
word intelligence in quotes.
In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend
international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges
must remain equally adaptive and transformative."
Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary,
the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the
President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.
I, too, am worried by our descent into prewar hatred. I had a friend from Dubrovnik in the'80s.
She was a typical Yugoslav – half Croatian, quarter Serbian, and a quarter Russian. She was full
of hope, smart, pretty, and heartbreakingly naïve. If she survived the war, I'm pretty sure my friend
lost what made her a beautiful human being. She haunts me. Civil wars seem implausible until they
start and then they follow the devil's logic. People like my friend tend to die in them or turn into
something less than they were in order to survive.
I'm an old man now working on my doctorate through a senior citizens' scholarship. I grew on the
North-East Coast. I live in the rural South now. I know people from everywhere because I've been
around a long time. Comfortable people from the cities, Democrat or Republican, want to hit someone,
hard but they have by and large never worn a uniform or had a gun pointed at their heads. They're
frustrated which makes sense but they don't know when a bloody fight is coming. You can smell it
coming like folks down here can smell a tornado or like mothers smell death on its way and snatch
their children off the front porch.
Here in Flyover Country things are bad, really bad. I recently visited family in Northern California.
Things were pretty nice. Not opulent by any means but the shelves were stocked. Security guards in
Target let the kids play around. Around here – not so much. Not so much as a Target. We have long
lines, empty shelves, and the kids, black and white, always seem aware that they're not safe. Comfortable
people in cities worry about reproductive health care. We worry about getting a four-dollar antibiotic
for pneumonia at Wal-Mart without having to spend several hundred bucks for the prescription (real
life experience with insurance). Our mean income is about a quarter of Northern California's. Housing
is cheaper but it's not cheap and it's a lot worse housing. Food and utilities are a lot more expensive.
Everything including food and medicine is taxed. We're dying here, slowly perhaps but we're dying
none the less.
Even so, my Democrat and Republican friends and family from the coasts couldn't care less about
my neighbors. They couldn't care less about fifteen years of war or the kids we send to fight it
or the kids our kids kill. I understand. It's only natural to look to one's own interests and what
happens in Natchez or Mosul doesn't hit home. However, they're all angry – angry at Flyover people
for being sick and poor and tired of being cannon fodder. And so I have to listen to why we don't
deserve jobs or health care because we're stupid. We should move or die because markets. I had to
justify FDR, religion, the very idea of peace, and social solidarity. I have to defend unions and
explain why my state voted for Trump – sometimes to the same person. I have to advocate for veterans,
the majority of cops that don't murder kids, and BLM while I'm trying to eat my potatoes. It's exhausting.
It's depressing.
Statistics show that urban areas are 'bluer'. They have better health care, better functioning
government, and better opportunities. However, not all urban dwellers are comfortable. Chicago has
world class hospitals, universities, and pizza. It also has an astronomical murder rate and a police
force that got caught torturing its citizens. It has a deep blue machine that excels in privatization.
Blue cities are rough with their mostly black and brown poor citizens but poor whites suffer too.
I know. I spent decades doing social work in city hell-scapes. I know what it's like to step over
bodies and have people bleed all over me. Crime isn't out of control when statistics say so. Crime
is out of control when you or people you love get hurt. Likewise, cops shooting unarmed black people
is a problem; cops shooting unarmed white people is a problem; people deciding to start an idiosyncratic
revolution by shooting cops is a problem; criminals killing kids is also a problem. Statistics and
social theory don't really matter at a child's funeral. Life is statistically better in blue enclaves
but there is a difference between Compton and Hollywood, Brookline and Dorchester, Harlem and Manhattan.
That's a brute fact that uncomfortable people face every day.
Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban poor fight the never-ending wars. We provide commodities
like food and coal and oil and metals. We provide cheap labor. Comfortable people have decided that
most of us aren't really needed. Immigration, free trade, and automation have made us redundant but
we're not going away. At least we're not going away fast. Flyover people and the uncomfortable urban
poor have no real place in establishment Democratic or Republican thinking. We are the establishment's
problem and the establishment is our problem.
Where do we go from here? Bernie had some good answers to some burning questions. Trump has some
very questionable answers to the same problems. I don't know if the Anarchists on Inauguration Day
had any answers but they recognized the problem. The comfortable people who posed with pussy hats
leave me questioning whether this country can or even should be saved. The comfortable protesters
certainly have the legal right to their comfortable lives and they have the legal right to advocate
for war with Russia and they have the legal right to hate the President and wear silly hats. They
have a legal right to despise the Deplorables and to petition to have sleeping homeless people removed
from their places of business. They have the legal right to demand respect for their sexual choices.
They have these legal rights because the government guarantees them and if they tear down the civic
peace of government, who will protect these rights? I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see
the postmodern farce of Madonna in an orange prison jumper. Is she supposed to be King Christian
wearing the Star of David during Nazi occupation? Are Ashley Judd And Julia Roberts supposed to be
our Red Emma and our pistol packing Connie Markowitz? Is Lena Durham supposed to be our Marianne
or our Greece Expiring on the Ruins of Missolonghi? What I really want to know is will those people
drinking Starbucks die with us on the barricades because the differences between guerrilla theater
and guerrilla war are getting really blurry.
I don't want to get too snarky but I am getting pretty cranky. Revolutions, as Lenin insisted,
are not tea parties. In revolutions resisters get shot for showing courage; in films about revolutions
actors get applause for making a courageous performance. The Democratic Resistance may be as silly
looking as Teapartiers dressed in revolutionary drag but it is much more dangerous. In 2008, Obama
was really popular and he had the support of his own party. Obama failed to ram through his agenda
because he refused to rally the people who put him into office. By the time the Republicans hamstrung
his administration, he had already lost his momentum. Obama was defeated in the Massachusetts senatorial
campaign and by his failure to support Wisconsin's unions. McConnel's obstructionism and Trump's
birtherism were obnoxious but they didn't destroy Obama's agenda. Failure to push for card check,
Medicare for all, voter registration, prosecuting Wall Street fraud and war crimes, new trade deals,
authorizing the extra-judicial murder of US citizens, and overthrowing the government in Guatemala,
Ukraine, and Libya were the real disasters.
In 2016, Trump is much less popular than Obama in 2008. His most progressive polices (which he
shared with Sanders) like reversing trade agreements, renegotiating drug prices, building infrastructure,
and stopping a war with Russia depend on Democratic support. His own party hates him. Impeaching
or (God forbid) assassinating Trump would throw the entire government into the hands of Pence and
Ryan. That would re-gear the war on Russia, reinstate the trade deals and guarantee the end of the
New Deal and the Civil Rights era. Does anyone on the so-called Left really think that's a good idea?
There'd be a real fight then; the kind where lots of people die in loud and messy ways. Who is going
to do the fighting and dying then? I don't think it's going to be the people in pussy hats but I'm
sure I'll be going to plenty of funerals if I live that long.
The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace
By Tulsi Gabbard
As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last
week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people.
Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians
and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace.
It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America's interest, and
it certainly isn't in the interest of the Syrian people.
We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city.
The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of
these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get
back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they
want.
I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the
country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia,
and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows
and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government.
I met Lebanon's newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon
Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda
of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers,
academics, college students, small business owners, and more.
Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between
"moderate" rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS - they are all the same. This is a war between
terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They
cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and
her people.
I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable
horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not
been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime
change war at the expense of Syrian lives.
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were
quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported
by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters,
occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them
in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012,
when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder,
would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their
living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He
was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused
to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are
treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable
to them.
Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their
adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi
jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it
would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions
have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms,
they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria
using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully
toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt
it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance
it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.
I met these amazing women from Barzi, many of whom have husbands or family members who are
fighting with al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, or with the Syrian army. When they come to this community center,
all of that is left behind, as they spend time with new friends, learning different skills like
sewing, making plans for their future. They were strangers before coming to this community center
whose mission is empowering these women, and now they are " sisters" sharing laughter and tears
together.
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the
Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change,
each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups
like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately
and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly
by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda
and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support
these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention
on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S.
and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to
try to recover from this terrible war.
"... Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said. ..."
"... "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria. ..."
"... Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians. ..."
"... I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. ..."
"They asked me, why is the United States and its allies supporting these terrorist groups who are
destroying Syria when it was al Qaida who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't
have an answer for them," Gabbard said.
"The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question
to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate
rebels that people keep speaking of?
Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is
al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said.
"There is a number of different, other groups -- all of them essentially are fighting alongside,
with, or under the command of the strongest group on the ground that's trying to overthrow Assad.
"The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida
-- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their
religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of
Syria.
"This is the reality that the people of Syria are facing on the ground, and why they are pleading
with us here in the United States to stop supporting these terrorist groups. Let the Syrian people
themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country."
... ... ...
I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were
quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported
by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters,
occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them
in their fight to overthrow the government.
I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012,
when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder,
would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their
living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.
I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He
was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused
to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are
treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable
to them.
Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about
their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the
Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state,
it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all
religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to
seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change
war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they
work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.
... ... ...
I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow
the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime
change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening
of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately
and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly
by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda
and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support
these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention
on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.
The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S.
and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to
try to recover from this terrible war.
"... If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories, videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too. ..."
"... By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded. ..."
"... Americans are the most apathetic population on earth ..."
"... Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths, who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder. ..."
"... They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive. ..."
"... They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob. The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen. ..."
"... They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute, and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting. ..."
"... I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS. ..."
"... This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ." ..."
"... The Masque of the Red Death ..."
"... And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms they sold (or failed to sell) to us. ..."
"... I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole. And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city ..."
"... The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths. ..."
"... The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube. Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping? ..."
"... Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway, for a considerable sum of course. ..."
"... IF collapse came, I absolutely WOULD go on a 1%er hunt. Open season. ..."
"... Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off. ..."
"... I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF. ..."
"... Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US, and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). ..."
"... Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship). ..."
"... "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out of the plane." ..."
"... buying airstrips and farms ..."
"... Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws. ..."
"... English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship, and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand. ..."
"... "If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand, then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of the world, that's not a bad thing. ..."
"... NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship was "ridiculous", English said. ..."
If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately
for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories,
videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and
famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too.
By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which
are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways
and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded.
If you want to see the future watch Idiocracy not the French Revolution. Americans are
the most apathetic population on earth .
Maybe they just have different priorities? Maybe they have come from countries where life looks
like "the s hit the f" is the norm, but still manage to make do?
Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their
hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby
empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows
and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders
creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths,
who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder.
Is Trump the reformer who triggers the avalanche – our Duc D'Orleans, later Philippe Egalite,
under which name he was guillotined? The looks on the faces of Louis XVI and Hillary Clinton were
probably equally dumbfounded when they found themselves stymied by their respective rivals at
the "Assembly of Notables."
They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and
redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive.
They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob.
The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen.
At this point, I do not see another option. They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute,
and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting.
A truly nutty non-solution from the greediest nastiest bastards on the planet. Just frickin
great. They know what they should do, but they adamantly refuse to do it in order to remain mired
in the greedy proflgate ways.
I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS.
I wonder when the elites will make themselves Pyramids? Or are they planning to bury themselves
inside these damn bunkers instead? Using the bunkers as necropoli probably makes more sense than
what they're actually planning to use them for.
This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And
then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent
enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen
might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ."
The good news is, these guys will doubtless revert to cannibalism in short order .
I guess they haven't read The Masque of the Red Death .
The story takes place at the castellated abbey of the "happy and dauntless and sagacious"
Prince Prospero. Prospero and 1,000 other nobles have taken refuge in this walled abbey to
escape the Red Death, a terrible plague with gruesome symptoms that has swept over the land.
Victims are overcome by "sharp pains", "sudden dizziness", and hematidrosis, and die within
half an hour. Prospero and his court are indifferent to the sufferings of the population at
large; they intend to await the end of the plague in luxury and safety behind the walls of
their secure refuge, having welded the doors shut.
They don't subscribe to the propertarian patriarchal norms that they sold to the public, except
for appearances, which are often cited as pretexts for ejection from the halls of power. They
owe the public cultural shibboleths no real honor, especially not within their private practices.
They are not obligated to enact the stories they write or take to heart the submission they counsel
to us. They didn't get to group hegemony by competing.
I see the paralogic. They're American. Therefore, adversity and competition is the normal posture
for every interaction. Therefore, everything is a fair contest which they won fair and square
against us. Which suggests that they probably subscribe more perfectly to the same alleged social
"norms" they impose on us. And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms
they sold (or failed to sell) to us.
If they were as crippled by someone having fun without them when there is plenty of fun to
be had, there would be no ruling class.
on the other hand they have more time and money to gain actually useful skills than wage slaves
EVER will. A variant of the rich get richer phenomena which seems to be how things usually work
out, rather than the poor getting even as mostly happens only in morality tales. Now get to work
and shut up about it!
I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole.
And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city
Jet = high time preference
Amel 64= low time preference, in fact not even so relevant to insist on staying on course to NZ.
http://www.amel.fr/en/amel-64/
W. Somerset Maugham's retelling of the tale (1933) "An Appointment in Samarra" comes to mind:
There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little
while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the
marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled
me.
She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away
from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.
The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks
and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace
and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening
gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?
That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished
to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.
Examine the mentality of planning for a "collapse."
The hedge fund managers above all are escaping to rural areas, with clean water and air. They've
planned on how to get by with less for themselves and their families.
The article also spoke of bunkers of under ground apartment complexes, silos, etc that would be
enclaves for communities of wealthy citizens where they would ration, learn how to ration, share,
get by with less.
They all think it will be temporary while the ignorant masses destroy each other without their
surperior leadership. They imagine being able to return and begin the hard work of returning things
to the way they were, with themselves back in elite positions.
Just think. If they could imagine maybe getting by on less and used that sense of community
they expect to magically develop in their bunkers, there wouldn't be amy "collapse" to fear anyway.
If they could imagine their clean water and air natural retreats, with food, are simple things
the rest of the planet would like to enjoy and should be able to enjoy without exploitation, there
wouldn't be any collapse to fear.
So not only will their getaways be big failures, but the imagined return to the world after
the crisis is also naive.
Not only would things not be the same, you'd have to be a special kind of idoit or psycopath
to think anything would still be hunky dory with a return to the status quo..
if you survive the carnage they imagine in some kind of collapse.
"you'd have to be a special kind of idiot or psychopath"
The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend
to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths.
The 0.01 percenters would much rather create doomsday bunkers than fix their own greed and
power lust. I guess they know themselves well.
I could poke so many what if holes into their daydream scenarios. Hours of fun since their
most of their scenarios depend on order and business as usual ultimately being restored. I guess
they learned nothing from what typically happens to refugees regardless of their class and they
assume that the "problem" will be localized instead of global and that their assets will be worth
more with them alive than dead.
It is impossible to convince someone afflicted with the greatest pandemic in human history
- Greed - that they are better off having a smaller % of a growing pie than a larger % of a stagnant
or shrinking pie.
The epicenters for the global pandemic are London, New York, and Washington D.C., though not
necessarily in that order.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to revoke federal funding for "sanctuary cities", as well as
the governor of Texas at the state level. Oh, wrong group?
This elite fear and their related actions have been "out there" for years. Puzzling me is what
has changed to elevate this topic in their Davos 2017 discussions?
The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube.
Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch
part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping?
Maybe they should just stop destroying companies and pay taxes. They might sleep better if
they felt they were part of the country instead of pirates living apart. imo.
Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other
way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway,
for a considerable sum of course.
They can never actually "go Galt" because they need us. If I remember correctly, Galt was some
sort of industrialist who built and manufactured actual things. What do most of these billionaires
provide us? It's difficult to imagine a hedge fund going very well after the apocalypse. Will
people continue updating their facebook pages when the world collapses? Can I paypal my tribal
wasteland overlord his tribute after our government has collapsed?
I suppose they'll just sitting around looking at all bank statements, bored out of their minds
waiting for the power to come back on.
It isn't just elite anxiety, this has been playing out among the lower classes as well. It's
not just prepper reality shows either; we've had almost 10 years now of zombie apocalypse themed
entertainment and a general revival of the post-apocalypse genre across multiple entertainment
platforms.
We know the empire is collapsing, we just wont acknowledge it out loud.
[Reddit CEO Steve] Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek
out some form of community: "Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat
egotistical view that I'm a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not
a slave, when push comes to shove."
Yeah, your skills running a content aggregate site that's become a haven for the alt-right,
that's going to be the things the masses will be looking for in a leader in a post-apocalyptic
society.
What if the guy fueling the jet pours some sugar into the tank? What if the guy who drives
the fuel truck to the airstrip gets "lost" on the day of the apocalypse? What if your driver on
the way to the airport pulls a gun on you? You better get a jumbo jet to fit everyone on that
could spoil your plan. It'll be like the end of the "Jerk". It is just terrible to have to rely
on people and to need all these badges of affluence. Why can't a rich soul be a rapacious rich
jerk, in peace?
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
These stories really make me hope that the collapse that these people are preparing for is
a flu pandemic. In that case, no one is going anywhere as the first thing that will be done by
states is close the borders to slow down transmission of the virus. Good luck getting to New Zealand
then!
Also, let's not forget the Archdruid's (accurate) contention that the (presumably very well
armed) security staff will be eager to hunt down the elites after society collapses.
Charles Hugh Smith in his book Survival+ however does offer some good advice for elites who
want to survive collapse indefinitely: find a tight-knit community and immediately use all the
money and resources at your disposal to make sure that they're self-sustaining, well-armed and
grateful. Then learn some useful skills like playing musical instruments or blacksmithing and
move on in. Maybe someone should send these poor deluded bunker builders a copy!
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason.
But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others,
are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing
compared with that of the rich.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"The Age of Uncertainty" 1977
If this is a true quote, it does indeed make the blood come out one's ears that Galbraith could
have said it. It is so wrong that its vast wrongness can only be explained by knowing that the
guy was an economist by training. If he had bothered to learn any history–any history at all,
whatsoever, in any way, of any kind–he would never have been able to spout that inane nugget of
anti-truth.
Let's see: August 4, 1789. Just one notable one, among about 47 bajillion counterexamples to
bonehead Galbraith's alleged quotation.
Why don't they bail on the rest of the world now? They might as well get while the getting
is good, and the rest of the world will benefit from their absence. Seems like a win/win to me.
Ahem. This is part of the reason that some rich folks (*COUGH* Elon Musk *COUGH*) is pushing
so hard for (rich) people to pony up and help pay for a one-way trip to Mars. A bunch of pampered
rich people bailing out on Earth to go to the ULTIMATE gated community on Mars where they can
claim all the land from their feet to the horizon.
A pipe dream, of course. Such an endeavor would be ABSOLUTELY dependent upon continued upkeep
and support from Earth, AND Mars is NOT hospitable, at all Nonetheless, the impulse is there
for all to see: use your accumulated (unearned) wealth to get away from the Earth you have raped
to get where you are, before it's too late! Take all your marbles and just up and leave everyone
else to cook in the sewage and heat you've left behind. But at least your pillaging made it possible
for you and a select few others to get out.
As for fancy bunkers like converted missile silos. Note: as a veteran of the cold war and all
that nuke war shit, I KNOW how those things work (and don't work). Fancy air filters on missile
silos will filter out radiation, biological, and MOST chemical agents, but they will not, they
CANNOT, filter out oxygen displacing chemicals (carbon monoxide, halon, ammonia, etc). Some cluster
of rich douchebags and their immediate families think they can hide out for up to 5 years in a
luxury converted missile silo. Well I will just pull a car up to one of your air intakes, run
a line from my exhaust pipe to your intake, and pump your luxury bunker full of carbon monoxide.
Sleep the sleep of the dead, motherf*ckers.
BTW – many of the dystopian authors of the 40s, 50s, and 60s served in the military in WW II.
It is not an accident that they wrote these types of novels and short stories. They had observed
dystopian societies and their outcomes personally. I think the current 1% think they can control
the future in the same way that many of them thought in the 1780s and 1910-1945.
In Jack Womack's Dryco novels, Dryco (a kind of uber-Walmart-cum-Raytheon that owns everything)
becomes worried about CEO safety and covertly engineers a citizen "rebellion" on Long Island,
necessitating a permanently-stationed US military in Manhattan, to protect the elite. The Dryco
inner circle begins moving operations north, to the Bronx and Westchester County, to stay ahead
of rising sea levels. Those books were written mostly in the late '80s/early '90s but still resonate.
Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better
than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off.
Perhaps they have been reading too much economic doomer porn?
Just three months ago anybody who even considered voting for Sanders, Green, or Trump was a
selfish fool who just wanted to see the world burn. For the sake of our fellow man – consider
the children! – we were encouraged to fall in line to prevent our society from collapsing into
war and economic ruin. If only we'd have know that some of the wealthiest and most influential
people in the country were literally bracing themselves for the apocalypse with absolutely no
intention of helping a single soul escape or doing a thing to prevent the disaster. I guess if
you're rich enough it's OK not to give a shit about destroying the world.
It's important that as many people as possible read the NYT article to see just how crazy and
how horrifyingly self-serving the 1% really is. The idea that anybody will need bunkers or private
airstrips is stupid as hell and straight out of a zombie movie, but it's a perfect illustration
of how little these people care about the world around them.
Spread the word. This is the time to bail. Donald Trump is President. He is at war with corporate
media moguls. Even Bloomberg published an article on America's carnage. The suicide rate of women
under 75 is increasing. The cover-up of the neoliberal looting is collapsing. The millions of
refugees flooding Europe can't be hidden. Blaming Russia doesn't work. A world war is an extinction
event.
Who will be on the last plane out of East Hampton?
I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think
that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF.
If the US were to go tits up the
way they fear. to such an extent that they actually felt the need to flee, the entire world would
get hit hard too. These same clowns talk about globalization and how the world is, and NEEDS to
be, interconnected. Well, you don't get to have it both ways. The US is a huge economic chunk
of the world. If it bites it, then so will a LOT of other nations, and New Zealand is not some
self-sufficient paradise that would be left untouched.
The LEGITIMATE people, the LEGITIMATE citizens of New Zealand, wouldn't take these leeches
in with open arms, strewing their walking paths with flowers and candy, if they abandon the US
in a collapse THAT THEY WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR. They cannot run away and escape their culpability
and the fruits of their unending greed and selfishness.
Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem
that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US,
and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). If these people had
what it takes to be New Zealanders they would not need to leave the USA in the first place. Failing
that, they are going to be constantly under siege if they move here, in a figurative sense and
possibly a literal one if they try to engage in the same kind of behaviour that required them
to flee the USA.
Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news
that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which
just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship).
deep down they know they are a bunch of grifters who have produced nothing of any real value.
some of them are deluded but many know it has all been one big debt fueled scam, involving predatory
behavior (pirate equity) and risk free gambling (hedge scum managers, you lose and they still
win) further abetted by tax avoidance and other shifty activity.
[ "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically
seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources,
because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord
and jump out of the plane." ]
The "Peak Oil Doomers" know very well why hedge fund jack offs are " buying airstrips and
farms "
"supposedly" (so take w/salt), the entire food supply of the Northeast flows through 4 highways
(I 90/80/76/95--sounds plausible). Ain't too hard to seize those chokepoints and disrupt the entire
Northeast.
Similarly the crossings of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers also are major chokepoints for
our just-in-time way of life.
We've all seen the empty bread shelves when 12″ of snow are forecast. I imagine that would
be nothing in the 1:1,000,000 chance civilization truly goes pear-shaped.
Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire
Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws.
(he didn't meet the criteria for citizenship under the law)
English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship,
and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand.
"If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand,
then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of
the world, that's not a bad thing.
(but he has money and spread a lot of it around and we like that)
NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship
was "ridiculous", English said.
(even though everything I just said appears to confirm it)
"... Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... One truck parked on the runway, or a large concrete block dumped there has just shut down the entire airport for the private jets fleeing or arriving to pick up the exiters in anything other than a helicopter. ..."
"... Look at what happened to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin (paranoid), Hussein, Gaddafi the list goes on These people are delusional and believe they are above the system ..."
Posted on
January 25, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. A former private equity partner mentioned the New Yorker story on
0.1% bunkering. He noticed how they focused on the private jet pilot as a point
of vulnerability, that he might fly his family out and leave them stranded. So
the approach is to assure him that his relatives get seats on the plane too.
Johnson told writer Evan Osnos of the mounting anxiety he had encountered
among hedge-fund managers and other wealthy Americans he knew. "More and more
were saying, 'You've got to have a private plane," Johnson said. "You have to
assure that the pilot's family will be taken care of, too. They have to be on
the plane.' "
Osnos writes: "By January, 2015, Johnson was sounding the alarm: the
tensions produced by acute income inequality were becoming so pronounced that
some of the world's wealthiest people were taking steps to protect themselves.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Johnson told the audience,
'I know hedge-fund managers all over the world who are buying airstrips and
farms in places like New Zealand because they think they need a getaway.' "
Johnson bemoaned the lack of a "spirit of stewardship" and openness to more
aggressively redistributive tax policy among the wealthy.
"Twenty-five hedge-fund managers make more money than all of the
kindergarten teachers in America combined," he told the New Yorker. "Being one
of those twenty-five doesn't feel good. I think they've developed a heightened
sensitivity."
If anything, Osnos wrote, inequality is widening, noting recent statistics
from the National Bureau of Economic Research that showed that while incomes
for the top 1 percent of Americans have nearly tripled, half of the population
was earning at the same level they did in 1980, comparing America's wealth gap
to that seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
"If we had a more equal distribution of income, and much more money and
energy going into public school systems, parks and recreation, the arts, and
health care, it could take an awful lot of sting out of society," Johnson said.
"We've largely dismantled those things."
He saw elite anxiety as an indicator America's social crisis.
"Why do people who are envied for being so powerful appear to be so afraid?"
Johnson said. "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd
thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading
the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made
their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out
of the plane."
Not to be too snarky this early in the morning but:
"Twenty-five hedge-fund managers make more money than all of the
kindergarten teachers in America combined," he told the New Yorker.
"Being one of those twenty-five doesn't feel good. I think they've developed
a heightened sensitivity."
If it does not feel good then stop doing it.
As presently structured the kindergarden teachers lack the power to upend
the political order and to create something equal. Despite widespread support
for better schools the political parties compete to crapify them
for
the benefit of those hedge fund managers
.
If one or two those managers chose to place a damn phone call they could
change that, they could make a more equal society, they could reduce the odds
that they will be up against a wall.
Amen! This issue drives a nail through the conservative ideal of personal
responsibility and self manufacturing. If your poor then it's your fault.
You're too stupid, lazy, etc. to succeed. But if your rich and hated, well
then, you're just a victim of the system and institutions that created you.
This reminds me of a comic I recently read. Enjoy.
Hint to everyone. The rich guys worried about this are the
1%'s version of "preppers". 90% of the 1% have no contingency
plan whatsoever.
What they do have is second homes. Or third homes.
Florida/California/Arizona for the winter, and
Wyoming/Colorado/Montana during the summer.
Many of these places are geographically isolated, with a
local population base highly motivated to protect their stuff
from the Zombie Apocalypse. And hostile to the wretched refuse
from the coasts and metroplexes. Not to mention heavily armed.
Yeah, a smart leader of the wretched refuse could lay siege
to these places. But I suspect they will be too busy protecting
their own turf, rather than going a couple of hundred miles out
in the boonies to look for trouble.
These aren't 1%. They are 0.1%. And Omidyar is big on
this, he has multiple homes well stocked in all sorts of
isolated places.
You are missing that the New Yorker and Johnson says this
is pretty prevalent in the 0.1%. And these people have better
access to information than the rest of us and many of them
have made their money by making astute bets about the future.
If you ascribe to Łobaczewski's
Political Ponerology
, or even
the Five Percenters
, these super rich individuals aren't normal. They
don't think like most of the population.
It doesn't take much to know that the systems we've created are designed
to promote and reward an unempathetic person. And while I'm not always
convinced entirely by Łobaczewski's words, or the five percenters, one gets
the feeling that the twenty five hedge fund managers in question are
incapable of thinking any other way.
Actually
we
didn't create the systems we sat on our butts and
the unempathetic people took advantage. The problem with high-functioning
psychopaths is, as we all know, they can fake normal for necessary
stretches of time.
It's more insidious than that. Increasing wealth decreases empathy.
The poor are much more likely to care for and help their neighbors
than the rich.
The ability to pull the rip cord and bail to a hopefully safer place
makes you think of the need to take the pilot's family, not the
neighbor's.
And yet even guys like this Johnson fellow can't seem to drop that
last line of hogwash - that these rich people are best at "reading the
tea leaves" - rather than that they were just lucky in one or two
decisions or friendships. Give me a break. The rich are rich because
they are lucky and immoral. That's really it. Until the people fully
learn this lesson to their bones this country will continue its
decline. Good news is most of the millennials seem to have largely
been born knowing it.
Why do they think the places they are going to will be immune from the
upheaval? A lot of people leave places thinking they will be safe in the new
place, and then the disorder spreads and hits them again. Many refugees in WW
II were turned into refugees multiple times (if they survived) – many of them
had started out in the elite and wealthy in their country. Similar things are
happening in the Middle East now.
They also are betting that they can identify the moment in which to leave
and will be able to do so safely. The odds of doing that are similar to calling
the day of the big plunge in the stock market a week in advance. Airports are
usually one of the first places that organized rebellions or coups seek to
control, so getting there through rioting crowds will not necessarily solve
their escape route issue. As many evacuation plans (e.g. New Orleans in
Katrina) have shown, events have the ability to confound plans.
I assume that their concerns about inequality and anarchy is why so many are
lobbying to destabilize Social Security and Medicare in order to erase all hope
for the bottom 80%, so that they will believe that anarchy and rebellion is the
only solution. The creation of anarchy and rebellion is generally the result of
intentional acts by the elite to marginalize much of the population. It is a
choice, not an inevitability. But it is probably like teen sex, where they know
they aren't supposed to do it but they just can't stop themselves. Just say NO
elites! You are supposed to be able to control those greed impulses. Inequality
celibacy is the solution.
If America goes "mad max" the rest of the civilized world isn't going to
be far behind. The likely landing sites for those private jets are in
Europe, Canada or other G-7 type of nations.
Unless you have enough money to buy a private island, and hire a security
force to protect you, chances of staying immune are slim, IMO. Few will be
able to pull this off.
The idea of hiring other people to protect you implies that you have
something of value that those with primitive power cannot take from you
when they please. I'm not sure what "currency" that would be in a post
apocalyptic world.
Authoritarians look for "leadership" . if you can fake that then
its not hard to get people to protect your "wealth", whatever that
happens to consist of, for a share of it and power over those below.
Read the New Yorker article! These rich geniuses are stocking up on
gold
and bitcoin!
. HAH. As if bitcoin would be worth squat in a
collapse situation.
"Let me just plug in my laptop so I can get to my digital bitcoin
vault and pay you oh. Uh would you accept my daughter as payment?"
Yes, all that bitcoin is going to be really useful when you need
medical services from one of the few doctors left, or when the
locals show up with guns at your compound wanting some of your
grain.
Elites are not all equal if the system implodes and consumers can't
spend, the rich who got that way from non-essential consumer spending
will fall faster than those who got rich on staples. My bet is that if
times get tough, these elite will stab each other in the back.
I heard someone say making money was as addictive as heroine, cocaine
etc. So, "just say NO" may not be as easy as it sounds. ( One day, we may
see Money Rehab Centers in New Zealand? or Davos?)
Well, jail those addicted to money the way we already jail those
addicted to the drugs you mention. As an added bonus, while they're
locked up they can make some scratch from the increase in value of their
private prison stock holdings . . . off shore, of course.
NZ is food self-sufficient (it's a net food exporter), energy
self-sufficient, and far enough for anyone to invade easily – especially if
you assume "stone age"/"mad max" scenario (i.e. you don't get there easily
like you might to Oz from Indonesia). If you get a large farm in NZ, you can
become pretty much self-sufficient reasonably easily.
NZ population is about 4.5m, on area of the size of Great Britain (the
island, not the nation). Most of that is concentrated in a few cities – say
more than half is in the North Island, which is the smaller one. But even in
North Island there is a LOT of space.
So, NZ can be the perfect bunker for a squillionaire.
sure, assuming these squillionaires know how to be self-sufficient.
How long has it been since any of these rich and "powerful" actually
cooked a meal? Or changed a light bulb? Or done routine maintenance on
anything? Self sufficiency ain't easy. I'm reminded of the elite
civilization in Hitchhiker's Guide that all died of infection from dirty
phones after they shipped all the worthless mouths, including phone
cleaners, off planet. 50 pesos says these New Zealand-bound richies
starve to death when they can't figure out how to use the microwave to
cook their foie gras. Good riddance.
Sure, there's a lot of them who are pampered beyond the kings of
yore. But quite a few them spend their time doing stuff like
wilderness trekking/survival, even running their own ranches etc. What
part of the squillionaire population that is is hard to say, but the
hedgies I spoke to in 2007/8 (of which most were sub-suillionaires
TBH, mere centa-millionairies) were well aware of this and some of
them even too to doing agri uni courses just for that. I met more
people who knew about (for example) permaculture between those people
than any other group.
Ha, marvelous! I find the fact that they've been fearfully
looking over their shoulder since at least 2007/2008 delightful.
Make Elites Great Again indeed.
And I think we would all be well served if they went back and
re-read (i'm assuming they don't spend a lot of time practicing)
their Holmgren and Mollison. Permaculture doesn't mean what they
think it means
This is true. Look at Oliver Queen! Seriously, though, the
hilarious thing from the article is Steve Huffman saying he's
likely to be a leader after the apocalypse, because he is a
"leader" now. Sure, tell it to Trotsky when you meet him in the
next world, buddy.
By the way, having myself made so many errors using SI units,
some in this very locale, I will still submit that people with
hundreds of millions of dollars might properly be labeled
hectomillionaires.
In this "mad max" scenario, who will control the thousands of nuclear
bombs around the world? In addition, will the "squillionaire" be safe on
the island of New Zealand after they brought about conditions leading up
to chaos due to their endless greed? Wouldn't it be more likely that the
conclusion would be to drop the first bombs in the locations where the
wealthy congregate?
Although I understand the psychology behind wealth acquisition, it
still amazes me that someone would rather see chaos in the world (and
even in their local environment) before they would give up their wealth.
One truck parked on the runway, or a large concrete block dumped there
has just shut down the entire airport for the private jets fleeing or
arriving to pick up the exiters in anything other than a helicopter.
May I suggest a name for a new political party?
"The Guillotine Party"
In 2007-8 the trend was go get a sailing boat, full of provisions,
moored in driving distance. Not so conspicious, doesn't rely on large
infrastructure (it's not just take-off airport, it's also air-control,
refuelling stops etc.). Of course, you must know how to sail it (which
lot o hedgies do) and navigate (which fewer can do w/o GPS).
The 1%ers will be long gone before the zombies get the news that the S
has HTF.
They won't even need to leave the USA to find "safe havens" The
Chinese 1% have figured this out already, as real estate sales of the
West Coast should indicate.
The Midwest/Plains state farmers are much more likely to sell food to
1%ers in isolated mountain/desert enclaves, than the coast-based wretched
refuse.
Face it. The "Zombie Apocalypse" is a win-win for the 1%ers. Not that
I like it. But you gotta remember that the Apocalypse will burn itself
out in a relatively short time. It won't be the 1%ers who will get
hammered; the 1%ers will throw the suburban 10%ers to the wolves. And
even if they start at step zero on Day One, they have tons of resources
to develop a plan.
Look at the Paulson/Bloomberg/I forget who else county by county
forecast of temps in 2040.
The Upper Midwest will turn into a bake oven.
And they want NZ for the self sufficiency and isolation. If
outsiders are trading with you, they know where you are and can take
what you have. That is what they fear over all.
Look at what happened to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin (paranoid), Hussein,
Gaddafi the list goes on
These people are delusional and believe they are above the system
Look at all the Industrialists behind Hitler, almost none of which
were tried for their crimes and most kept their wealth (that is still
around today).
Reality is a lot harsher than most realize. Most revolutions end with
little change; or, change that simply invokes a new circle of elite. Look
at all the coups & revolutions in Brazil. It went nowhere. One oppressive
regime replaced by another.
The Elites may not yet realize how un-exceptional they are. But what
they do realize is that in the Age of Information, everyone else knows
how un-exceptional they are. We also know how much EXCEPTION they get
from the system which is basically everything important: taxes,
healthcare, and most importantly, the law.
I'm just waiting for the Black Swan moment. My prediction is simple:
the Millenials will eventually near their mid thirties en-masse in the
next decade. They will begin to realize, if they haven't already, that
not only did the banks cause and get away with one of the largest bubbles
in history, but the banks will also get all the realstate owned by the
baby boomers that are already up to their eyes in debt, and that their
children (Millenials) wont be able to pay off in their entire lifetime
due to lower socio-economic standards, student loans, available full-time
jobs, etc.
Essentially, the Elites of the Baby Boomer generation, that love to
constantly illustrate how dumb the Millenials are, already sowed the
destruction of their own system. They killed affordable healthcare. They
killed affordable housing, and thus forced the rentier economy. They
killed affordable education. They killed reasonable taxation. Thus, the
current Millenial is stuck between massively rising costs of living and
little to no availability of well paying jobs.
They killed the heart of consumerism and are now, some decades later,
realizing it.
I've had hedge fund clients who have been prepping for 15 years. They always
pestered me for info because of my military and certified redneck background.
I've always thought that people in small rural farm communities have a better
chance than 1%ers with all their capital. You need a bit of arable land, water
source, and the ability to band with friends, neighbors, and family to defend
it with arms. Nothing that sophisticated.
I suspect the real deficiency for the 1%ers is not bunkers, planes, and gas
masks . it's not having enough true comrades if the s really does hit the f.
Not to mention that the 1%'ers have no real skills. I doubt they pay
attention to the passing of seasons, understand animal breeding or how
plants grow, or how to talk with normal human beings without beginning with
either an adversarial or a monetary relationship. They have never had
calluses. They've never done backbreaking work in the rain or snow. Many of
them probably haven't driven themselves anywhere in years.
New Zealand is an extremely rugged place. Farming in New Zealand has got
to be tough. Hope they like mutton! NZ also imports a lot of their fossil
fuels as well as their computers, machinery, cars, etc. Can you see a
financial officer trying to seat a plowshare to work the side of a mountain?
I can't.
I reckon they think they will hire/buy someone to do those things for
them. They've always been able to, right? "Come work for me doing these
things and I'll make sure you're fed and have a roof over your head." Or
they think "how hard can it really be?" because the dumb serfs do it.
maybe you underestimate the 1% the way some supposedly underestimate
Trump. They might be tougher and more skilled than you think. But what
should not be underestimated is the cruelty and lack of basic morality
represented in the 1% prepper mentality.
Some rich no doubt have decent survivability skills.
The thing is, they need allies. In a collapse situation, it's not
"every man for himself", it is "every community for itself". They
would have to bribe a large segment of the Kiwi population if they
flee to NZ or wherever they are hiding. Typically if somewhere
collapses, then the gangs take over. Without a decent community you
are helpless against them.
If the US melts down, that would lead to global economic meltdown.
New Zealand would not be very far behind.
Compounding that, the rich are often ruthless. They may be mentally
competent, but ruthless. They will alienate locals if that happens.
Without an entire community that is capable of survival skills, their
odds aren't good. They need the locals on their side. They will stand
out if they try to "blend in".
New Zealand, although inequality has risen, once idealized itself
as an egalitarian culture. As far as the other destinations like
Canada and much of Europe is also a lot more economically egalitarian
in its outlook. Hint: The rest of the West is not as brainwashed as
the US is by right wing economic propaganda.
One very big danger is that a collapse may worsen inequality. A
good example might be Argentina and their debt crisis.
The 1%ers who grew up or live in in BFE will do okay. They may
not even need to leave town.
The NEC (especially NYC) and Left Coast/Silicon Valley D##kweeds
are the ones who will need to head to the South Pacific. The
wretched refuse knows full well who was behind selling the
country/jobs to China.
Volunteered at my local school to build stage sets. Some hedge fund
hotshot who drove an S Class Mercedes sneeringly assisted me.
I handed him a Makita drill with a Phillips bit and showed him how to put
3″ screws into the 2x4s to connect them. He dismissed me with that "I
make tens of millions and I can do it" look.
After he stripped the heads on a bunch of screws and the drill buckled
on him a bunch of times, I offered to give up the chop saw and do the
screwing. He persevered until he put a screw through his hand.
The "I refuse to scream because I make millions" look on his face was
worth the day's labor.
I find it amusing to think that close knit rural communities (well armed,
know the land) are going to let any outsiders without local ties get to
their precious redoubt. They might be getting picked up in armor plated
vehicles but a well placed large oak tree felled across the road is going to
deny entry. Helicopters are vulnerable to small arms fire. Will the guards
be locals or will their families be inside like the pilots? Seems like a lot
of operational security holes or the need for a substantial amount of extra
resources for all the support staff. Unless they are doing this in their own
rural hometown (and hopefully haven't burned bridges on their way to
fortune), I would file this under wishful thinking.
The elite plan on staying on bolt holes while well armed rural
communities will war with each other. Should be fun, sneak attacks to
salt the land, poison the livestock, dump e-coli in the water.
If you want a rough historical instance of all this, I recommend
Gregory of Tours, "History of the Franks". What tended to happen was that
the "Kings" lost their power to the Mayors of the Palace (as they were
the dudes who 'implemented' the Kings wishes).
"You need a bit of arable land, water source, and the ability to band
with friends, neighbors, and family to defend it with arms. Nothing that
sophisticated."
These are the basis of all successful social systems and what nations, at
their best, used to do. The Neoliberal order has seen states reduced to
platforms for wealth extraction and the NeoLib winners can't imagine a world
without societies to loot because their own looting is all thats ever seemed
good to them.
The idea of creating surplus value for a community and continually
improving the prospects of that community over time isn't even a thinkable
thought for them.
My knowledge of high net worth individuals working on safe havens goes
back about 10 years so a little less than Gilford.
I know of compounds being purchased/built with full sets of facilities
taking into account all of the security issues that the best experts could
envision and far beyond what anyone has mentioned here. We are talking
hardened facilities, which are self sufficient, arsenals, housing for
support staff like well trained security staff, agricultural expertise,
mechanical expertise, etc And their families. And being located within
support distance of other HNW individuals who are doing the same thing.
I won't go on other than to say these folks are not stupid and can think
of all the issues quite well themselves or hire those with the expertise to
do so. And they have the money and time to make it work.
You still need to have staff that are loyal to you for intrinsic
reasons, not because you are paying them. Society goes "Lord of the
Flies" very, very quickly in the absence of intrinsic social structures.
These types of compounds would become tribal very quickly if they are
largely cut off from the rest of the world. Some of the 1% would thrive,
many would probably be taken over by their staff.
The failures in Afghanistan and Iraq were because it is difficult to
impose order on tribes from the outside. It has to be organic if it is to
last. The leader must be respected (or feared) by the community or it is
replaced, often violently. Just having money in a world where money has
lost much of its meaning isn't enough.
Staff will never stay loyal. Water systems, food systems, air
systems are all vulnerable. Only 1%ers with robots, no staff? Robots
are vulnerable.
What's odd is they may never be able to reproduce as a bratty
teenager could have an outsize impact. If the theory would be to
quarantine certain tolerated populations, it would requiring all
individuals and the individuals are still vulnerable.
The currency will be shelter, food and privileges not paper
contracts, paper or digital money. In any group, there will be the
sociopaths who manipulate and steal more resources for themselves and
others who won't will punish that behavior.
Neoliberal Third Way caused far right renaissance in the USA, UK and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Warning: amateur political science below ..."
"... Labour moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity. It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as leader. ..."
"... With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems were a consequence of immigration. ..."
Did centrism beget populism? Warning: amateur political science below
Stewart Wood has a well argued
piece in the New Statesman, saying that it was the move by left and right towards a
common centrism that laid the foundations for populism.
... ... ...
Margaret Thatcher was considered pretty right wing when she was in power. Many of her key achievement
in terms of her own agenda, such as a diminished union movement and shrinking the state through
privatisation, were not reversed by Blair and Brown. It is difficult to argue that the Cameron/Osborne
duo made any attempt to undo the Thatcher legacy. Instead they tried to go beyond it, by shrinking
the state to a size relative to GDP not seen since the end of WWII. They did it under the pretense
that they were forced to because otherwise the markets would no longer buy government debt. This
was a colossal deceit. There no evidence that markets were concerned about government debt, and
strong evidence that they were not. [1] This deceit should have become clear when Osborne cut
taxes at the same time as continuing to cut spending.
... ... ...
Labour moved to the right under Blair, while remaining socially liberal. I agree with Stewart
Wood that this alone was important in preparing the way for populism. As well as the lack of a
major industrial policy, they did nothing to curb a rampant financial sector or reverse the gains
of the 1% that were a feature of the Thatcher period, a point
emphasised
by Jean Pisani-Ferry in respect of both the UK and US. I think New Labour's position is
better described as liberal rather
than neoliberal: New Labour substantially increased the amount of resources (as a proportion
of GDP) going to the NHS, and they also did a great deal to try and reduce child poverty. Labour
moved further right (and more neoliberal) as they became more accommodating towards austerity.
It was hardly a surprise that party members tried to pull the party back by electing Corbyn as
leader.
As I argued
here
, Brexit was a perfect storm where the economically left behind united with social conservatives.
With Labour no longer seen as representing the working class, this allowed the right wing
media (with the support of the Conservatives) to help convince the left behind that their problems
were a consequence of immigration. The Leave campaign was populist in the sense I describe
here : advocating a superficially attractive policy to some that would leave everyone
worse off. Much the same is true for Trump, who won the electoral college by convincing the left
behind that he really could bring back their traditional jobs, something he will be unable to
do in any kind of general way.
not centrism, but bothsidelism - the unwillingness of the press etc to distinguish between
radical extremism and political norms. The outcome is the normalisation of relentless semi-fascism
and the acceptance of alternative facts, resulting in unsubstantiated beliefs of victimisation,
and the election of candidates who actually revel in and exacerbate the real problems people
face in the US
For the UK, those supporting Leave have essentially endorsed Iain Duncan Smith's leadership
of the Conservative Party in the early 2000s. It's no wonder New Labour cannot understand what has happened.
"... Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support. ..."
"... How will we provide adequate human and material resources for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address climate change? ..."
"... no amount of volunteerism, goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. ..."
"... I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really want to do for 8 hours a day. ..."
"... Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal, regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution ..."
By Scott Ferguson, Assistant Professor, University of South Florida. He is also a Research
Scholar at the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. His current research and pedagogy focus
on Modern Monetary Theory and critiques of neoliberalism, aesthetic theory; the history of digital
animation and visual effects; and essayistic writing across media platforms. Originally published
at Arcade
James Livingston has responded to
my critique of his Aeon essay,
"
Fuck Work ." His response was published in the Spanish magazine
Contexto y Accion . One can find an English translation
here . What follows is my reply:
Livingston and I share many political aims. We each wish to reverse wealth polarization, to alleviate
systemic poverty, and to enable diverse forms of human flourishing. The professor and I disagree,
however, on the nature of contemporary economic reality. As a consequence, we propose very different
political programs for realizing the sort of just and prosperous society we both desire.
In his rejoinder to my critique, Livingston proudly affirms his commitment to Liberalism and makes
a Liberal understanding
of political economy the basis of his proposed alternative to the neoliberal catastrophe. Deeming
government an intrinsically authoritarian institution, he situates civil society as a realm of self-actualization
and self-sufficiency. The problem, as he formulates it, is that while capitalist innovation has made
it possible to increasingly automate production, the capitalist class has robbed us of our purchasing
power and preserved a punishing wage relation. This prevents us from enjoying the fruits of automated
labor. Livingston's solution is to reject an outmoded Protestant work ethic; tax the unproductive
corporate profits that fuel financial markets; and redistribute this money in the form of a Universal
Basic Income (UBI). The result: each member of civil society will be liberated to associate, labor,
or play as they please.
Like Livingston, the left has long flirted with Liberal dreams that autonomous and self-regulating
associations might one day replace the difficulties of political governance. After the Great Recession,
these dreams have
returned . They imagine algorithms and robots to be politically neutral. They seek a life of
shared luxury through automatically dispensed welfare payments. This sounds nice at first blush.
However, such reveries are at best naive and, at worst, politically defeatist and self-destructive.
Abandoned and abused by neoliberal governance, today's pro-UBI left doubles down on neoliberalism's
do-it-yourself caretaking. It envisions delimited forms of monetary redistribution as the only means
to repair the social order. Above all, it allows anti-authoritarianism to overshadow the charge of
social provisioning.
Livingston's articulation of this dream is especially fierce. As such, it crystallizes UBI's central
contradiction: Demanding a no-strings-attached welfare system, the left seeks to cut government
out of social provisioning while at the same time relying on government for regular financial support.
This position, which fails to rethink the structure of social participation as a whole, leaves
disquieting political questions unanswered: How will we provide adequate human and material resources
for our growing elderly populations? How can we meaningfully restructure social production to address
climate change? How do we preserve a place for the arts outside of competitive MFA programs
and speculative art markets?
Such questions are unforgivingly realistic, not pie-in-the-sky musings. And no amount of volunteerism,
goodwill, or generous welfare payments can adequately meet these demands. Indeed, only government
can afford to mobilize the persons and materials needed to answer such demands. And while algorithms
and robots are powerful social instruments, we cannot rely on automation to overcome extant logics
of
discrimination and exclusion . To do so is to forget that social injustice is politically conditioned
and that government alone holds the monetary capacity to transform economic life in its entirety.
I really need to be kicked out of the house, to go someplace and do something I don't really
want to do for 8 hours a day.
I've already got too much time to fritter away. I'm fairly certain, giving me more time and
money to make my own choices would not make the world a better place.
Hmm. No "sarc" tag Really?? More free time and money wouldn't be a benefit to you and your
surroundings? That's hard to believe. To each their own I guess.
I can see it both ways. Most people see that as sarcasm but I have more than a few friends
whose jobs are probably the only thing keeping them out of jail. Idle hands being the devil's
plaything and all.
For instance, the last thing you want to give a recovering addict is a lot of free time and
money.
As a recovering addict, I must vehemently disagree with ur statement. I would love to have
as much money and free time on my hands to work on the fun hobbies that keep me sober like Political
Activism, Blogging, Film, etc.
At no point in the "Job Guarantee" discussion did anyone advocate forcing you to go to work.
However, if you decide to get ambitious and want a paid activity to do that helps make society
a better place to live, wouldn't it be nice to know that there'd be work available for you to
do?
Right now, that's not so easy to do without lots of effort searching for available jobs and
going through a cumbersome and dispiriting application process that's designed to make you prove
how much you REALLY, REALLY want the job.
For me, the real silver bullet is the moral/political argument of a Job Guarantee vs. Basic
Income. Job Guarantee gives people a sense of pride and accomplishment and those employed and
their loved ones will vigorously defend it against those who would attack them as 'moochers'.
Also, defenders can point to the completed projects as added ammunition.
Basic income recipients have no such moral/political defense.
The guaranteed jobs could be for a 20 or 30 hour week. I fear they won't be as most job guarantee
advocates seem to be Calvinists who believe only work gets you into heaven though.
It's a common 'argument' by people defending status quo. They claim something is ridiculous
and easily disproven and then leave it at that. They avoid making argument that are specific enought
to be countered, because thay know they don't actually have a leg to stand on.
Limitless may not have been the best word. Of course the government can print money till the
cows come home; but MMT recommends stopping when you approach the real resource constraint.
Sloppy language does not help so thank you. So the next question is how do constraints (natural
or other) affect spending power under MMT, is it asymptotic, is there an optimum, discontinuities?
The other major issue is that although spending power is controlled by legislatures it must
be recognized that wealth creation starts with the work of people and physical capital, not by
the good graces of gov't. MMT makes it sound as if money exists just because gov't wills it to
exist, which is true in the sense of printing pieces of paper but not in the sense of actual economic
production and wealth creation. Taxes are not the manner in which gov't removes money but it really
is the cost of gov't sitting on top of the economic production by people together with physical
capital.
Help me understand your last sentence. So, if I'm a farmer, the time I spend digging the field
is economic production, but the time I spend sitting at my desk planing what to plant and deciding
which stump to remove next and how best to do it, and the time I spend making deals with the bank
etc, these are all unproductive hours that make no contribution to my economic production?
Yes, Jamie. And as you point out, Ferguson is giving us a better definition of "productive".
He is not saying productivity produces profits – he is saying productive work fixes things and
makes them better. But some people never get past that road bump called "productivity."
The author is making some assumptions, and then goes and takes them apart. It's possilble (I
didn't read the article he refers to), that the assumptions he responds to directly are made by
the article, but that doesn't make them universal assumptions about UBI.
UBI is not a single exact prescription – and in the same way, JG is not a single exact prescription.
The devil, in both cases, is in details. In fact, there is not reason why JG and UBI should be
mutually exclusive as a number of people are trying to tell us.
and if we talk about governance – well, the super-strong governance that JG requires to function
properly is my reason why I'd prefer a strong UBI to most JG.
Now and then we get a failed UBI example study – I'm not going to look at that. But the socialist
regimes of late 20th century are a prime example of failed JG. Unlike most visitor or writers
here, I had the "privilege" to experience them first hand, and thanks but no thanks. Under the
socialist regimes you had to have a job (IIRC, the consitutions stated you had "duty" to work).
But that become an instrument of control. What job you could have was pretty tightly controlled.
Or, even worse, you could be refused any job, which pretty much automatically sent you to prison
as "not working parasite".
I don't expect that most people who support JG have anything even remotely similar in mind,
but the governance problems still stay. That is, who decides what jobs should be created? Who
decides who should get what job, especially if not all jobs are equal (and I don't mean just equal
pay)? Can you be firedt from your JG job if you go there just to collect your salary? (The joke
in the socialist block was "the government pretends to pay us, we pretend to work"). Etc. etc.
All of the above would have to be decided by people, and if we should know something, then
we should know that any system run by people will be, sooner or later, corrupted. The more complex
it is, the easier it is to corrupt it.
Which is why I support (meaningfull, meaning you can actually live on it, not just barely survive)
Basic Income over JG. The question for me is more whether we can actually afford a meaningful
one, because getting a "bare survival one" does more damage than good.
That's why any JG would have to be filtered through local governments or, more ideally, non-profit
community organizations, and not a centralized government. New York City's
Summer Youth
Employment Program offers a good model for this. Block grants of money are delivered to a
wide range of community organizations, thus ensuring no one group has a monopoly, and then individual
businesses, other community groups, schools, non-profits, etc., apply to the community organizations
for an "employee" who works for them, but the payment actually comes from the block grant. The
government serves as the deliverer of funds, and provides regulatory oversight to make sure no
abuses are taking place, but does not pick and choose the jobs/employers themselves.
I don't see it as either/or. Provide a UBI and a job guarantee. The job would pay over and
above the UBI bit, if for some reason, you don't want to work or cannot, you still have your Universal
BASIC Income as the floor through which you cannot fall.
Private employers will have to offer better conditions and pay to convince people getting UBI
to work for them. They wouldn't be able to mistreat workers because they could simply bolt because
they will not fall into poverty if they quit. The dirtbags needing workers won't be able to overpay
themselves at the expense of workers because they feel completely free to leave if you are a self
worshipping douche.
It seems that over time the "floor through which you cannot fall" becomes just that, the floor,
as the effect of a UBI becomes the universal value, well floor.
Was going to be my response as well, why such absolute yes or no thinking? The benefit of the
UBI is that is recognizes that we have been increasing productivity for oh the last couple millenia
for a REASON! To have more leisure time! Giving everyone the opportunity to work more and slave
away isn't much of a consolation. We basically have a jobs guarantee/floor right now, its called
McDonalds, and no one wants it.
Labor needs a TON of leverage, to get us back to a reasonable Scandinavian/Aussie standard
of living. Much more time off, much better benefits, higher wages in general. UBI provides this,
it says screw you employers unless you are willing to offer reasonable conditions we are going
to stay home.
I'm curious to know if either of these systems work if there is no guarantee of "free" access
to healthcare through single-payer or a national insurance? I'm only marginally informed about
UBI or MMT, and haven't found adequate information regarding either as to how healthcare is addressed.
It seems clear that neither could work in the US, specifically for the reason that any UBI would
have to be high enough to pay insane insurance premiums, and cover catastrophic illnesses without
pushing someone into bankruptcy.
Can anyone clarify, or point me in the direction of useful information on this?
There are different flavors of UBI, most don't mention healthcare at all. Milton Friedman's
UBI flavor prefers that it replace all government spending on social welfare to reduce the government's
overall burden. MMT says there is no sense in not having single payer.
My thought on the last thread of this nature is that if UBI were ever enacted in the U.S.,
healthcare access would become restricted to those with jobs (and the self-employeed with enough
spare income to pay for it). You don't have to be healthy to collect a subsistence payment from
to the government.
Here in Canada we have universal healthcare, as well as a basic income guarantee for low income
families with children and seniors. There is a movement to extend that as well,
details of one plan here .
In theory, I think it could be possible for the JG to build and staff hospitals and clinics
on a non-profit basis or at least price-controlled basis, if so directed (*huge* question, of
course - by what agency? govt? local councils?). Ditto housing, schools, infrastructure, all kinds
of socially useful and pleasant stuff. However, the way the US tends to do things, I would expect
instead that a BIG or a JG would, as others have pointed out, simply enable employers to pay less,
and furthermore, subsidize the consumption of overpriced goods and services. IOW, a repeat of
the ACA, just a pump to get more $$ to the top.
The problem is not the money, but that the Americans govern themselves so poorly. No idea what
the cure could be for that.
Fixing worker pay is actually VERY easy. It's purely a political issue. You tie corporate taxes
to worker compensation. More specifically, you set the maximum compensation for CEOs at NO MORE
than (say) 50x average worker pay in their corporation (INCLUDING temps AND off-shored workers
IN US DOLLARS no passing the buck to Temp Agencies or claiming that $10/day in hellhole country
x is equivalent to $50k in the US. NO, it is $10/day or $3650/yr, period). At 50x, corporate taxation
is at the minimum (say something like 17%). The corporation is free to pay their top exec more
than 50x but doing so will increase the corporate tax to 25%. You could make it step-wise: 51-60x
average worker pay = 25% corporate tax, 61-80x = 33% corporate tax, etc.
It is time to recognize that CEO pay is NOT natural or earned at stratospheric levels. THE
best economic times in the US were between the 50s to early 70s when top tax rates were much higher
AND the average CEO took home maybe 30x their average worker pay. We CAN go back to something
like that with policy. Also, REQUIRE that labor have reps on the Board of Directors, change the
rules of incorporation so it is NOT mainly focused on "maximizing profit or shareholder value".
It must include returning a social good to the local communities within which corporations reside.
Profits and maximizing shareholder value must be last (after also minimizing social/environmental
harm). Violate the rules and you lose your corporate charter.
There is no right to be a corporation. Incorporation is a privilege that is extended by government.
The Founders barred any corporate interference in politics, and if a corporation broke the law,
it lost its charter and the corporate officers were directly held responsible for THEIR actions.
Corporations don't do anything, people in charge of corporations make the decisions and carry
out the actions so NO MORE LLCs. If you kill people due to lax environmental protections or worker
safety, etc, then the corporate officers are DIRECTLY and personally responsible for it. THEY
made it happen, not some ethereal "corporation".
Durned hippys imagine an IRON boot stamping on a once human face – forever. OK, now everybody
back to the BIG house. Massa wanna reed yew sum Bible verses. We're going to be slaves to the
machines, ya big silly!
I'm sceptical whether a guaranteed job policy would actually work in reality. There are plenty
of historical precedents – for example, during the Irish potato famine because of an ideological
resistence to providing direct aid, there were many 'make work' schemes. You can still see the
results all along the west coast of Ireland – little harbours that nobody has ever used, massive
drainage schemes for tiny amounts of land, roads to nowhere. It certainly helped many families
survive, but it also meant that those incapacitated by starvation died as they couldn't work.
It was no panacea.
There are numerous practical issues with make work schemes. Do you create a sort of 2-layer
public service – with one level permanent jobs, the other a variety of 'temporary' jobs according
to need? And if so, how do you deal with issues like:
1. The person on a make work scheme who doesn't bother turning up till 11 am and goes home
at 2.
2. Regional imbalances where propering region 1 is desperately short of workers while neighbouring
region 2 has thousands of surplus people sweeping streets and planting trees.
3. What effect will this have on business and artistic innovation? Countries with strong welfare
systems such as Sweden also tend to have a very high number of start ups because people can quit
their jobs and devote themselves to a couple of years to develop that business idea they always
had, or to start a band, or try to make a name as a painter.
4. How do you manage the transition from 'make-work' to permanent jobs when the economy is
on the up, but people decide they prefer working in their local area sweeping the street?
I can see just as many practical problems with a job guarantee as with universal income. Neither
solution is perfect – in reality, some sort of mix would be the only way I think it could be done
effectively.
To provide some context for passers-by, this seemingly too-heated debate is occurring in the
context of the upcoming Podemos policy meeting in Spain, Feb 10-12.. Podemos seems to have been
unaware of MMT, and has subscribed to sovereign-economy-as-household policies. Ferguson, along
with elements of the modern left, has been trying to win Podemos over to MMT-based policies like
a Jobs Guarantee rather than the Basic Income scheme they have heretofore adopted rather uncritically.
(Of course Spain is far from "sovereign", but that's another matter :-(
1) Fire them
2) Prospering region 1 isn't "short on workers" they just all have private jobs.
3) What a good argument to also have single payer healthcare and some sort of BIG as well as the
JG
4) private companies must offer a better compensation package. One of the benefits of the JG is
that it essentially sets the minimum wage.
Yeah, those are pretty good answers right off the bat. (Obviously I guess for #1 they can reapply
in six months or something.)
Plutonium- I feel like true progress is trading shitty problems for less shitty ones. I can't
see any of the major proponents like Kelton, Wray or Mitchell ever suggesting that the JG won't
come with it's own new sets of challenges. On the overly optimistic side though: you could look
at that as just necessitating more meaningful JG jobs addressing those issues.
I was writing that on my phone this morning. Didn't have time to go into great detail. Still,
I wanted to point out that just because there will be additional complexities with a JG, doesn't
mean there aren't reasonable answers.
1. If you fire them its not a jobs guarantee. Many people have psychological/social issues
which make them unsuitable for regular hours jobs. If you don't have a universal basic income,
and you don't have an absolute jobs guarantee, then you condemn them and their families to poverty.
2. The area is 'short on workers' if it is relying on a surplus public employee base for doing
things like keeping the streets clean and helping out in old folks homes. It is implicit in the
use of government as a source of jobs of last resort that if there is no spare labour, then you
will have nobody to do all the non-basic works and you will have no justification for additional
infrastructure spend.
3. You miss the point. A basic income allows people time and freedom to be creative if they
choose. When the Conservatives in the early 1990's in the UK restricted social welfare to under
25's, Noel Gallagher of Oasis predicted that it would destroy working class rock n roll, and leave
the future only to music made by rich kids. He was proven right, which is why we have to listen
to Coldplay every time we switch on the radio.
4. This ignores the reality that jobs are never spread evenly across regions. One of the biggest
problems in the US labour market is that the unemployed often just can't afford to move to where
the jobs are available. A guaranteed job scheme organised on local govenment basis doesn't address
this, if anything it can exacerbate the problem. And the simplest and easiest way to have a minimum
wage is to have a minimum wage.
1) Kelton always talks about a JG being for people "willing and able to work." If you are not
willing I don't really have much sympathy for you. If you are not able due to psychological factors
or disability, then we can talk about how you get on welfare or the BIG/UBI. The JG can't work
in a vacuum. It can't be the only social program.
2) Seems unrealistic. You are just searching to find something wrong. If there is zero public
employment, that means private employment is meeting all labor demands.
3) I have no idea what you are going on about. I'm in a band. I also have a full-time job.
I go see local music acts all the time. There are a few that play music and don't work because
they have rich parents, but that's the minority. Most artists I know manage to make art despite
working full time. I give zero shits what corporate rock is these days. If you don't like what's
on the radio turn it off. There are thousands of bands you've never heard of. Go find them.
4) Again, you are just searching for What-If reasons to crap on the JG. You try to keep the
jobs local. Or you figure out free transportation. There are these large vehicles called busses
which can transport many people at once.
Yes these are all valid logistical problems to solve, but you present them like there are no
possible solutions. I can come up with several in less than 5 minutes.
For a more practical first step--how about getting rid of/slashing regressive and non-federal
income tax deductible sales taxes? shifting that tax burden to where income growth has been.
Democratic Party-run states/cities are the biggest offenders when it comes to high sales taxes.
universal basic income in the West + de facto open borders won't work. just making a reasonable
hypothesis.
There might be a psychological benefit to a jobs guarantee vs. UBI. There are a lot of people
that would much rather "earn" their income rather than directly receiving it.
Which of these tools do you posess:
( ) Machete, pick-axe, big old hemp bag
( ) Scattergun, hound, mirrored shades
( ) Short-shorts, bandeau top, knee pads
( ) RealTree camo ACUs, FLIR scope
( ) ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, fast car
A JG would begin to rebuild the trust and cooperation needed to have a society based on justice
instead of might makes right. Human life is based on obligations- we are all responsible to one
another for the social system to work. The problem is always about how to deal with cheaters and
shirkers. This problem is best solved by peer pressure and shaming- along with a properly functioning
legal system.
I get a kick out of the "make work" argument against a JG. With planned obsolescence as the
foundation of our economic system, it's just a more sophisticated way of digging holes and filling
them in again. Bring on robotic automation, and the capitalist utopia is reached. Soul crushing,
pointless labor can be sidelined and replaced with an unthinking and unfeeling machine in order
to generate profits. The one problem is people have no money to buy the cheep products. To solve
that dilemma, use the sovereign governments power to provide spending credits in the form of a
UBI. Capitalism is saved from is own contradictions- the can is kicked farther down the road.
The obligations we have to one another must be defined before any system organization can take
place. Right now, the elite are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I agree with those who see a need for both programs. I think the critique of UBI here is a
good one, that raises many valid points. But I have trouble with a portion of it. For instance:
by eliminating forced unemployment, it would eradicate systemic poverty
treats 'poverty' as an absolute when it is a relative. No matter what programs are in place,
there will always be a bottom tier in our hierarchical society and those who constitute it will
always be 'impoverished' compared to those in higher tiers. This is the nature of the beast. Which
is why I prefer to talk about subsistence level income and degrees above subsistence. The cost
of living may not be absolutely fixed over time, but it seems to me to be more meaningful and
stable than the term 'poverty'. On the other hand, in a rent seeking economy, giving people an
income will not lift them out of poverty because rents will simply be adjusted to meet the rise
in resources. So UBI without rent control is meaningless.
Another point is that swapping forced unemployment for forced employment seems to me to avoid
some core issues surrounding how society provides for all its members. Proponents of the JG are
always careful to stress that no one is forced to work under the JG. They say things like, "jobs
for everyone who wants one". But this fails to address the element of coercion that underlies
the system. If one has no means to provide for oneself (i.e. we are no longer a frontier with
boundless land that anyone can have for cheap upon which they may strike out and choose the amount
of labor they contribute to procure the quality of life they prefer-if ever was such the case),
then jobs for "everyone who wants one" is simply disingenuous. There is a critical "needs" versus
"wants" discussion that doesn't generally come up when discussing JG. It's in there, of course,
but it is postponed until the idea is accepted to the point where setting an actual wage becomes
an issue. But even then, the wage set will bear on the needs versus wants of the employed, but
leaves out those foolish enough to not "want" a job. Whereas, in discussing UBI, that discussion
is front and center (since even before accepting the proposal people will ask, how much?, and
proper reasons must be given to support a particular amount-which again brings us to discussing
subsistence and degrees above it-the discussion of subsistence or better is "baked in" to the
discussion about UBI in a way that it is not when discussing the JG).
While UBI interests me as a possible route to a non-"means of production"-based economy, the
problem I see with it is that it could easily reduce the populace to living to consume. Given
enough funds to provide for the basics of living, but not enough to make any gains within society,
or affect change. It's growth for growth's sake, not as to serve society. Something is needed
to make sure people aren't just provided for, but have the ability to shape the direction of their
society and communities.
Where I work @3/4 of the staff already receives social security and yet it is not enough seems
to me human satisfaction is boundless and providing a relative minimum paper floor for everyone
is just. Yet the way our market is set up, this paper floor would be gobbled back up by the rentier
class anyway. So unless there is a miraculous change in our economic rent capture policies, we
are screwed
So yes, just describe to people precisely what it is – a 'paper' floor not something that
has firm footing yet acknowledges inequities inherent in our current currency distribution methods.
And of course couple this with a jobs guarantee. I have met way too many people in my life that
'fall through the cracks' .
why is no one bemoaning the rabid over-consumption of the complainers who suck up much more
than they will ever need, hoarding and complaining about people who do not have enough? the real
problem is rampant out of control parasites
But Ferguson should also adknowledge that Livingston has some points.
Why on earth we politically put limits to, for instance, public earning-spending while do not
put any limit to the net amount that one person can earn, spend and own?
Upward redistribution is what occurs in the neoliberal framework. UBI is distribution. Bear
in mind that even in the best employment conditions, not everybody can earn a salary. 100% employment
is unrealistic.
The people marketing UBI and MMT have hundreds of years of attempted social engineereing to
overcome. I referring to the " why people want what they want and why do they believe what they
believe." Why?
The only suggestion I have is that, since everybody has a different relationship to the concept
of work, the populations involved need to be smaller. Not necessarily fewer people, but more regions
or nation states that are actually allowed to try their ideas without being attacked by any existing
"empire" or "wanna be empire" via sanctions or militarily.
It is going to take many different regions, operating a variety of economic systems (not the
globalized private banking extraction method pushed down every one's throat whether they like
it or not) that people can gravitate in and out of freely.
People would have the choice to settle in the region that has rules and regulations that work
most for their lives and belief systems (which can change over time).
Looking at it from the perspective that there can be only one system that 300 million plus
people (like the USA) or the world must be under is the MAIN problem of social engineering. There
needs to be space carved out for these many experiments.
First, congratulations to everyone who managed to read this all the way through. IMO both this
(and the guy he's responding to), seem like someone making fun of academic writing. Perhaps with
the aid of a program that spits out random long words.
FWIW, when I lived in Japan, they had a HUGE, construction-based make-work program there, and
it was the worst of both worlds: hard physical labor which even the laborers knew served no purpose,
PLUS constant street obstruction/noise for the people in the neighborhoods of these make-work
projects. Not to mention entire beautiful mountains literally concreted over in the name of 'jawbs'.
Different thought: I'm not sold on UBI either, but wouldn't it mess up the prostitution/sex
trafficking game, almost as a side effect? Has anyone heard UBI fans promote it on that basis?
The sound and fury of disagreement is drowning out what both authors agree on: guaranteed material
standards of living and reduced working time. If that's the true goal, we should say so explicitly
and hammer out the details of the best way to attain it.
Interesting read society has become so corrupt at every level from personal up through municipal,
regional and federal governments that it cant even identify the problem, let alone a solution
all forms of government and their corresponding programs will fail until that government is
free from the monetary influences of individuals / corporations and military establishments, whether
it be from donations to a political establishment or kick backs to politicians and legislators
or government spending directed to buddies and cohorts
I don't pretend to understand the arguments at the level to which they are written, but at
the basic level of true governance it must but open and honest, this would allow the economy to
function and be evaluated, and then at that point we could offer up some ideas on how to enhance
areas as needed or scale back areas that were out of control or not adding value to society as
a whole
We stand at a place that has hundreds of years of built in corruption into the model, capable
so far of funneling money to the top regardless of the program implemented by the left or the
right sides of society
first step is to remove all corruption and influence from governance at every level until
then all the toils toward improvement are pointless as no person has witnessed a "free market
" in a couple hundred years, all economic policy has been slanted by influence and corruption
we can not fix it until we actually observe it working, and it will never work until it is
free of bias / influence
no idea how we get there . our justice system is the first step in repairing any society
About rich bastards in Finance and Sillycon Valley going all Prepper,
figuring out ways to safeguard their wealth and comfort and privilege if/when
SHTF and our society collapses.
The good news: IF SHTF in a way such as they fear, the gloves get to come
off and there'd be no law enforcement to protect them. It becomes 1%er hunting
season.
The thing is I really truly suspect that this is how the rich think.
It's enough to make one sensibly and rationally hate the rich, if one
didn't already that is.
"In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas
masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change."
never mind the absurdity of imagining there are private FB groups,
native Americans are facing down the full force of the police state to
protect the environment and their land out of a larger purpose and these
rich people who may actually have some influence make it their priority
to just personally be somewhere safe from the effects of climate change
(as if that were possible haha). Like Gandhi is rumored to have said:
Western civilization – it would be a good idea.
I think you're right in how they think. "I would rather spend 1,000
dollars on myself then give 1 dollar to help someone else (and protect
myself in the long run)" does seem to be the thought process.
To continue in that vein. "But you would be saving $999 if you gave
$1";
"What did they do to *earn* my largesse?"
Truly baffling when looked at rationally, but as a species we're
not all that rational.
Awww it's touching isn't it? The naive way the billionaires think their
pilots and armed guards would continue to obey their orders in a
doomsday/survival scenario
Ya, they really should play some Fallout. The real life
"vault-builders" may have other ideas.
Plus, the Machiavellian maxim about fortresses not being all that
safe, but the respect of the people being a true safeguard for a prince.
I mean if I was a multi-billionaire, I'd move to Detroit rebuild the
infrastructure, and turn the city into an estate with loyal citizens. I
keep them safe now, SHTF, they keep me safe. If nothing happens, then
they benefit greatly, and I'll be remembered by history as a decent
person.
I have to be "that guy," but the Vault Tec vaults were built as
elaborate social experiments to determine how to best transport
colonists on theorized, future spacecraft. The U.S. didn't intend
to launch a mass nuclear strike, but the Chinese saw the start of
the vault experiment as preparation for a first strike. The
fascists didn't even under their own experiments properly.
That's ok. I love the Fallout Lore. Is the space colony
Bethesda lore or Interplay lore?
I like that even the Vault-ride showing the colonies .they
were doing experiments on ride patrons, and the scientists doing
the experiments were having experiments performed on them!
Fun fact to keep in mind: those silos or other fancy bunkers with air
filtration to clean out chemical, biological, or nuclear contaminants
will not block carbon monoxide or any oxygen displacing gas. So, once
rich Silicon Valley or Wall St piece of shit bunkers down, you pull a car
or truck up to their air intakes and start pumping your exhaust in. Fill
the fancy bunker with carbon monoxide, halon, etc.
Bastards deserve the had chamber of their own making.
Seeing how the billionaires and cent-millionaires choose to use their
money for this makes a strong case for increasing taxes on them A LOT.
[For those who haven't read the article, it's about some entrepreneurial
Doomsdayers creating "condos" in abandoned missile silos near Wichita. Or
moving to New Zealand.]
I did love the part about how you need to take the
family
of the pilot who's manning your escape helicopter with you as you depart
from the crashing "civilization."
Derp, apparently they forgot that Bitcoins arnt accessible if theres no
electricity or internet. God, that makes the guys who stock up on gold coins
look like geniuses in comparison.
The point about surveillance cameras is silly. The purpose of such strategic
violence is to draw attention to the protest in a way that peaceful
demonstration doesn't. Producing footage of their actions is the whole point.
And, obviously, they are wearing masks.
Well, false flag or not, do notice how "high profile" the forces of
the State are when the venue of the action is in upper class areas, such
as trendy down towns, Government zones, and high rent suburbs. Contrast
that with the almost hands off attitude when the burning people, places
and things are lower class.
Feedback requested. I'm wondering if my thesis is sound or not.
ambrit
Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on
1) lowering drug prices by purchasing drugs from abroad and Medicare negotiate prices
2) infrastructure projects
3) better trade deals
Lets see if entrenched interests in the GOP and Democrat party let them work together. My guess
is NOT.
What that would accomplish is lay bare the corruption that is part of both parties.
Let's see if Trump actually wants to do any of those things Sanders wants. In other words will
he "reach across the aisle."
Let's see if Republicans in Congress cooperate.
I think it's unlikely although not impossible (as Krugman etc do)
Trump thinks of himself as a reality TV star. He likes the drama. But he seems to have no interest
in the details of policy. He found the border tax his advisers were floating as too complicated.
"... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass
immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
"... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance
of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors
rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
"... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. ..."
"... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
"... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on
Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the
symptom than the cause of division. ..."
"... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American
Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and
alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible
and may no longer exist. ..."
"... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
"... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the
terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained.
They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them
real contenders for power. ..."
"... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars,
something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation,
but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and
the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military
intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three
buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking
their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.
The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the
region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and
authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis
forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia
religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could
have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death
against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile
than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign
policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been
bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the
troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian
leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.
But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain
because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries
will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably
greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity
in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the
dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.
The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or
may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than
they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American
commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement.
Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty
about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.
Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other.
Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what
happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading
for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle
East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian
nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.
The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the
last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian
and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its
way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is
surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far
he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.
"... The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites. ..."
"... At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism, a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid expansions. ..."
"The time for empty talk is over," our new president said near the end of his relatively brief Inaugural
Address. And if he actually makes good on that promise, if the speech wasn't just talk but a blueprint
for effective presidential action, then we just watched an epochal moment: the last rites of Reaganite
conservatism, and the birth of a populist and nationalist new right.
The speech was, as predicted, "Jacksonian" - populist, combative, anti-Washington, thick with
promises to eradicate America's enemies and favor the forgotten man over globalist elites.
But
if it was anti-Washington, it was not remotely anti-government: Just as he did on the campaign trail,
Trump eschewed the rhetoric of liberty in favor of expansive promises of "protection" and rhapsodic
paeans to infrastructure spending.
At its darkest, this sort of protective politics veers toward fascism; at its best (and the new
president's rhetoric did try to reach in that direction) it points toward a pan-ethnic nationalism,
a right-wing politics of solidarity. But in neither case is it compatible with the limited-government
catechism and the Republican politics that pushes for free trade deals and fights against Medicaid
expansions.
Thus, the great ideological questions of the Trump era: Will his rhetoric actually define the policy
that gets made in the halls of Congress, where a more Reaganite conservatism still theoretically
holds sway? Or will his words be a Buchananite patina on an agenda mostly written by supply-siders
and Goldman Sachs appointees? Or will the conflict between the two tendencies simply make his administration
less epochal than incoherent, less transformative than simply ineffective?
During the Trump transition, observers on both the right and left cited the political scientist Stephen
Skowronek's theory of "disjunctive" presidents who straddle transitions between old orders and emerging
ones. One such president was Jimmy Carter, who tried to maintain the creaking New Deal coalition
while also grasping at a new vision for liberal governance. He failed because his party simply couldn't
accommodate the tension, and he himself couldn't effectively blend the old and new.
Right now Trump looks like he might be similarly disjunctive. Like Mr. Carter with the '70s-era Democrats,
he has grasped - correctly - that Republican politics desperately needs to be reinvented. But his
populist-nationalist vision has seemed too racially and culturally exclusive to win him majority
support, and it's layered atop a party that still mostly believes in the "populism" of cutting the
estate tax.
Combine those brute political facts with Trump's implausibly expansive promises, and a Carter scenario
- gridlock, disappointment, collapse - seems like the most plausible way to bet. But on the evidence
of this speech, Trump has no intention of playing it safe: He will either remake conservatism in
his image, or see his presidency fail in the attempt.
NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
"... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
"... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
"... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
"... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
"... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce.
A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy,
proclaiming its will to represent the people.
Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on
a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last
two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.
And of course there is the story that his
team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before
the Don dons a uniform?
I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find
amusing.
kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
What I told my own first-year students yesterday:
For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see
the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to
2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy.
Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of
America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.
I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking
office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary
wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin
supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want
a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?
Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing
countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.
We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a
president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.
He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business.
He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for
the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack
other countries.
We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time.
That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased
Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a
very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.
The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are
concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify
upward redistribution of income. It told readers:
"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the
rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....
"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade,
China is taking up the mantle....
"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has
been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared
a 'middle-class crisis.' "
Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every
longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and other recent trade pacts.
The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign
doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much
as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.
Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly
happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.
The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they
are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently
trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not
likely to help their case much.
Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were
Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).
-- Dean Baker
Reply
Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population
of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution
of income.
They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used
Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated
conservatives with the same medicine.
And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and
hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the
country.
That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved
remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.
Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost
its effectiveness.
Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.
This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.
The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his
article titled, The Structure of
Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains
how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come
together to form the power elite of America."
He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate,
executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with
military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to
any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates
that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election,
however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite
became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected
by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of
Donald Trump.
During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political
pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing
the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the
military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic
and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that
Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media
against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate
media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.
As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible
within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the
highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert
foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle
East and North Africa.
As such, one major problem facing Davos, is one of loss of credibility
,
as the majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them,
according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan.
17-20 World Economic Forum.
A simpler way of putting it:
"There's a sense that
the system is broken,"
Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing
firm that commissioned the research,
told Reuters
.
And it's not just the poor who have lost faith: "
The most shocking statistic
of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income, college-educated and
well-informed also believe the system doesn't work
."
As
Reuters
puts
it, the 3,000 business, political and academic leaders meeting in the Swiss
Alps this week find themselves increasingly out of step with many voters and populist
leaders around the world who distrust elites. And this time the increasingly angry world
is closely watching.
Governments and the media are now trusted by only 41 and 43 percent of people
respectively, with confidence in news outlets down particularly sharply after a year in
which "post-truth" become the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year. Trust in business
was slightly higher, at 52 percent, but it too has declined amid scandals, including
Volkswagen's rigged diesel emission tests and Samsung Electronics' fire-prone
smartphones.
The credibility of chief executives has fallen in every country surveyed, reaching a
low of 18 percent in Japan, while the German figure was 28 percent and the U.S. 38
percent.
Trust in governments fell in 14 of the countries surveyed, with South Africa, where
Davos regular President Jacob Zuma has faced persistent corruption allegations, ranked
bottom with just 15 percent support.
Making matters worse, according to a
PwC survey
released at Davos
, even the global business elite is starting to lose oses
confidence in the benefits of globalization, i.e. the very bread and butter of the
people present at the world's biggest echo chamber symposium.
"
there is a consensus that something huge is going on, global and
in many respects unprecedented. But we don't know what the causes are, nor how
to deal with it."
Let me explain.
The US set its heart on liberal democracy and the
end was already in sight.
The problems were there at the start but were
ignored, it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and
"liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two
mutually exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and
impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just
doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton
Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it
in a military dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy.
It took death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an
ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using
similar techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the
people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was
needed when they found out what they were getting.
It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty
everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that should be rolled out
globally. It's just what they are looking for.
Margaret Thatcher bought these ideas to the West and the
plan to eliminate the welfare state has only recently been revealed. Things had
to be done slowly in the West due to that bothersome democracy. The West has
now seen enough.
It was implemented far more brutally in the developing
world where Milton Freidman's "Chicago Boys" were the henchmen of "The
Washington Consensus". The IMF and World Bank acted as enforcers insisting on
neoliberal conditionalities for loans.
Global markets punished those not towing the neoliberal
line and kept nations in their place. As Nelson Mandela was released from
prison the South African Rand fell 10%, someone like this was going to be
pushing up wage costs and would be bad for the economy.
Looking back it was a grand folly of an international
elite whose greed overcame even a modicum of common sense.
Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" will take you through
all the gory details.
Underlying neo-liberalism is a different economics,
neoclassical economics, which is heavily biased towards the wealthy. Inequality
and a lack of demand in the global economy were also guaranteed from the start.
Crocodile tears. what they're really saying is that there is no body left to
exploit. Gates and his buddies from Mastercard and Visa are now literally
ragpicking the poor Indians with their destruction of the cash economy. "Get
a credit card or starve you huddled masses!" JPMorgan makes millions of $
every year off food stamps. "Thank you O'Bomber - I just love your golf
swing." The latest and greatest? Bezos is getting into the food stamp
racket... "Thanks O'Bomber - just keep those doggies rollin."
These kids
are down to seeds and stems and they don't know what the fuck to do next... The
Ruskies look tasty but they're too hard to roll... "Killoing the host" fo shuh.
the depth of their insanity is revealed in their obvious reluctance to admit
the con is over. the foot soldiers who are responsible for keeping the rabble
in check are ready for mutiny. these guys would piss in their pants and offer
their mother in their place if a red dot appeared on their forehead.
System's been broken at least since the 90s. Pretty sure many ZH readers have
been accutely aware of this as well. But hey, on behalf of the rest of us,
welcome to the party. No run for your fucking lives. Cause you destroyed
perfectly good countries with proud histories for no good goddamned reason, and
you're going to be held accountable. Scumbags.
1. the way Davos
participants open their meetings to all North African and Middle Eastern
immigrants;
2. the way Davos participants pledge to go without paychecks until next
year's Davos meeting, because they want to "feel your pain";
3. the way Davos participants fast for the entirety of the conclave, to
remind themselves that "they exist only to serve";
4. the way Davos participants meet in Syria, tour some areas
bombed-and-looted-and-raped by ISIS, crowd onto small boats, row across the
Mediterranean to Italy, and then walk the rest of the way to Davos;
5. the way Davos participants promise not to wear PURPLE all year, to show
they do NOT appreciate Hillary's bombing of Syria and killing of its leader.
The entire Global Banking System, and all the Corporate companies in the entire
world, will implode, guaranteed. They will implode because of the fact that the
Banking Oligopoly has appropriated all of the Disposable Income Gains of the
entire world population since the late 1960s. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett
should have known that they alone would have to support all the companies in
the entire world in order to keep them propped up due to the fact that they are
the only individuals with enough money to purchase all the cars, trucks,
investments, et cetera. Clearly, Warren Buffett & Bill Gates need to buy all
the high end luxury boats and condos in the entire world because no one else
can afford to purchase given that everyone is indentured into servitude to
bankers that appropriate all of their Disposable Income Gains the world over.
The Davos crowd knows what is going on, but they don't want to admit that they
stole all the world's wealth so that they could be anal retentive money
hoarders like Warren Buffett obviously is. The problems of trust is endemic
throughout the entire world now, and it will not be long before we read about
Warren Buffett hanging from a lamp post at the hands of an irate population
that is panicking.
I honestly know what is going to happen and why it is happening, but the
closed-looped Global Banking System does not care one wit about causality.
Clearly, they will care when they get lynched by angry irate mobs of people
that are going to freak out when the whole system implodes across the board.
"But we don't know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it."
I almost spit out my lunch at that one. Maybe when their heads are
in a guillotine they'll remember. Better yet, let this non-elite explain it to
you: You've rigged the system so that the rich get richer and everyone else
gets screwed. How long did you think that would go on before the masses want
you dead?
"Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators
President-elect Donald Trump has complained about paid activists both before and after the 2016 presidential campaign, and as
The
Washington Times reports, he may have a point.
Job ads running in more than 20 cities offer $2,500 per month for agitators to demonstrate at this week's presidential inauguration
events.
Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the "largest private grassroots support organization in the United
States," posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking "operatives."
"Get paid fighting against Trump!" says the ad.
"We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why
not do so with us!" the ad continues. "We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration
protests."
The job offers a monthly retainer of $2,500 plus "our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least
6 events a year," as well as health, vision and dental insurance for full-time operatives.
While there have been "fake" ads in the past, as
The
Washington Times notes , if the Demand Protest ads are ruses, however, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to sell the
scam.
The classifieds are running in at least two dozen cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and the company
operates a slick website that includes contact information.
A San Francisco phone number listed on the website was answered with a voice-mail message identifying the company by name. A request
for comment left Monday evening was not immediately returned.
The website, which says that the company has provided 1,817 operatives for 48 campaigns, promises "deniability," assuring clients
that "we can ensure that all actions will appear genuine to media and public observers."
"We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages," says the website. "With
absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements.
When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact."
A search by the
Washington
Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth,
Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.
lmao!!!..."All our operatives have access to our 24/7 phone help desk in addition to in-person support at events."
HELLO? HELP! I GOT LOST I'M GETTING MY ASS MUGGED BY THREE BLACK DUDES ONLY FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE WH!
"What? Who is this? How did you get this number? You sound like a racist Trump supporter!"
(click)...lol.
1980XLS d WTFMOFO •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Fuck unemployment. Sue them for unjust termination after the Jig is Over.
Mazzy d Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM
For example:
$17 per hour (makes it seem more real than a common number such as 15) for operative/protestor. Bus transportation will be
provided. Paid half upon arrival at destination, half upon return.
Bus will be located at address xxxx on yyyyy street (in front of local democrat councilman's house, or local university professor...be
creative, make it hilarious).
nmewn -> Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:28 PM
I like the way you think...lol.
Mazzy -> nmewn •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM
Or just tell them to meet on the Quad/Square/Commons of the local college/university. Say that they will be meeting some professor
of 'whatever', just look it up and come up with something plausible.
Say that the bus will transport them to the nearest city or nearest larger city or the state capitol or whatever. Again, be
plausible and convincing. Be creative and cross check before you post. I think we can pull this off.
Think of the hilarity when a bunch of Hilary fems/mancucks or hundreds of angry Obama's sons show up and there's no payment.....
MASTER OF UNIVERSE •Jan 17, 2017 7:33 PM
Participatory Democracy has improved with monetary inducements for those that demonstrate, but when demonstrators make the
same pay grade as the Police Officers hired by the State we will have equality of opportunity without disparity between protagonists
& antagonists which would likely be better than what we see now.
Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the Trump camp was advertising for paid goons to prevent President-Elect-Hillary's
inauguration.
The media outcry would be heard on Mars and the National Guard if not the army would be deployed to detain and charge them.
Trump himself would be at least threatened with the crime of aiding and abetting treason and his close associates would be
placed in preventative detention for six months.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that having now de-legitimised Trump's election win, the "powers that be" are working up
to openly carry out a public coup against the president-elect of their own country. As their attempts have been failing they have
been escalating their methodology.
They have become so used to doing it to other countries and their rationalisation is the same: what we define as evil can and
will be destroyed using whatever means are necessary.
"... It was read aloud in taverns, churches and town squares, promoting the notion of republicanism, bolstering fervor for complete separation from Britain, and boosting recruitment for the fledgling Continental Army. He rallied public opinion in favor of revolution among layman, farmers, businessmen and lawmakers. It compelled the colonists to make an immediate choice. It made the case against monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny and unfair taxation, offering Americans a solution – liberty and freedom. It was an important precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which was written six months later by Paine's fellow revolutionaries. ..."
"Without the pen of the author of
Common Sense , the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." –
John Adams
Thomas Paine was born in 1737 in Britain. His first thirty seven years of life were pretty much
a series of failures and disappointments. Business fiascos, firings, the death of his first wife
and child, a failed second marriage, and bankruptcy plagued his early life.
He then met Benjamin Franklin in 1774 and was convinced to emigrate to America, arriving in Philadelphia
in November 1774. He thus became the Father of the American Revolution with the publication of
Common Sense , pamphlets which crystallized opinion for colonial independence in 1776.
The first pamphlet was published in Philadelphia on January 10, 1776, and signed anonymously "by
an Englishman." It became an instantaneous sensation, swiftly disseminating 100,000 copies in three
months among the two and a half million residents of the 13 colonies. Over 500,000 copies were sold
during the course of the American Revolution. Paine published
Common Sense after the battle of Lexington and Concord, making the argument the colonists should
seek complete independence from Great Britain, rather than merely fighting against unfair levels
of taxation. The pamphlets stirred the masses with a fighting spirit, instilling in them the backbone
to resist a powerful empire.
It was read aloud in taverns, churches and town squares, promoting the notion of republicanism,
bolstering fervor for complete separation from Britain, and boosting recruitment for the fledgling
Continental Army. He rallied public opinion in favor of revolution among layman, farmers, businessmen
and lawmakers. It compelled the colonists to make an immediate choice. It made the case against monarchy,
aristocracy, tyranny and unfair taxation, offering Americans a solution – liberty and freedom. It
was an important precursor to the Declaration of Independence, which was written six months later
by Paine's fellow revolutionaries.
Paine's contribution to American independence 241 years ago during the first American
Fourth Turning cannot be overstated. His clarion call for colonial unity against a tyrannical
British monarch played a providential role in convincing farmers, shopkeepers, and tradesmen reconciliation
with a hereditary monarchy was impossible, and armed separation was the only common sense option.
He made the case breaking away from Britain was inevitable, and the time was now. Armed conflict
had already occurred, but support for a full-fledged revolution had not yet coalesced within the
thirteen colonies. Paine's rhetorical style within the pamphlets aroused enough resentment against
the British monarchy to rally men to arms, so their children wouldn't have to fight their battles.
"I prefer peace, but if trouble must come, let it be in my time that my children may know peace."
– Thomas Paine
Paine did not write
Common Sense or
The American Crisis pamphlets for his contemporaries like John Adams, Samuel Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, or Franklin. These intellectual giants were already convinced of the need to permanently
break away from the British Empire and form a new nation. Paine wrote his pamphlets in a style understandable
to the common man, rendering complex concepts intelligible for the average citizen. Paine seized
this historic moment of crisis to provide the intellectual basis for a republican revolution. To
inspire his citizen soldiers, George Washington had Paine's pamphlets read aloud at their encampments.
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in
this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love
and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation
with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we
esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put
a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom
should not be highly rated." – Thomas Paine –
The American Crisis
The wealthy landowners and firebrands who comprised the Continental Congress leadership were not
the audience Paine was trying to sway. They were focused on how a Declaration of Independence would
affect the war effort. They were deficient in making their case to the less informed populace.
Without public support and volunteers to fight the Redcoats, the revolution would have failed.
Paine's indispensable contribution to our country's independence was initiating a public debate and
disseminating ideas about independence among those who would need to do the fighting and dying if
independence was to be achieved.
Paine was able to synthesize philosophical enlightenment concepts about human rights into common
sense ideas understood by ordinary folks. Paine was not a highly educated intellectual and trusted
the common people to make sound assessments regarding major issues, based upon wisdom dispensed in
a common sense way. He used common sense to refute the professed entitlements of the British ruling
establishment. He used common sense as a weapon to de-legitimize King George's despotic monarchy,
overturning the conventional thinking among the masses.
Paine was able to fuse the common cause of the Founding Fathers and the people into a collective
revolutionary force. Even though their numbers were small, Paine convinced them they could defeat
an empire.
"It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies; yet our present numbers are
sufficient to repel the force of all the world" – Thomas Paine,
Common Sense
Paine didn't know he was propelling the American Revolution
Fourth Turning towards its successful climax when he wrote those pamphlets. His use of the term
Crisis as the title to his second group of pro-revolutionary pamphlets displayed his grasp of the
mood in the colonies toward the existing social order. The majority of the 2.5 million people living
in the 13 colonies in 1776 were native born. Their loyalty to a distant monarch, treating them with
contempt and taxing them to support his far flung empire, had been waning as time progressed. They
were ready to shed the cloak of oppression and Paine gave them the rationale for doing so.
The American Revolution Crisis was ignited by the fiery Prophet Generation leader Samuel Adams
with the provocative Boston Tea Party in 1773. The colonial tinderbox was ignited as Adams' committees
of correspondence rallied resistance against the Crown and formed a political union among the 13
colonies. After the battles of Lexington & Concord, arming of militias and the formation of the Continental
Army under command of George Washington, the regeneracy was at hand.
Paine, as a Liberty Generation nomad, did what his generation was born to do – be a hands on,
pragmatic, get it done leader. His vital contribution to the revolution was rousing the colonists
with the toughness, resolution, and backbone to withstand the long difficult trials ahead. He, along
with other members of his generation – George Washington, John Adams, and Francis Marion, did the
heavy lifting throughout the American Revolution.
They knew they would hang if their labors failed, but the struggle for liberty against a tyrannical
despot drove them forward against all odds. Paine's pamphlets, followed shortly thereafter by the
Declaration of Independence, marked the regeneracy of the first American
Fourth Turning , as solidarity around the cause of liberty inspired by brave words and valiant
deeds, propelled history towards its glorious climax at Yorktown.
When you're in the midst of a Fourth Turning it is hard to step back and assess where you are
on a daily basis. This
Fourth Turning began in September 2008, with the global financial implosion created by the Fed
and their Wall Street puppet masters. We have just achieved the long awaited regeneracy as Trump
has stepped forth as the
Grey Champion to lead a revolution against the corrupt tyrannical establishment.
The election of Trump did not mark the end for the Deep State, but just the beginning of the end.
Just as Paine's
Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence denoted the beginning of a long string of bloody
trials and tribulations, Trump's ascendency to the presidency has marked the beginning of a battle
– with the outcome dependent upon our response to the clashes ahead.
The regeneracy spurred by Thomas Paine and the nation's Founding Fathers in 1776 was followed
by five years of ordeal, misery, misfortune, bloody routs, and numerous junctures where total defeat
hung in the balance. Lesser men would have abandoned the cause during the dark bitter winter at Valley
Forge in 1778.
The shocking victory by Trump has revealed the depth of corruption among the corporate mass media,
both political parties, surveillance agencies, and shadowy Deep State moneyed players behind the
scenes. The ivory tower D.C. politicians, their entitlement culture, blatant corruption, vile disregard
for the Constitution, and complete disregard for the plight of average Americans living outside their
bastions of liberal elitism (NYC, L.A., S.F., D.C., Chicago), have shown their true colors since
November 8.
Trump utilized the same populist messaging invoked by Paine in his
Common Sense pamphlets during his unorthodox presidential campaign. He mobilized the large alienated
silent majority who has been left behind as the globalists, corporatists, and militarists reaped
the rich rewards of a growing corporate fascist surveillance state. Average Americans in flyover
country watched as the fetid swamp creatures in the mainstream media, along with debased political
establishment hacks, Hollywood elites, left wing billionaires, and so called social justice warriors
coalesced behind a criminal establishment candidate. The out of touch elite have controlled the government
for decades, treating the country and its people like a two dollar whore.
Just as Paine hit a nerve among the great unwashed masses, Trump united blue collar workers, small
business owners, family men, working mothers, guns rights champions, disaffected conservatives, realistic
libertarians, disaffected millennials and various anti-establishment types sick and tired of the
status quo. He gave voice to the little man with his in your face populist rhetoric against the corrupt
dominant elites.
His plain spoken, aggressive, no holds barred, pugnacious approach to crushing his enemies rallied
millions to his cause. The Make America Great Again revolution has only just begun and the violent,
vitriolic pushback from the vested interests are only the opening volleys in this
Second American Revolution . The entrenched Deep State establishment will concede nothing. Tyranny
will not be defeated without bloodshed.
"Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what people
will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed
upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or both. The
limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." – Thomas Paine
The same common sense Paine used to argue against a tyrannical, oppressive hereditary monarchy
applies today when judging our corrupt, authoritarian, co-opted government. His themes of society
as a blessing, government as evil, and revolution as inevitable are as applicable today as they were
241 years ago. As we approach Trump's inauguration it has become clear the ruling elite feel threatened
and are using their control of the media, intelligence services, military, and financial system to
try and undermine his presidency before it begins.
As their fake news propaganda falls on the deaf ears of disgusted Americans, their next ploy will
be violence, war or assassination. The vested interests have no intention of relinquishing their
power and wealth, just as King George and his Parliament had no intention of allowing the colonies
to form an independent republic.
If you thought voting Trump into the office of the president constituted a victory, you are badly
misreading historical precedent and the inevitable paths of Fourth Turnings. The fight is just beginning.
The leftist social justice warriors, their wealthy elite puppeteers, the neo-con military industrial
complex warmongers, globalists, multi-culturists, and surveillance state apparatchiks have all made
it clear they will violently and rhetorically, through their corporate media mouthpieces, resist
Trump and his common man revolution.
I don't know if the normal people who supported Trump realize how abnormal, deviant, and despicable
their opponents are. Blood will be spilled. Violence will beget violence. The country is already
split and the divide will only grow wider. Someone will win and someone will lose. Our choices will
matter.
"The seasons of time offer no guarantees. For modern societies, no less than for all forms of
life, transformative change is discontinuous. For what seems an eternity, history goes nowhere –
and then it suddenly flings us forward across some vast chaos that defies any mortal effort to plan
our way there. The Fourth Turning will try our souls – and the saecular rhythm tells us that much
will depend on how we face up to that trial. The saeculum does not reveal whether the story will
have a happy ending, but it does tell us how and when our choices will make a difference."
– Strauss & Howe –
The Fourth Turning
In Part Two of this article I will try to show how Paine's
Common Sense , even though written three generations ago, has essential pertinence during these
troubled times of our current
Fourth Turning .
"... Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era ..."
"... "The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income, college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work." ..."
"... Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question. Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%. ..."
"... The mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power. ..."
"... The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple explanations and solutions. ..."
"... Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term. ..."
"... Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ..."
DAVOS MAN : "A soulless man, technocratic, nationless and cultureless, severed from reality.
The modern economics that undergirded Davos capitalism is equally soulless, a managerial capitalism
that reduces economics to mathematics and separates it from human action and human creativity."
I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not consider myself a libertarian, progressive, socialist,
anarchist, conservative, neoconservative or neoliberal. I'm just a 38 year old guy trying to figure
it all out. Naturally, this doesn't imply that there aren't things which I hold dear. I have a strong
belief system based on key principles. It's just that I don't think it makes sense for me to self-label
and become part of a tribe. The moment you self-label, is the moment you stop thinking for yourself.
It's also the moment you stop listening. When you think you have all the answers, anyone who doesn't
think exactly as you do on all topics is either stupid or "paid opposition." I don't subscribe
to this way of thinking.
Despite my refusal to self-identify, I am comfortable stating that I'm a firm supporter of populist
movements and appreciate the instrumental role they've played historically in free societies. The
reason I like this term is because it carries very little baggage. It doesn't mean you adhere to
a specific set of policies or solutions, but that you believe above all else that the concerns of
average citizens matter and must be reflected in government policy.
Populism reaches its political potential once such concerns become so acute they translate into
popular movements, which in turn influence the levers of power. Populism is not a bug, but is a key
feature in any democratic society. It functions as a sort of pressure relief valve for free societies.
Indeed, it allows for an adjustment and recalibration of the existing order at the exact point in
the cycle when it is needed most. In our current corrupt, unethical and depraved oligarchy, populism
is exactly what is needed to restore some balance to society. Irrespective of what you think of Donald
Trump or Bernie Sanders, both political movements were undoubtably populist in nature. This doesn't
mean that Trump govern as populist once he is sworn into power, but there's little doubt that the
energy which propelled him to the Presidency was part of a populist wave.
Trump understands this, and despite having surrounded himself with an endless stream of slimy
ex-Goldman Sachs bankers and other assorted billionaires, his campaign took the following position
with regard to Davos according to
Bloomberg :
Donald Trump won't send an official representative to the annual gathering of the world's economic
elite in Davos, taking place next week in the days leading up to his inauguration, although one of
the president-elect's advisers is slated to attend.
Former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn, a regular attendee in the past, told the group he would
skip 2017 after being named in December to head the National Economic Council, said people familiar
with the conference. Other top Trump appointees will also pass up the forum.
A senior member of Trump's transition team said the president-elect thought it would betray his
populist-fueled movement to have a presence at the high-powered annual gathering in the Swiss Alps.
The gathering of millionaires, billionaires, political leaders and celebrities represents the power
structure that fueled the populist anger that helped Trump win the election, said the person, who
asked for anonymity to discuss the matter.
While all of this sounds great, it's not entirely true. For example:
Hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci is planning to travel to Davos, though. The founder of SkyBridge
Capital and an early backer of Trump's campaign, Scaramucci was named on Thursday as an assistant
to the president.
Not that Scaramucci's presence should surprise anyone, he's the consummate banker apologist, anti-populist.
Recall what he
said last month :
"I think the cabal against the bankers is over."
This guy shouldn't be allowed within ten feet of any populist President, but Trump unfortunately
seems to have a thing for ex-Goldman Sachs bankers.
While we're on then subject, let's discuss Davos for a moment. You know, the idyllic Swiss town
where the world's most dastardly politicians, oligarchs and their fawning media servants will gather
in a technocratic orgy of panels and cocktail parties to discuss how best to manage the world's affairs
in the year ahead. Yes, that Davos.
DAVOS, Switzerland – The global economy is in better shape than it's been in years. Stock markets
are booming, oil prices are on the rise again and the risks of a rapid economic slowdown in China,
a major source of concern a year ago, have eased.
First report from Davos is in. Everything's fine.
And yet, as political leaders, CEOs and top bankers make their annual trek up the Swiss Alps to
the World Economic Forum in Davos, the mood is anything but celebratory.
Last year, the consensus here was that Trump had no chance of being elected. His victory, less
than half a year after Britain voted to leave the European Union, was a slap at the principles that
elites in Davos have long held dear, from globalization and free trade to multilateralism.
Moises Naim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more blunt: "There is a
consensus that something huge is going on, global and in many respects unprecedented. But we don't
know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it."
Thank you for your invaluable insight, Moises.
The titles of the discussion panels at the WEF, which runs from Jan. 17-20, evoke the unsettling
new landscape. Among them are "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis" , "Politics
of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?", "Tolerance at the Tipping Point?" and "The Post-EU Era".
Ah, a panel on how to fix the middle class. Sounds interesting until you find out who some of
the speakers are.
You really can't make this stuff up. Now back to Reuters .
Perhaps the central question in Davos, a four-day affair of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail
parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness, is
whether leaders can agree on the root causes of public anger and begin to articulate a response.
This has to be a joke. The public has been yelling and screaming about all sorts of issues they
care about from both sides of the political spectrum for a while now. Whether people identify as
on the "right" or the "left" there's general consensus (at least in U.S. populist movements) of the
following: oligarchs must be reined in, rule of law must be restored, unnecessary military adventures
overseas must be stopped, and lobbyist written phony "free trade" deals must be scrapped and reversed.
There's no secret about how strongly the various domestic populist movements feel on those topics,
but the Davos set likes to pretends that these issues don't exist. They'd rather focus on Russia
or identify politics, that way they can control the narrative and then propose their own anti-populist,
technocratic solutions.
A WEF report on global risks released before Davos highlighted "diminishing public trust in institutions"
and noted that rebuilding faith in the political process and leaders would be a "difficult task".
It's not difficult at all, what we need are new leaders with new ideas, but the people at Davos
don't want to admit that either. After all, these are the types who unanimously and enthusiastically
supported the ultimate discredited insider for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton.
Moving along, let's take a look at a separate
Reuters
article previewing Davos, starting with the title.
Davos elite faces evaporating trust in "post-trith" era
Did you see what they did there? The evaporating trust in globalist elites has nothing to do with
"post-truth," but as usual, the media insists on making excuses for the rich and powerful. The above
title implies that elites lost the public truth as a result of a post-truth world, not because they
are a bunch of disconnected, lying, corrupt thieves. Like Hillary and the Democrats, they are never
to blame for anything that happens.
With that out of the way, let's take a look at some of the text:
Trust in governments, companies and the media plunged last year as ballots from the United States
to Britain to the Philippines rocked political establishments and scandals hit business.
The majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them, according
to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan. 17-20 World Economic
Forum (WEF).
"There's a sense that the system is broken," Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing
firm that commissioned the research, told Reuters.
"The most shocking statistic of this whole study is that half the people who are high-income,
college-educated and well-informed also believe the system doesn't work."
Even wealthy, well educated people understand things aren't working, which begs the question.
Who does think the system is working? Well, the people attending Davos, of course. These are the
folks who cheer on a world in which eight people own as much as the bottom 50%.
As can be seen fro the above excerpts, one thing that's abundantly clear to almost everyone is
that the system is broken. This is exactly where populism comes in to perform its crucial function.
This is not an endorsement of Trump, but rather an endorsement of mass popular movements generally,
and a recognition that such movements are the only way true change is ever achieved. As Frederick
Douglass
noted in 1857:
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical,
but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of
injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of
those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held
and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance,
either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly
pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must
pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by
our lives and the lives of others .
The above is an eternal truth when it comes to human struggle. The idea that the most wealthy
and powerful individuals on earth are going to get together in a Swiss chalet and figure out how
to help the world's most vulnerable and suffering is on its face preposterous. Again, this is why
popular movements are so important. They represent the only method we know of that historically yields
tangible results. This is also why the elitists and their media minions hate populism and demonize
it every chance they get. Which is really telling, particularly when you look at the various definitions
of the word. First, here's what comes up when you type the word into Google:
pop·u·lism
/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
noun
support for the concerns of ordinary people.
"it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the
ladder"
•the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"
Or how about the following from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of populist
1 :
a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially, often
capitalized
:
a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests
and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2:
a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people
-
populism
play \-ˌli-zəm\ noun
-
populistic
play \ˌpä-pyə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective
Aside from the 19th century historical reference, what's not to like about any of the above? The
mere fact that billionaire-owned media is so hostile to populism tells you everything you need to
know. Behind the idea of populism is the notion of self-government, and Davos-type elitists hate
this. They believe in a technocracy in which they make all the important decisions. Populism
is dangerous because populism is empowering. It implies that the people ultimately have the power.
I think a useful exercise for readers during this Davos circus laden week is to note whenever
the word "populism" is used within mainstream media articles. From my experience, it's almost always
portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative manner. Here's just one example from the first of the two
Reuters articles mentioned above.
The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence
of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple
explanations and solutions.
The key phrase in the above is, " populists who offered simple explanations and solutions." This
betrays an incredible sense of arrogance and contempt for regular citizens. Note that it didn't offer
a critique of a specific populist leader and his or her polices, but rather presented a sweeping
dismissal of all popular movements as "simplistic." In other words, despite the fact that the people
mingling at Davos are the exact same people who set the world on fire, they somehow remain the only
ones capable enough to fix the world. How utterly ridiculous.
The good news is that most people now plainly see the absurdity of such a worldview, and understand
that the people at Davos represent a roadblock to progress, as opposed to any sort of solution. While
I don't endorse any particular populist movement at moment, I fully recognize the need for increased
populism as a facet of American political life, particularly at this moment in time.
Populism can be dangerous, and it's certainly messy, but it's a crucial pressure release valve
for any functioning free society. If you don't allow populist movements to do their thing in the
short-term, you'll get far worse outcomes in the long-term.
In the timeless words of JFK:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
"... The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump ..."
"... For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. ..."
"... It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it . ..."
"... This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it. ..."
"... Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers. ..."
"... And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics? ..."
"... A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps. ..."
The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically
in the other direction , by
endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump (my emphasis):
For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary
Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump.
In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell
announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that "Mr. Putin had
recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The CIA and NSA director
under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and
went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that "Donald Trump
really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin," adding that Trump is "the useful fool, some naif,
manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted
and exploited."
It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical
of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was
eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it .
Now Trump is president and the pro-war national security forces are at it again, leaning again
on Trump in yet another intrusion into the political process .
So who again tried to tilt the field for or against Clinton or Trump? Including Russia, the administration,
Comey, agents of the FBI and NY police, the CIA and national security forces, I count five groups.
This is a lot of political intrusion, regardless of which candidate you favored - all within the
last year - and we're still not done. I'm sure we're only halfway through this extended drama.
The Selective Blindness of the Democratic Party
Third, with all this political interference, where are the Democrats? Do they condemn it all,
praise it all, or pick and choose?
Bottom line: They see what they want to see, not what's in front of us all and in plain sight.
Which is not only unprincipled, it's dangerous for them as well as us.
Again, they did not see Obama's original declarations of Clinton's innocence as political
intrusion. But they did see Comey's eventual "won't indict, but will condemn" speech, and
his and other investigators' pre-election actions, as political intrusion. They did not see
the "pro-war" security apparatus' endorsement of Clinton and trashing of Trump as intrusions. But
they do see Russian interference as intrusion. And they absolutely don't see the security
services' present blackmail threats against a duly elected president as political interference.
They see what they want to see, what they think helps them politically and electorally, and they're
blind to the rest. This is highly unprincipled. And again, it's dangerous as well.
After all, one reason the institutional Democratic Party nearly lost to Sanders, a highly principled
man - and did lose to Trump, a man who pretended to be principled - is that plenty of voters in key
states were just tired of being taken for a ride by "say one thing, do another" Democrats. Tired,
in other words, of unprincipled Democrats - tired of job-promising. job-killing trade deals pushed
hard by both Democratic presidents, tired of the bank bailout that made every banker whole but
rescued almost no mortgagees , tired of their
reduced lives , their
mountain of personal debt , tired of the overly complex, profit-infected, still-unsolved medical
care system - tired of what 16 years of Democrats had done to them, not for them.
If Democrats want to start winning again, not just the White House, but Congress and state houses,
they can't continue to be these Democrats - unprincipled and self-serving. They must be
those Democrats, Sanders Democrats, principled Democrats instead.
Does the above litany of complaint about political interference when it suits them, and non-complaint
when it doesn't, look like principled behavior to you?
Which brings me to the end of this part of the discussion. If some people see this party behavior
as self-serving hypocrisy, you can bet others do as well. Democrats can only turn this decade-long
collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles. They have
to attract the Sanders voters who stood aside in the general election and see them very negatively.
Yes, Democrats will continue to get votes - some people will always vote Democratic. But in the post-Sanders,
post-Trump era, will they get enough votes to turn the current tide, which runs heavily against them?
I'm not alone in thinking, not a chance.
But this is the long form of what I wanted to say. For the elevator speech version, just read
the three tweets at the top. I think they capture the main points very nicely.
Glenn Greenwald: "The Deep State Goes to War with the President-Elect, and Democrats Cheer"
Greenwald's take is very similar to mine, and there's much more research in his
excellent piece . Writing at The Intercept , he says (emphasis in original):
The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
In January, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a
systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with
any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
You can see where this is going. The "deep state," the CIA, NSA and the rest of the unelected
national security apparatus of the U.S., is going to war with an elected president even before
he takes office, and Democrats are so eager for a win that they're siding with them.
Did Russia attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Did
the agents of the FBI et al attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats
condemned it. Is the national security state today interfering in the outcome of a U.S. election,
by trying to destabilize and force its will on the incoming administration? Of course, and Democrats
are cheering it.
As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the
worst in American history - who would aid the national security apparatus in undermining it?
Apparently, the Democratic Party. Greenwald continues:
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
And Greenwald agrees that this tactic is not just craven; it's also dangerous:
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking
him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When
it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people
and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how
factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from
basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of this, don't forget, rests on the
one document mentioned above , the material summarized in an appendix to the classified version
of the security services' report on Russia (emphasis mine):
the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility
in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document,
compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents
of Trump , accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct.
The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so,
too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts
to undermine it.
I'll send you to the
Greenwald piece for much more of this detail. As I said above, this story has seemed muddy until
now, but it just came clear.
A Coup in the Making
This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences.
Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason.
But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it.
If a Republican elected official had publicly warned Obama not oppose a policy the Republicans
and the CIA/NSA favored because "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you," what would
- what should - our response to that be? Mine would be horror and shock that a Republican
had dared make that threat, followed by fear that he, and the agencies behind him, will make good
on it. At which point, it's farewell democracy, likely for a long long time.
Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck
Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging
the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare
to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers.
And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
The video is
embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if
a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm
tactics?
A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless.
This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps.
By
Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent
contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius,
Tumblr
and
Facebook.
GP article archive
here.
Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
May 23, 2016 6:17 pm 1134
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means,
but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic
supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry
Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support.
The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is
this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to
attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism,
or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of
the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not
among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men."
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize.
Like any political movement (including the Democratic Party,
which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has
been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not
all of them pretty. Here's a short list based on my own
encounters:
1.Genuine idealists:
For sure, quite a few Sanders
supporters dream of a better society, and for whatever reason
– maybe just because they're very young – are ready to
dismiss practical arguments about why all their dreams can't
be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics:
This kind of idealism shades over into
something that's less about changing society than about the
fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement.
(Those of us who were students in the 60s and early 70s very
much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially for
those who didn't understand delegate math – it felt like a
wonderful joy ride, the scrappy young on the march about to
overthrow the villainous old. But there's a thin line between
love and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many
romantics reacted by descending into bitterness, with angry
claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists:
A somewhat different strand in the
movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain age,
consists of those for whom political activism is less about
achieving things and more about striking a personal pose.
They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions
of this world and all those even slightly tainted – which
means anyone who actually has gotten anything done. Quite a
few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of
that venture don't bother them, because it was never really
about results, only about affirming personal identity.
4.CDS victims:
Quite a few Sanders supporters are
mainly Clinton-haters, deep in the grip of Clinton
Derangement Syndrome; they know that Hillary is corrupt and
evil, because that's what they hear all the time; they don't
realize that the reason it's what they hear all the time is
that right-wing billionaires have spent more than two decades
promoting that message. Sanders has gotten a number of votes
from conservative Democrats who are voting against her, not
for him, and for sure there are liberal supporters who have
absorbed the same message, even if they don't watch Fox News.
5.Salon des Refuses:
This is a small group in
number, but accounts for a lot of the pro-Sanders commentary,
and is of course something I see a lot. What I'm talking
about here are policy intellectuals who have for whatever
reason been excluded from the inner circles of the Democratic
establishment, and saw Sanders as their ticket to the big
time. They typically hold heterodox views, but those views
don't have much to do with the campaign – sorry, capital
theory disputes from half a century ago aren't relevant to
the debate over health reform. What matters is their outsider
status, which gives them an interest in backing an outsider
candidate – and makes them reluctant to accept it when that
candidate is no longer helping the progressive cause.
So how will this coalition of the not-always disinterested
break once it's over? The genuine idealists will probably
realize that whatever their dreams, Trump would be a
nightmare. Purists and CDSers won't back Clinton, but they
were never going to anyway. My guess is that disgruntled
policy intellectuals will, in the end, generally back
Clinton.
The question, as I see it, involves the romantics. How
many will give in to their bitterness? A lot may depend on
Sanders – and whether he himself is one of those embittered
romantics, unable to move on.
"... Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded. ..."
"... The neo in neoliberalism, however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate profits, and challenging welfarism. ..."
"... But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education, and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits. ..."
"... A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded; indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . ..."
"... consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses, and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. ..."
"... The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the market. ..."
There is nothing common between articles of Zingales and Schiller.
My impression is that Schiller might lost his calling: he might achieve even greater success
as a diplomat, if he took this career. He managed to tell something important about incompatibility
of [the slogan] "Make America Great Again" with neoliberalism without offending anybody. Which
is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Zingalles is just another Friedman-style market fundamentalist. Nothing new and nothing interesting.
Noah Smith is wrong here: "This idea is important because it meant that we shouldn't expect fiscal
stimulus to have much of an effect. Government checks are a temporary form of income, so Friedman's
theory predicts that it won't change spending patterns, as advocates such as John Maynard Keynes
believed."
Friedman's view about consumption demand is the same as the Life Cycle Model (Ando and Modligiani).
OK - these models do predict that tax rebates should not affect consumption. And yes there are
households who are borrower constrained so these rebates do impact their consumption.
But this is not the only form of fiscal stimulus. Infrastructure investment would increase
aggregate demand even under the Friedman view of consumption. This would hold even under the Barro-Ricardian
version of this theory. OK - John Cochrane is too stupid to know this. And I see Noah in his rush
to bash Milton Friedman has made the same mistake as Cochrane.
What Friedman got wrong is not including current income. People with high income spend a fraction
of that income and save the rest. Their demand is met, so the additional income mostly goes to
savings.
People with low income spend everything and still have unmet demands. Additional income for
them will go to meet those unmet demands (like fixing a toothache or replacing bald tires).
Friedman was biased against fiscal intervention in an economy and sought evidence to argue
against such policies
Our model for funding infrastructure is broken. Federal funding means project that are
most needed by cities can be overlooked while projects that would destroy cities are funded.
Federal infrastructure funding destroyed city neighborhoods leaving the neighboring areas degraded.
Meanwhile, necessary projects such as a new subway tunnel from NJ to Manhattan are blocked by
States who are ok if the city fails and growth moves to their side of the river.
Money should go directly to the cities. Infrastructure should be build to serve the people
who live, walk and work there, not to allow cars to drive through at high speeds as the engineers
propose. This infrastructure harms cities and becomes a future tax liability that cannot be met
if the built infrastructure it encourages is not valuable enough to support maintenance.
We are discovering that unlike our cities where structures can increase in value, strip malls
decline in value, often to worthlessness. Road building is increasingly mechanized and provides
less employment per project than in the past. Projects such as replacing leaking water pipes require
more labor.
Simon Wren Lewis leaves open the possibility that an increase in aggregate demand can increase
real GDP as we may not be at full employment (I'd change that from "may not be" to "are not")
but still comes out against tax cuts for the rich with this:
"There is a very strong case for more public sector investment on numerous grounds. But that
investment should go to where it is most needed and where it will be of most social benefit"
Re: Milton Friedman's Cherished Theory Is Laid to Rest - Bloomberg View
Friedman was not simply wrong. The key for understanding Friedman is that he was a political
hack, not a scientist.
His main achievement was creation (partially for money invested in him and Mont Pelerin Society
by financial oligarchy) of what is now called "neoliberal rationality": a pervert view of the
world, economics and social processes that now still dominates in the USA and most of Western
Europe. It is also a new mode of "govermentability".
Governmentality is distinguished from earlier forms of rule, in which national wealth is measured
as the size of territory or the personal fortune of the sovereign, by the recognition that national
economic well-being is tied to the rational management of the national population. Foucault defined
governmentality as:
"the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses, and reflections, the calculations
and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which
has as its target population, as its principle form of knowledge political economy and as its
technical means, apparatuses of security"
A liberal political order may harbor either liberal or Keynesian economic policies -- it
may lean in the direction of maximizing liberty (its politically "conservative" tilt) or of
maximizing equality (its politically "liberal" tilt), but in contemporary political parlance,
it is no more or less a liberal democracy because of one leaning or the other.
Indeed, the American convention of referring to advocates of the welfare state as political
liberals is especially peculiar, given that American conservatives generally hew more closely
to both the classical economic and the political doctrines of liberalism -- it turns the meaning
of liberalism in the direction of liberality rather than liberty.
For our purposes, what is crucial is that the liberalism in what has come to be called neoliberalism
refers to liberalism's economic variant, recuperating selected pre-Keynesian assumptions about
the generation of wealth and its distribution, rather than to liberalism as a political doctrine,
as a set of political institutions, or as political practices. The neo in neoliberalism,
however, establishes these principles on a significantly different analytic basis from those
set forth by Adam Smith, as will become clear below. Moreover, neoliberalism is not simply
a set of economic policies; it is not only about facilitating free trade, maximizing corporate
profits, and challenging welfarism.
Rather, neoliberalism carries a social analysis that, when deployed as a form of
governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire. Neoliberal rationality, while foregrounding the market, is not only or even primarily
focused on the economy; it involves extending and disseminating market values to all institutions
and social action, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player.
... ... ...
1. The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence,
is submitted to an economic rationality; or, put the other way around, not only is the human
being configured exhaustively as homo economicus, but all dimensions of human life are cast
in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy
to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional
action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit,
or satisfaction against a microeconomic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality.
Neoliberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural, and political life
can be reduced to such a calculus; rather, it develops institutional practices and rewards
for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria,
neoliberalism produces rational actors and imposes a market rationale for decision making in
all spheres.
Importantly, then, neoliberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about
the pervasiveness of economic rationality and it advocates the institution building, policies,
and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neoliberalism is a constructivist project:
it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all
domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization
of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below.
2. In contrast with the notorious laissez-faire and human propensity to "truck and barter"
stressed by classical economic liberalism, neoliberalism does not conceive of either the market
itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed-organized
by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration.
Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected
by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition,
free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society.
In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural
economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect;
instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions.
. . . [C]ompetition, too, is not a natural fact. . . . [T]his fundamental economic mechanism
can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence
to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193).
The neoliberal formulation of the state and especially of specific legal arrangements and decisions
as the precondition and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled
by the state but precisely the opposite. The market is the organizing and regulative principle
of the state and society, along three different lines:
The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal
policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education.
In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation
deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas,
Jürgen Habermas, and James O'Connor.6 Rather, neoliberal rationality extended to the state
itself indexes the state's success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market
and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that
"founds a state," according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary
notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people.
As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces
the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . .
a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself
with reference to economic growth" (196).
The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality: that is, not simply
profitability but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all
state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms;
the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market
actor across all of its functions, including law. 7
Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of
state legitimacy, both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the
economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted.
Thus, "It's the economy, stupid" becomes more than a campaign slogan; rather, it expresses
the principle of the state's legitimacy and the basis for state action-from constitutional
adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare and education policy to foreign policy,
including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."
3. The extension of economic rationality to formerly noneconomic domains and institutions
reaches individual conduct, or, more precisely, prescribes the citizen-subject of a neoliberal
order. Whereas classical liberalism articulated a distinction, and at times even a tension,
among the criteria for individual moral, associational, and economic actions (hence the striking
differences in tone, subject matter, and even prescriptions between Adam Smith's Wealth of
Nations and his Theory of Moral Sentiments), neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates
individuals as entrepreneurial actors in every sphere of life.
It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures whose moral autonomy is measured
by their capacity for "self-care"-the ability to provide for their own needs and service their
own ambitions. In making the individual fully responsible for her- or himself, neoliberalism
equates moral responsibility with rational action; it erases the discrepancy between economic
and moral behavior by configuring morality entirely as a matter of rational deliberation about
costs, benefits, and consequences.
But in so doing, it carries responsibility for the self to new heights: the rationally
calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action
no matter how severe the constraints on this action-for example, lack of skills, education,
and child care in a period of high unemployment and limited welfare benefits.
Correspondingly, a "mismanaged life," the neoliberal appellation for failure to navigate
impediments to prosperity, becomes a new mode of depoliticizing social and economic powers
and at the same time reduces political citizenship to an unprecedented degree of passivity
and political complacency.
The model neoliberal citizen is one who strategizes for her- or himself among various social,
political, and economic options, not one who strives with others to alter or organize these
options. A fully realized neoliberal citizenry would be the opposite of public-minded;
indeed, it would barely exist as a public. The body politic ceases to be a body but is rather
a group of individual entrepreneurs and consumers . . . which is, of course, exactly how
voters are addressed in most American campaign discourse.8
Other evidence for progress in the development of such a citizenry is not far from hand:
consider the market rationality permeating universities today, from admissions and recruiting
to the relentless consumer mentality of students as they consider university brand names, courses,
and services, from faculty raiding and pay scales to promotion criteria. 9
Or consider the way in which consequential moral lapses (of a sexual or criminal nature)
by politicians, business executives, or church and university administrators are so often apologized
for as "mistakes in judgment," implying that it was the calculation that was wrong, not the
act, actor, or rationale.
The state is not without a project in the making of the neoliberal subject. It attempts
to construct prudent subjects through policies that organize such prudence: this is the basis
of a range of welfare reforms such as workfare and single-parent penalties, changes in the
criminal code such as the "three strikes law," and educational voucher schemes.
Because neoliberalism casts rational action as a norm rather than an ontology, social policy
is the means by which the state produces subjects whose compass is set entirely by their rational
assessment of the costs and benefits of certain acts, whether those acts pertain to teen pregnancy,
tax fraud, or retirement planning. The neoliberal citizen is calculating rather than rule abiding,
a Benthamite rather than a Hobbesian.
The state is one of many sites framing the calculations leading to social behaviors that
keep costs low and productivity high. This mode of governmentality (techniques of governing
that exceed express state action and orchestrate the subject's conduct toward himor herself)
convenes a "free" subject who rationally deliberates about alternative courses of action, makes
choices, and bears responsibility for the consequences of these choices. In this way, Lemke
argues, "the state leads and controls subjects without being responsible for them"; as individual
"entrepreneurs" in every aspect of life, subjects become wholly responsible for their well-being
and citizenship is reduced to success in this entrepreneurship (201).
Neoliberal subjects are controlled through their freedom-not simply, as thinkers from the
Frankfurt School through Foucault have argued, because freedom within an order of domination
can be an instrument of that domination, but because of neoliberalism's moralization of the
consequences of this freedom. Such control also means that the withdrawal of the state from
certain domains, followed by the privatization of certain state functions, does not amount
to a dismantling of government but rather constitutes a technique of governing; indeed, it
is the signature technique of neoliberal governance, in which rational economic action suffused
throughout society replaces express state rule or provision.
Neoliberalism shifts "the regulatory competence of the state onto 'responsible,' 'rational'
individuals [with the aim of] encourag[ing] individuals to give their lives a specific entrepreneurial
form" (Lemke, 202).
4. Finally, the suffusion of both the state and the subject with economic rationality
has the effect of radically transforming and narrowing the criteria for good social policy
vis-à-vis classical liberal democracy. Not only must social policy meet profitability tests,
incite and unblock competition, and produce rational subjects, it obeys the entrepreneurial
principle of "equal inequality for all" as it "multiples and expands entrepreneurial forms
with the body social" (Lemke, 195). This is the principle that links the neoliberal governmentalization
of the state with that of the social and the subject.
Taken together, the extension of economic rationality to all aspects of thought and activity,
the placement of the state in forthright and direct service to the economy, the rendering of
the state tout court as an enterprise organized by market rationality, the production of the
moral subject as an entrepreneurial subject, and the construction of social policy according
to these criteria might appear as a more intensive rather than fundamentally new form of the
saturation of social and political realms by capital. That is, the political rationality of
neoliberalism might be read as issuing from a stage of capitalism that simply underscores Marx's
argument that capital penetrates and transforms every aspect of life-remaking everything in
its image and reducing every value and activity to its cold rationale.
All that would be new here is the flagrant and relentless submission of the state and the
individual, the church and the university, morality, sex, marriage, and leisure practices to
this rationale. Or better, the only novelty would be the recently achieved hegemony of rational
choice theory in the human sciences, self-represented as an independent and objective branch
of knowledge rather than an expression of the dominance of capital. Another reading that would
figure neoliberalism as continuous with the past would theorize it through Weber's rationalization
thesis rather than Marx's argument about capital.
The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market.
Julio -> Libezkova...
I agree with this. But I think it's extraordinarily wordy, and fails to emphasize the deification
of private property which is at the root of it.
Brown - who I haven't read much of but like what I have - sounds a lot like Lasch.
Brown:
"The extension of market rationality to every sphere, and especially the reduction of
moral and political judgment to a cost-benefit calculus, would represent precisely the evisceration
of substantive values by instrumental rationality that Weber predicted as the future of a disenchanted
world. Thinking and judging are reduced to instrumental calculation in Weber's "polar night
of icy darkness"-there is no morality, no faith, no heroism, indeed no meaning outside the
market."
Lasch in Revolt of the Elites:
"... Individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except
those of the market.... The market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist
with institutions that operate according to principles that are antithetical to itself: schools
and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way,
to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional
careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
How do Republicans hold on to the voters Donald Trump
brought to the party?
Securing the loyalty of the millions of white
working-class Americans who lined up behind Trump will
require that all three wings of the Republican Party - its
business faction, its ideological purists and its cultural
traditionalists - abandon any idea of strict adherence to
core conservative principles on fiscal and social policy.
"Just as Reagan converted the G.O.P. into a conservative
party, with his victory this year, Trump has converted the
G.O.P. into a populist, America First party," Stephen Moore,
a Trump adviser whose résumé includes stints at the Heritage
Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, told Republican House
members on Nov. 23. "The G.O.P. is now officially a Trump
working-class party."
Moore is one of the most outspoken advocates of sweeping
change, explicitly willing, in the face of a voter uprising,
to jettison his own past convictions. In a subsequent
National Review article, he made this quite clear:
Trade and immigration are in my view unambiguously good
for the country - but new policies on these issues will have
to be done in ways that are supported by the American people,
not shoved down their throats by the elites. In this regard,
I am a populist. The elites in both parties have not
understood Trump_vs_deep_state and have often been contemptuous of the
intellect and lifestyle of the Trump loyalists.
Moore is not alone.
"Accommodating these new voters' concerns will be an
ongoing challenge, but the political payoffs are immense,"
Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and
Policy Center, wrote. "Bringing them into the Republican fold
... will make the Midwest a new red firewall."
The surge of whites from Midwest industrial states - or
more broadly from the heartland - to the Trump campaign
included many voters who were not naturally inclined to the
pre-2016 Republican Party. Olsen writes:
These voters have shunned Republicans because they
disagree with the party's focus on low taxes, small
government, and pro-business policies. They benefit
enormously from middle-class entitlement programs; their
children get what they consider to be good educations from
public schools and state universities. They have no problem
with redistribution so long as it is focused on either people
who can't work or people who do.
In other words, these voters have little or no interest in
the anti-government stance that had become reflexive among
many congressional Republicans.
Accommodation now requires fiscal, business and social
conservatives to compromise their beliefs in ways that will
be wrenching, if not intolerable, to some. Olsen's
assessment:
These voters view questions of public taxation and
spending differently than do other factions in the party.
Where movement conservatives see many social programs and the
high taxes that fund them as threats to liberty, these voters
see them as giving decent, hard-working people a hand up to
live decent, dignified lives. Where business conservatives
see free trade or immigration as helping people and
increasing growth, these voters see those policies as
favoring foreigners over themselves and as just another way
that their bosses try to pay them less without justification.
In the case of cultural litmus test issues, Olsen argues,
newly recruited white working-class converts to Trump's
Republican Party do not consider conservative dogma on gay
rights, abortion, gender identity, or traditional marriage
their priority.
Stephen Bannon, appointed senior counselor and chief
strategist to President Trump, puts much of what Moore and
Olsen say in colorful and perhaps more illuminating language.
In a Nov. 15 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon
described the goal of the "entirely new political movement"
he believes Trump is leading:
It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are
going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar
infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout
the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild
everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up.
We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if
it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than
the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an
economic nationalist movement.
Bannon is explicit in his identification of the enemy:
The globalists gutted the American working class and
created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about
Americans looking to not get f-ed over. If we deliver, we'll
get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black
and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
Bannon's worldview was evident in the Trump campaign's
closing argument, a striking two-minute commercial that mixed
images of closed factories, multiracial workers, piles of
hundred dollar bills, shots of Hillary and the Clinton
Foundation, Trump rallies, busy Chinese assembly line workers
and footage of George Soros, Janet Yellen, and Lloyd
Blankfein - all of whom are Jewish.
Trump provided the voice-over, which was taken from a
speech he gave in West Palm Beach in October:
For those who control the levers of power in Washington
and for the global special interests, they partner with these
people that don't have your good in mind. The political
establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group
responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal
immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled
our country dry.
The political establishment has brought about the
destruction of our factories and our jobs as they flee to
Mexico, China and other countries all around the world. It's
a global power structure that is responsible for the economic
decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our
country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of
a handful of large corporations and political entities. The
only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you. The
only force strong enough to save our country is us.
This ad was part and parcel of an election that has put
some of the most vocal House Republicans, including the
vaunted Freedom Caucus, on notice that defying Trump's
right-populist orientation could put their political future
at risk. Since its formation in Jan. 2015, the caucus, a
group of roughly 35 Republicans with ties to the Tea Party
movement, has repeatedly blocked efforts by Republican
leaders to produce compromise legislation that could win
Democratic support. The group was largely responsible for the
forced resignation of former Speaker John Boehner.
"Trump dominated - in the primary and general elections -
those districts represented by Congress's most conservative
members," Tim Alberta wrote in National Review (he is now at
Politico):
They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly
ideological agenda, but Trump's success has given them reason
to question that belief.
Among these archconservatives, who in the past had been
fanatical in their pursuit of ideological purity, the
realization that they can no longer depend on unfailing
support from their constituents has provoked deep anxiety.
As Alberta put it:
Even if they support Trump nine times of ten, voting
against him once could trigger a tweetstorm or the threat of
a visit to their district. It's a chilling thought for
members who know that the Republican National Committee, the
National Republican Congressional Committee, and the House
GOP leadership already want them gone.
Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, plans to make
full use of Trump's leverage to keep recalcitrant members of
the Freedom Caucus in line.
In a Nov. 29 interview at the Washington Post, McCarthy
noted that the caucus had been a thorn in the side of House
leaders, but now "there's less ability for the Freedom Caucus
to do those types of things" - blocking leadership bills, for
example, especially those measures that have Trump's backing.
McCarthy pointed out that "Trump probably did the best" in
the districts of caucus members, and
it would be hard for them to stand up if President-Elect
Trump is asking for this fundamental change, and they're
saying no to it.
Various initiatives outlined by Moore, Olsen and Bannon
could easily die on the vine; nevertheless, the open debate
among Republican operatives and advisers stands in contrast
to the Democrats' tortured struggle to address those aspects
of identity politics - race, immigration, gender and
sexuality, for example - lurking beneath the large scale
defection of white voters.
The incendiary nature of identity issues has prompted the
two leading candidates for the chairmanship of the Democratic
National Committee, Tom Perez and Keith Ellison, to
purposefully focus on anodyne concerns.
"Our universal message of access to economic opportunity
resonates with the ironworker in northeastern Ohio and the
immigrant in South Florida," Perez told the Huffington Post,
referring to two states Clinton lost. "We sometimes have a
relationship deficit with our voters, because we're not
communicating that message."
Ellison, in turn, matched Perez for blandness in a
prepared statement on Dec. 7:
At this point, the Democratic Party must be the party that
delivers for working people. We can do that by meeting folks
where they are, looking them in the eye, treating them with
respect, and working to solve their problems.
In a postelection analysis on Dec. 5, Stanley Greenberg, a
Democratic pollster, and Page Gardner, president of the
Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, were cautious when
they referred to identity politics in the Clinton campaign:
Instead of spending the final weeks of the campaign
advancing a compelling economic message to show Clinton would
bring change, the campaign closed with a promise to fight for
opportunity and to unite a multicultural America under the
banner of being '"stronger together."
For the left coalition, the tangled issues of race,
gender, immigration and identity are inescapable. Crime as an
issue is similarly divisive. Over the weekend, for instance,
Garry McCarthy, the former Chicago police superintendent
appointed by Rahm Emanuel in 2011, breached Democratic norms
and made national headlines when he blamed Black Lives Matter
for a rise in violent crime. In a radio interview, McCarthy
showcased the kind of potentially explosive material that
could split the Democratic Party:
What's happening, and this is ironic, is that a movement
with the goal of saving black lives at this point is getting
black lives taken, because 80 percent of our murder victims
here in Chicago are male blacks.
McCarthy also pointed out that, "less than half of 1
percent of all the shootings in this city involve police
officers shooting civilians."
Nor did McCarthy stop there. He contended that
the Trump election quite frankly is a reaction to that. I
think the people are tired of career politicians who've never
really had a job telling us how we should think and how we
should act.
In late November such liberal icons as Bernie Sanders and
President Obama cautiously broached the subject of identity
politics. On Nov. 20, Sanders told a group in Boston:
It's not good enough for someone to say, "I'm a woman!
Vote for me!" No, that's not good enough. What we need is a
woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the
insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil
fuel industry.
That same day, Obama addressed reporters traveling with
him in Lima, Peru:
One message I do have for Democrats is that a strategy
that's just microtargeting particular, discrete groups in a
Democratic coalition sometimes will win you elections, but
it's not going to win you the broad mandate that you need.
In a centrist challenge to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic
House Leader, Tim Ryan, an Ohio congressman who presented
himself as a champion of the "flyover states," argued against
campaign strategies in which
we try to slice the electorate up. And we try to say,
'You're black, you're brown, you're gay, you're straight,
you're a woman, you're a man.' The reality of it is there's
no juice in that kind of campaign.
Alarm bells went off. Ian Millhiser, an editor at the
liberal website Think Progress, turned to Twitter on Nov. 20
to accuse Ryan of sexism:
This thing where an obscure male backbencher thinks he
deserves to replace the most accomplished woman in Congress
is how sexism works.
Then in December, Bobby Rush, a black congressman from
Chicago, told the Boston Globe that if Democrats shift their
primary focus to the "white middle and working class" and
take "for granted the black working class or the black
underclass, the party will add an arm and lose a body." Rush
warned:
If I see my party not considering, even more intensely
than they've done in the past, the economic, social, and
political climate of the people I represent, the people I've
been fighting for all my life, then I'm going to raise hell.
A Vox.com postelection headline, "The whole Democratic
Party is now a smoking pile of rubble," contains more than a
grain of truth.
At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally
fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of
radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace.
Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky
decisions.
Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for
D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does it wait for internecine
conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies
fulfill campaign promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax
reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?
Or should the party edge toward the center, attempting a
strategic reposition on thorny issues of race, immigration,
gender and identity, in effect acknowledging pressures from
the right - the very pressures that delivered crucial white
votes to Trump?
Democrats face a vast unknown - unable to stand still and
unable to make reasoned choices until they know to what
lengths, demonic or inspired, Trump might go.
I would support democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders
over progressive neoliberals like Clinton and Vox. We need
policies that work, not half-measures with a mutlicultrual
spin. The country is becoming more and more multicultural and
diverse on its own. Prosperity will help ease the anxiety of
change. With shared prosperity and rising wages, trade and
immigration will be focused on less as scapegoats.
With
Trump joining the public in going after Republicans for their
ethics fiasco, the Democratic leadership is supposedly
thinking they might work with Trump on some sort of
infrastructure plan that the deficit hawks and Freedom Caucus
would be against.
As Benjamin Appelbaum reports above, Yellen's Fed may
cancel out any fiscal stimulus with faster rate hikes. Would
Trump notice? Who knows?
Giving Trump credit on reigning in (temporarily) this ethics
trial balloon may indeed be BS but you need to state a reason
for calling it so. Try this out:
I just love this idea that Trump created new voters.
Somehow, a difference of 80,000 or so votes in three states
(one state had the lowest turnout in 20 years) means Trump
brought " millions of white working-class Americans" into the
Republican Party is absolute nonsense.
Stephen Moore believes it. Than again, does anyone believe
anything he says is correct and/or true?
Although I have yet to come across a definitive actual
count of the 3 State voters that went for Trump over Hillary.
I have read from 80,000 to 128,000 and use 120,000, the high
side, to be safe.
Trump won the Republican primary and general election.
""Trump dominated - in the primary and general elections -
those districts represented by Congress's most conservative
members," Tim Alberta wrote in National Review (he is now at
Politico):
They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly
ideological agenda, but Trump's success has given them reason
to question that belief.
Among these archconservatives, who in the past had been
fanatical in their pursuit of ideological purity, the
realization that they can no longer depend on unfailing
support from their constituents has provoked deep anxiety."
These archconservatives who say that Trump's flimsy
mandate is just based on just 80,000 votes in the rustbelt
are in for a rude awakening. He won the primary. In Northern
States. In Southern States. Everywhere.
It's hilarious that the progressive neoliberals like
DeLong, Krugman, Drum, Yglesias etc have said exactly nothing
about Trump's tweets at Congressional Republicans over the
independent ethics committee.
There is a propaganda technique where you describe staw-person
characterizations then undermine them. When in fact the whole
longwinded campaign depends on readers and listeners not
bothering or too tired to focus and see the
mischaracterizations in the straw.
This whole thing is an
apologia, for propaganda purposes, as I see it.
We all need to take care. It takes a lot of money and
effort to organize such propaganda exercises. Please take
care in using and reusing these type things.
"Trump has converted the G.O.P. into a populist, America
First party" is an overstatement. He definitely made some
efforts in this direction, but it is premature to declare
this "fait accompli".
If we consider two possibilities: "GOP establishment chew
up Trump" and "Trump chew up GOP establishment" it is clear
that possibility is more probable.
Theoretically that might give Democrats a chance, but I
think the Clintonized Party is too corrupt to take this
chance. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought,
will stay bought." ;-)
In any case, 2018 elections will be very interesting as I
think that the process of a slow collapse of neoliberal
ideology and the rise of the US nationalist movements ("far
right") will continue unabated.
This is the same process that we see in full force in EU.
A Threat to US Democracy:
Political Dysfunction
http://nyti.ms/2hOJ9AB
NYT - Eduardo Porter - Jan 3
Is American democracy broken?
There are precedents around the world for the kind of
political jolt the United States experienced in November.
They usually include a political firebrand who promises to
sweep away a system rigged to serve the powerful rather than
the interests of ordinary people. They usually end badly,
when the popular champion decides to read electoral victory
as an invitation to bend the institutions of democracy to the
force of his will.
Most Americans, I'm sure, never expected to worry about
that sort of thing in the United States. And yet concern is
decidedly in the air (*). Did a combination of globalization,
demographic change, cultural revolutions and whatever else
just upend America's consensus in support of liberal market
democracy? Did American democracy just succumb to the
strongman's promise?
I'm skeptical that the United States is about to careen
down the path taken by, say, Venezuela, governed by the whim
of President Nicolás Maduro - the handpicked successor of the
populist champion Hugo Chávez, who was elected in the late
1990s on a promise to sweep away an entrenched ruling class
and proceeded to battle any democratic institution that stood
in his way.
Still, the embrace by millions of American voters of a
billionaire authoritarian who argues that the "system" has
been rigged to serve a cosmopolitan ruling class against the
interests of ordinary people does suggest that American
democracy has a unique credibility problem.
The United States resisted the temptations of Nazism,
fascism and communism that beguiled Europe in the first half
of the 20th century. Extreme parties like France's National
Front or the United Kingdom Independence Party never
established an American toehold. Populist candidates running
as outsiders - Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader - could
only tip the balance between the two parties of the
establishment.
And yet, when the 21st century brought about a populist
insurrection, the United States government was quick to cave.
"What makes the United States so distinctive?" wrote
Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of
Michigan, in a somewhat prescient article a few months before
the election. "One reason may be that in recent years U.S.
democracy has become appallingly dysfunctional."
Working Americans have suffered disproportionately from
the economic shocks of our time. Income inequality in the
United States far exceeds anything seen in other advanced
nations. Families from the middle on down have suffered
stagnant or declining incomes for years. And the nation's
threadbare social safety net remains the weakest in the
industrialized world, providing only the most meager
insurance to working families undercut by globalization and
technological change.
But for all the reasons Americans may have to rebel
against the status quo, what made the political system so
vulnerable to a populist insurrection in November was that -
for all its institutional strengths - the political system
itself has come to be seen by too many voters as
illegitimate.
"There is persistent lack of confidence in U.S. political
institutions which allows populists to make hay," said Pippa
Norris, a political scientist at the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard and the University of Sydney in
Australia. "And the institutions need a major overhaul
because some, like elections, are badly broken."
This is not just about the Electoral College system, which
awarded the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular
vote. It is not just about money's growing influence in
politics, though that plays a part, too.
The problems are embedded in the design of America's
political institutions - with all their checks and balances
ostensibly designed to slow down policy-making and prevent
political extremists from swiftly taking over the gears of
government. These institutions have produced a polarized
government, paralyzed by partisan gridlock, unable to govern
effectively. They have built a system easy to demonize as
rigged.
The Electoral Integrity Project, run by Professor Norris
and colleagues from Harvard and the University of Sydney in
Australia, surveys thousands of election experts to assess
the quality of hundreds of elections around the world. They
are asked to rate how well district boundaries are drawn,
whether voter registration procedures are adequate, and the
effectiveness of campaign finance regulation, among other
things.
Based on the average evaluations of the elections in 2012
and 2014, the United States' electoral integrity was ranked
52nd among the 153 countries in the survey - behind all the
rich Western democracies and also countries like Costa Rica
and Uruguay, the Baltic states, and Cape Verde and Benin in
Africa.
A paper by Professor Norris on these results, titled "Why
American Elections Are Flawed," describes the major problems
with American electoral institutions, perhaps the most
critical of which is partisan control over electoral
institutions, which has subjected the integrity of elections
to the distortions of a partisan lens.
The fact that each state has its own set of electoral
regulations - covering things like the type of technology
used and opening hours of the polls - means that Americans'
voting rights can change substantially from state to state.
And the party polarization that has gripped statehouses
across the country has stymied attempts to build sensible,
effective electoral regulations and bred mistrust.
The patchwork of electoral systems - run by politically
appointed local officials managing part-time workers - is
hardly a recipe for competence. "Among mature democracies,
the nuts and bolts of American contests seem notoriously
vulnerable to incompetence and simple human errors," Ms.
Norris notes. ...
kthomas -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Gerry Mander.
Oh, and let's not forget the Corporations
have Constitutional rights.
Democracy like love is
a fuzzy term.
Democracy for whom?
For top .1%? For
top 1%? For top 10%?
For 100% of voters?
A more interesting
question is whether
two party system based
on "the first past the
post" rule can be
considered a democracy
at all.
If the party elites
are free to chose two
candidates for which
then voters are forced
to vote this is
oligarchy (the rule of
the elite) or at best
poliarchy (two
competing factions of
the same elite install
their candidate using
popular vote for
legitimizing one of
the two pre-chosen
candidates), not a
democracy.
Nobody can dismiss
the fact that the iron
law of oligarchy is
the governing law of
any two party system.
In this sense
Parliamentary
democracy with
proportional
representation is a
much better model.
One can see that
the iron law of
oligarchy was clearly
in action in the
Democratic Party the
last Presidential
elections.
In case of
Republican Party this
time the law was
broken (or it looks to
us like that) but this
exception just
confirms the rule.
All of the political, partisan progressive neoliberals are
pretty pessimistic about Trump: DeLong, Krugman, Vox, etc.
(the same people that assured us Clinton was a great
candidate who would win easily...)
And it's funny how the stock market is booming (despite
the looming trade wars) and all of the establishment type
neoliberals are pretty optimistic! (DeLong here questions
Olivier Blanchard)
Should-Read: Disagreeing with Olivier, my chances of
success are surely less than 50-50. Nevertheless...
As I read the evidence, the short-run fiscal multipliers
(1) from government purchases are rather high, (2) from
transfer payments to the liquidity-constrained are moderate,
and (3) from high-income tax cuts are next to zero. At the
moment it looks like effectively all of the Trump fiscal
initiative to be will take the form of (3). Some of it will
be direct tax cuts. The rest will be tax credits to
businesses that are not currently cash-constrained but
rather, at the margin, in the share buyback business.
But they will produce a stronger dollar.
Thus I expect next to no effective fiscal stimulus. I
expect a larger capital inflow (trade deficit). And I am told
we now expect the trade war to start soon.
Thus I do not see why Olivier Blanchard is so optimistic.
Where is he coming from? What does he see that I do not?
The "stronger dollar" seems to be the go-to criticism.
I agree that tax cuts and deregulation alone won't do much
(see the Bush years) except blow more asset bubbles.
I just don't get the theory of a larger capital inflow and
strong dollar. Aren't those good things?
All of the comfortable progressive neoliberals' vacations
in foreign countries will be cheaper. Their multinational
corporate sponsors now can purchase more for the dollar in
foreign lands, whether it be labor, assets, whatever.
Yes the export sector will be hurt, but they've never
really cared about the export sector or unionized
manufacturing jobs. The Fed will create more jobs as
necessary. Plus it's mostly automation which can't be
stopped. What, are you a Luddite?
"To the extent that both growth and interest rates are
higher, the dollar is likely to appreciate, leading,
ironically, to larger US trade deficits, which Donald Trump
the candidate indicated he wanted to fight. This leads me to
trade issues and trade measures."
Isn't that what Clinton wanted? Higher growth and interest
rates? That would also lead to a stronger dollar.
But absent tax cuts for the rich and deficits, interest
rates wouldn't be so high.
Seems like progressive neoliberals and mainstream macro
economists are slaves to the bond vigilantes. See Bill
Clinton dropping his middle class spending bill campaign
promise.
"Increase the demand for domestic goods, and increase
output (although, even then, as pointed out by Robert Mundell
more than fifty years ago, the exchange rate may appreciate
enough to lead to lower output in the end). But the "by
themselves" assumption is just not right: Tariffs imposed by
the United States would most likely lead to a tariff war and
thus decrease exports. And the decrease in imports and
exports would not be a wash. On the demand side, higher
import prices would lead the Fed to increase interest rates
further. "
So tariffs are bad because they cause retaliation. That's
politics, not economics. And again the Fed is brought in to
tell us that something good is actually bad.
High growth causes the Fed to kill the economy. Same would
happen under Democrats.
A Threat to US Democracy:
Political Dysfunction
http://nyti.ms/2hOJ9AB
NYT - Eduardo Porter - Jan 3
Is American democracy broken?
There are precedents around the world for the kind of
political jolt the United States experienced in November.
They usually include a political firebrand who promises to
sweep away a system rigged to serve the powerful rather than
the interests of ordinary people. They usually end badly,
when the popular champion decides to read electoral victory
as an invitation to bend the institutions of democracy to the
force of his will.
Most Americans, I'm sure, never expected to worry about
that sort of thing in the United States. And yet concern is
decidedly in the air (*). Did a combination of globalization,
demographic change, cultural revolutions and whatever else
just upend America's consensus in support of liberal market
democracy? Did American democracy just succumb to the
strongman's promise?
I'm skeptical that the United States is about to careen
down the path taken by, say, Venezuela, governed by the whim
of President Nicolás Maduro - the handpicked successor of the
populist champion Hugo Chávez, who was elected in the late
1990s on a promise to sweep away an entrenched ruling class
and proceeded to battle any democratic institution that stood
in his way.
Still, the embrace by millions of American voters of a
billionaire authoritarian who argues that the "system" has
been rigged to serve a cosmopolitan ruling class against the
interests of ordinary people does suggest that American
democracy has a unique credibility problem.
The United States resisted the temptations of Nazism,
fascism and communism that beguiled Europe in the first half
of the 20th century. Extreme parties like France's National
Front or the United Kingdom Independence Party never
established an American toehold. Populist candidates running
as outsiders - Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader - could
only tip the balance between the two parties of the
establishment.
And yet, when the 21st century brought about a populist
insurrection, the United States government was quick to cave.
"What makes the United States so distinctive?" wrote
Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of
Michigan, in a somewhat prescient article a few months before
the election. "One reason may be that in recent years U.S.
democracy has become appallingly dysfunctional."
Working Americans have suffered disproportionately from
the economic shocks of our time. Income inequality in the
United States far exceeds anything seen in other advanced
nations. Families from the middle on down have suffered
stagnant or declining incomes for years. And the nation's
threadbare social safety net remains the weakest in the
industrialized world, providing only the most meager
insurance to working families undercut by globalization and
technological change.
But for all the reasons Americans may have to rebel
against the status quo, what made the political system so
vulnerable to a populist insurrection in November was that -
for all its institutional strengths - the political system
itself has come to be seen by too many voters as
illegitimate.
"There is persistent lack of confidence in U.S. political
institutions which allows populists to make hay," said Pippa
Norris, a political scientist at the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard and the University of Sydney in
Australia. "And the institutions need a major overhaul
because some, like elections, are badly broken."
This is not just about the Electoral College system, which
awarded the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular
vote. It is not just about money's growing influence in
politics, though that plays a part, too.
The problems are embedded in the design of America's
political institutions - with all their checks and balances
ostensibly designed to slow down policy-making and prevent
political extremists from swiftly taking over the gears of
government. These institutions have produced a polarized
government, paralyzed by partisan gridlock, unable to govern
effectively. They have built a system easy to demonize as
rigged.
The Electoral Integrity Project, run by Professor Norris
and colleagues from Harvard and the University of Sydney in
Australia, surveys thousands of election experts to assess
the quality of hundreds of elections around the world. They
are asked to rate how well district boundaries are drawn,
whether voter registration procedures are adequate, and the
effectiveness of campaign finance regulation, among other
things.
Based on the average evaluations of the elections in 2012
and 2014, the United States' electoral integrity was ranked
52nd among the 153 countries in the survey - behind all the
rich Western democracies and also countries like Costa Rica
and Uruguay, the Baltic states, and Cape Verde and Benin in
Africa.
A paper by Professor Norris on these results, titled "Why
American Elections Are Flawed," describes the major problems
with American electoral institutions, perhaps the most
critical of which is partisan control over electoral
institutions, which has subjected the integrity of elections
to the distortions of a partisan lens.
The fact that each state has its own set of electoral
regulations - covering things like the type of technology
used and opening hours of the polls - means that Americans'
voting rights can change substantially from state to state.
And the party polarization that has gripped statehouses
across the country has stymied attempts to build sensible,
effective electoral regulations and bred mistrust.
The patchwork of electoral systems - run by politically
appointed local officials managing part-time workers - is
hardly a recipe for competence. "Among mature democracies,
the nuts and bolts of American contests seem notoriously
vulnerable to incompetence and simple human errors," Ms.
Norris notes. ...
kthomas -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Gerry Mander.
Oh, and let's not forget the Corporations
have Constitutional rights.
Democracy like love is
a fuzzy term.
Democracy for whom?
For top .1%? For
top 1%? For top 10%?
For 100% of voters?
A more interesting
question is whether
two party system based
on "the first past the
post" rule can be
considered a democracy
at all.
If the party elites
are free to chose two
candidates for which
then voters are forced
to vote this is
oligarchy (the rule of
the elite) or at best
poliarchy (two
competing factions of
the same elite install
their candidate using
popular vote for
legitimizing one of
the two pre-chosen
candidates), not a
democracy.
Nobody can dismiss
the fact that the iron
law of oligarchy is
the governing law of
any two party system.
In this sense
Parliamentary
democracy with
proportional
representation is a
much better model.
One can see that
the iron law of
oligarchy was clearly
in action in the
Democratic Party the
last Presidential
elections.
In case of
Republican Party this
time the law was
broken (or it looks to
us like that) but this
exception just
confirms the rule.
All of the political, partisan progressive neoliberals are
pretty pessimistic about Trump: DeLong, Krugman, Vox, etc.
(the same people that assured us Clinton was a great
candidate who would win easily...)
And it's funny how the stock market is booming (despite
the looming trade wars) and all of the establishment type
neoliberals are pretty optimistic! (DeLong here questions
Olivier Blanchard)
Should-Read: Disagreeing with Olivier, my chances of
success are surely less than 50-50. Nevertheless...
As I read the evidence, the short-run fiscal multipliers
(1) from government purchases are rather high, (2) from
transfer payments to the liquidity-constrained are moderate,
and (3) from high-income tax cuts are next to zero. At the
moment it looks like effectively all of the Trump fiscal
initiative to be will take the form of (3). Some of it will
be direct tax cuts. The rest will be tax credits to
businesses that are not currently cash-constrained but
rather, at the margin, in the share buyback business.
But they will produce a stronger dollar.
Thus I expect next to no effective fiscal stimulus. I
expect a larger capital inflow (trade deficit). And I am told
we now expect the trade war to start soon.
Thus I do not see why Olivier Blanchard is so optimistic.
Where is he coming from? What does he see that I do not?
The "stronger dollar" seems to be the go-to criticism.
I agree that tax cuts and deregulation alone won't do much
(see the Bush years) except blow more asset bubbles.
I just don't get the theory of a larger capital inflow and
strong dollar. Aren't those good things?
All of the comfortable progressive neoliberals' vacations
in foreign countries will be cheaper. Their multinational
corporate sponsors now can purchase more for the dollar in
foreign lands, whether it be labor, assets, whatever.
Yes the export sector will be hurt, but they've never
really cared about the export sector or unionized
manufacturing jobs. The Fed will create more jobs as
necessary. Plus it's mostly automation which can't be
stopped. What, are you a Luddite?
"To the extent that both growth and interest rates are
higher, the dollar is likely to appreciate, leading,
ironically, to larger US trade deficits, which Donald Trump
the candidate indicated he wanted to fight. This leads me to
trade issues and trade measures."
Isn't that what Clinton wanted? Higher growth and interest
rates? That would also lead to a stronger dollar.
But absent tax cuts for the rich and deficits, interest
rates wouldn't be so high.
Seems like progressive neoliberals and mainstream macro
economists are slaves to the bond vigilantes. See Bill
Clinton dropping his middle class spending bill campaign
promise.
"Increase the demand for domestic goods, and increase
output (although, even then, as pointed out by Robert Mundell
more than fifty years ago, the exchange rate may appreciate
enough to lead to lower output in the end). But the "by
themselves" assumption is just not right: Tariffs imposed by
the United States would most likely lead to a tariff war and
thus decrease exports. And the decrease in imports and
exports would not be a wash. On the demand side, higher
import prices would lead the Fed to increase interest rates
further. "
So tariffs are bad because they cause retaliation. That's
politics, not economics. And again the Fed is brought in to
tell us that something good is actually bad.
High growth causes the Fed to kill the economy. Same would
happen under Democrats.
Tonight we were presented with the
one-on-one interview between Sean Hannity and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. In the first segment that Hannity
showed, Assange stated that Rushua was not involved in
providing WikiLeaks with the hacked emails from the DNC or
John Podesta, and neither was a state party. Assange, who
is confined to the Ecuadorean embassy in London due to a
warrant for sexual assault in Sweden, was asked if
President Barack Obama was lying when claiming Rushuaans
were behind the hacks since Assange is saying Rushua
wasn't involved. "Well, he is acting like a lawyer," he
noted. "If you look at most of his statements he doesn't
say that. He doesn't say WikiLeaks obtained its
information from Rushua, worked with Rushua." Later on,
when describing why Obama had a dramatic response to
Rushua via sanctions, Assange says he is "trying to
delegitimize the Trump Administration as it goes into the
White House."Hannity Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17.
Sean Hannity gave us a preview of his revealing exclusive
interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which
will air on Fox News Channel tonight at 10pm ET. Assange
spoke for about 90 minutes at the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, where he has remained for four-and-a-half years
under threat of arrest. Hannity said they discussed "the
state of journalism" in the United States and what was not
covered by the media when it came to the contents of the
hacked emails.
Spc Garza
19
hours ago
This guy is way to smart for the government lol!!!
Stay safe
Jakareh75
17
hours ago
Julian Assange has more integrity in one fingernail
than does the entire mainstream media. And that is
why he's under a bogus indictment for rape by
Sweden, the same country that allows Muslim
subhumans scores of their women every day with
impunity. The rotten liberals who run Sweden go
after Julian Assange but not their Muslim pets.
Alex Phillips
16
hours ago
as a fellow Australian i find it absolutely fucking
disgraceful that our government isn't fighting tooth
and nail to clear Julian's name. .....stand strong
Julian. ....walk with your head held high. ....keep
on doing what you are doing. ....god bless you and
keep you safe.
Arisen Hemloc
21
minutes ago
Alex: I wouldn't call us Fascist. Fascist
governments are hard to fully achieve
because they require so many attributes in
comparison to other extremes like
Communism. It needs to be Nationalistic
(which, let's face, we're not at the
moment), a dictatorship (which, we're not
yet), Authoritarian to the extreme (we're
VERY close to that), and quite a few other
qualities. But regardless, Australia is
clamped down by regulations and laws which
choke business, a moron who wants a Carbon
Tax (useless. Doesn't even help Climate
Change if you believe in it), Emissions
Trading Scheme (Again, worthless) and has
the political sense of a rock, stupid
Socialist departments that aren't working (Centrelink)
because the economy is so blotto, we've got
gun laws that will probably lead to us all
getting machine gunned down by some Islamic
with an AK and slowly our borders are
becoming less and less secure. We're at the
point of America at the moment, not Germany
or France yet, but getting there. Only our
Ocean protects us from that. Under Rudd and
Gillard, we were moving heavily Socialist.
Under Abbot, in an attempt to fix the
damage they did, he shoved us too far the
other way. We need a Trump now and I get a
feeling it'll come from a coalition between
Hansen and Bernardi. Bernardi is
considering, if he hasn't already, leaving
the Liberals and starting a real
Conservative Party for the people, but to
get into power he'll need a coalition.
Either that or someone in the Liberals will
need to get rid of Turnbull and fix our
system. We can't trust Labor because they
have that Union boss creep Shorten as their
leader and he's nuttier than Rudd. It's
sad, but Assange will not be allowed back
into Australia or helped by Australia while
our current cycle of nut job politics keep
on going. We need Howard or Menzies back.
Also, for you Americans, our politicians
aren't as corrupt as yours (the Labor
maybe), but ours are just incompetent 75%
of the time.
Stacey Johnson
21
hours ago
This was a great interview. Hopefully now that
Assange has established for the millionth time that
Russia did not hack, we (as in all truth media
outlets like RT, Hannity, etc) need to stop focusing
on and talking about who did the hacking. Its time
to start investigating, talking about and exposing
the actual content of the emails, all of them not
just the ones that expose the media and campaign
corruption. Yet RT, Hannity, etc are not talking
about it or asking the questions that need to be
asked or investigating it. Why isn't anyone asking
about the Clinton foundation and its link to human
trafficking or why Monica Peterson was found dead
while investigating it?? Why isn't anyone asking
Podesta to explain all the strange and suspicious
code talk that is factual signs, symbols and code
words for pedophilia used over and over in these
emails? Why aren't they asking about the ties and
connections to occult rituals? Why aren't they
asking about the sickening art collections? Why
aren't they asking about the strange and
inappropriate happenings that go on at Ping Pong
Pizza? The flight logs of the Lolita express, which
is owned by a convicted sex offender, to "orgy
island"? Clinton's reasons for going there without
secret service detail on numerous occasions? The
deaths of so many people connected to the
Clinton's?? I still don't understand why these
things are still not being talked about?!?!
PopTartsAndCinemax
7
hours ago
Saudi Arabia bankrolled HRC's campaign but please,
tell us how the Russians are interfering in the
election... lol...
John S
5
hours ago
SA is using US $$ and weapons via Hillary's state
department to bankroll ISIS. But please, more
Russia!!
Paul X
11
hours ago
Hannity worries about where Assange draws the line,
and whether his releases might endanger human lives
(those of spies, I suppose). The problem with that
line is that human lives are endangered no matter
what! If Assange releases information, some lives
are endangered. If he doesn't, other lives are
endangered. Let's face it, Madeleine Albright said
that it was "worth it" if half a million Iraqi
people were killed in the pursuit of American
imperialist ambitions. And let's face it, if spies'
lives are endangered, well they signed up for that
danger. It's part of their job to deal with it. If
the release of truth endangers them, then maybe they
are doing something they shouldn't be doing. I don't
for a second believe the American (or any other)
ruling class gives a rat's ass about the lives of
ordinary peons being endangered.
Cam Smith
1
hour ago
Great interview by Mr. Hannity! And thank you Mr.
Assange for your dedication to the truth!
Jolly Froster
2
hours ago
Assange created wikileaks to give more info to
voters to stop wars. Hillary and the neocons wanted
war with Russia through her no fly zone so the
Saudis could get their pipeline in Syria. Hilary was
stopped. So now they are using wikileaks to try and
start the war.
Gary McAleer
1
hour ago
Everyone in the msm calls Julian Assange a liar when
he emphatically said that Russia was not the source
of the Clinton or Podesta emails. I'll take Julian's
impartial word over the politically selfish
interests here in America. Frankly, I'm sick and
tired of all the disinformation Americans have been
fed. Deliberate liars will be met with fire on "the
resurrection of damnation." "The wicked shall
perish: and shall be as the fat of lambs: into smoke
shall they consume away." Ps.37. So many in this
country lie as easily as they breathe. Their lies
will be their ruin.
Michael Snow
2
hours ago
Tonight, on PBS Nightly Business Report (NBR)
produced by CNBC, the reference to 'Russian hacking'
smeared Julian Assange as a 'fugitve from criminal
justice' in the USA.
Rod Ruger
11
hours ago
True, proven information is anathema to governments
that seeks tyranny. The goal of such governments is
to befuddle, misinform, instill fear, and otherwise
keep citizens in a fog.
George G
19
hours ago
WOW Assange is so much more credible than Obama and
his cooked up Intel narrative. The only facts that
truly point to a crime is that WIKILEAKS revealed
crimes committed by the democrate which included
Obama and it needs to be prosecuted AFTER HE LEAVES
OFFICE!
AntonBatey
11
hours ago
I have always supported Julian Assange. I do not
like Sean Hannity and disagree with him roughly 90
percent of the time. If Julian Assange attempted to
sabotage Donald Trump (and by default helping
Hillary Clinton) and continued to expose the war
crimes and internal emails exposing America's
imperialist interests, Hannity would brush him off
as a traitor and would claim that nothing he said
should be trusted or believed. But he helped Trump
and (appropriately) exposed Hillary Clinton was a
warmongering corporate shill who helped sabotage
Bernie Sanders, so Hannity lends his words as
credible.
Barbara Mowrey
20
hours ago
Like a lawyer, means, double talk . To seem legit
through actions and talk, alone, with no evidence,
hoping the action, or subpoena to make act, (send
diplomats out of the country) is that "tangible"
evidence when it is not even close! Double talk.
Keep em guessing to stay legit, again. Make evidence
when none exists.
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago (edited)
podesta's own email said the clinton foundation leak
was eric braverman, missing for months now. and in
podesta's own words, he fingered braverman as the
leak. you really have to be willfully blind at this
point to think otherwise
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago
he looks good..healthy considering what TPTB are
doing to him, for providing a legitimate platform
for whistleblowers ,...how much clearer could he
have been? a LEAK, not a HACK,...an individual
unrelated to russian state. and since he hinted
during a netherlands interview last year that the
source ( which he has always refused to name , to
protect the integrity and safety of the source) was
seth rich, not to mention the ex ambassador
admitting he received material from the
whistleblower in a park near AU, the Dems' trying to
start WW3 with russia seems like theatre of the
absurd
Gamer Boy
5
hours ago
HOLD UP HOLD UP HOLD UP Will someone look at the
first question Julian answers about "did he think
Trump would win" He says someone hacked/leaked it
who wanted to get more donations for her to win,
because if the people thought she was losing that
more money would come in upwards of 5 Billion and
she had only gotten 1.5 billion so far!!! So she
needed that push to put her down in the polls for
more money to come in. so it could have been someone
in the Media industry as he says who wanted more for
money, the DNC... I don't know but someone smart
please look into this. Did Russia need money from
her? who wanted to get her donations up to 5
billion. Watch his very first answer over and over
it's right there! lets figure it out!!
"... If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others. ..."
"... The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions that trigger staggering losses. ..."
"... Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living. ..."
"... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
"... In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians. ..."
We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though like many German compound
words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation. And yet nothing in
either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a
new train station and tilts against wind turbines. Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin
government decided to bail out Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into
Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative
für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place
in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've
had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something
new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four
years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French
Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them
all is Donald J. Trump.
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In
Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system
that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights.
Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide
Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting
a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the Berlin Wall
in 1989.
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr.
Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference
between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move
the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular
explosions. That's called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class,
but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because
people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters
are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what
they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the
days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is
what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago,
leaving the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes
of Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized
on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than
the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions
that trigger staggering losses.
Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while blue-collar workers have
to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their standard of living.
And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects.
We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have
Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed
as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force
of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls
half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader,
Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks."
Media reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians.
This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has
been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged
as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both
are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by
denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment
that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's
hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing
opinion writer.
"... Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough. ..."
"... Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was. ..."
"... The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism. ..."
"... Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. ..."
"... At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them. ..."
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43
v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be
"yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama
still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse
than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2
policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to
privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed
to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some
of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired
Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S
or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare
eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma
patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed
the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama
could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen &
House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher
& others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect
of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an
ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now
Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and
unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate
anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because
of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity
helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop.
Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First
because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague
promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming
about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change
our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw
those away fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow
jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took
power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember
"never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican.
At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what
they voted for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it.
You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
"... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
"... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished.
No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke
of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA
Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those
emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's
emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney
replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry
over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published by the Observer in March
of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And
so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive
material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the
past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance,
decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything
from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis,
a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that
Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled "
We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received
little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the
fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney
has to say has become gospel.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31,
2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March
2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases
"to track down known and suspected terrorists."
"... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
"... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
"... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
"... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
"... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
"... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
"... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
"... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
"... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling
similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.
The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971,
leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically,
particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive
landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.
Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.
On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees.
Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer
essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked
the nation.
And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an
end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international
financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.
And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you
altogether.
Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical
democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this
error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an
invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.
When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history
the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone
transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal
in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador
Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director
Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript.
"I am with you," Helms responded.
The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition
seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands
out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country
vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.
If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its
GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long
as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant
right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In
an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled
and idle.
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in
fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage,
followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom
years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship,
yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means
necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.
It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot
be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.
As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed
to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda
copper didn't like.
In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic
workers unskilled and idle.
The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly'
to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their
loyalty, until it becomes questionable
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity,
in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing
to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate
power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the
boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations
who made all the money didn't give a damn either.
It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their
own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government
in an effort to remedy the situation.
For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.
And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?
Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and
copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.
See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities
were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.
" . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable
line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."
"Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.
'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding
consumer essentials.'
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will
not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the
way of my bullet."
Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example,
any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."
Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the
Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?
The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In
their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution
of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests
in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.
Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.
yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies.
the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.
What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is
a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia.
Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically
in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.
Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this
was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or
Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".
Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign
policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't
falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.
"... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
"... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
"... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
"... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
"... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
"... specific intent ..."
"... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
"... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
"... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
"... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
"... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors.
Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that
has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.
The issue for Comey wasn't that
Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony
statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable
applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather,
Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes
because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in
mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we
would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes
that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people
for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of
"gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary
step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render
this latter assessment.
The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible
unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to
apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down
by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more
puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill
Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton
was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department
of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then
leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more
broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a
public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew
his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary
fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes
presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the
lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise
of prosecutorial discretion).
The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch
of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive
branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have
been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is
that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment
of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was
indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't,
in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively
common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving
poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with
substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.
Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch
employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged.
While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given
instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this
case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's
role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't.
Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was
to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether
to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books
had been violated.
By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly
exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring,
in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated
― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just
easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution
commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.
Which there were.
Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton
violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not
include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single
day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes
whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide?
That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional"
or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only
a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional"
conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows
― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens
rea, in legal terms).
And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede
Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.
To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal
law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged
physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is
known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor
can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion
of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly
what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such
as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck
does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the
physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For
instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as
one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you
land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be
as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm
in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest)
was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being
in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in
a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences?
Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school
cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but
"unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument
of, say, a chicken nugget).
So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable
with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing"
mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire
criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton
violated, that wasn't it.
What about the misdemeanor statute?
Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director
Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less
than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the
six-hour
C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a
brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it
is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors
inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents
or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such
documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials
at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school
student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language,
need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis
points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton
had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed
them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute
because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes
clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor,
but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute.
(At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic
of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal
criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)
Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself,
look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right.
This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government
attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.
2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like.
The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.
Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of
justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some
countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision
that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor
and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established
ethical strictures).
James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor
was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a
member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly,
isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine
a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within
the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken
by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there
is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.
That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
What Comey did was something else altogether.
First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged
to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out
in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard
for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some
sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but
many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.
The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that
this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later
on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor
or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors
who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give
themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes
intercede ― to plan their next move.
Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial
if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm
having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear
fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became
unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit
of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey
would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly
(therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.
I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.
3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors
only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens
rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if
police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally
("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to
imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works.
Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding
here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or
follow the commission of a crime.
But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.
It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness
of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former.
But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging
them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.
For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she
thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the
FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous
mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements
that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case
a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that
person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor
would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have
an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's
not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just
a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment
just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any
law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted,
unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.
This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject.
Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging
decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least
for poor people.
And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?
Since never - at least for poor people.
Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out
of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned
in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient
personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would
say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally
want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded
to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton
and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so
if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would
have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately
if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey
would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed,
the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically
made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was,
by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to
her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."
Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was
the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight
of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining
what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's
concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly
protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times,
was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information
but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.
But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for
her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours
of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact
alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already
had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of
Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email
fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire
for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance
with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up
convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help
to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton
intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking
work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for
Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in
itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention,
of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full?
And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And
speak to the question of intent?
It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left
office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified
material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the
be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this
situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting
emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related
emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake
themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails
but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was
none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross
negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's
specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked
at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone
in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men
wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?
4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave
Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial
discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care
when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.
While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual"
― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved"
an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what
Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the
real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their
prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged
are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who
would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained
to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated.
Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just
about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length
of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.
What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance,
on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see
if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified
at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think
Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those
emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss"
the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email
was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time
Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a
doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July
5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails.
Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly,
this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.
Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia
Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable
knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to
that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful
people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified
pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest
policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew,
daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many
email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."
What?
How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike
anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now
imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred
times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her
server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could
incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many
email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols
and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once
it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead
of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys
purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as
former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys
to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI
as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete
any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would
you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?
The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that
were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including
110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained
"top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information).
Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And
I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.")
At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated,
smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding
us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.
Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton
didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own
admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the
problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically
were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State
Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing
beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard
― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that
her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no
jury would credit.
Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work.
In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and
her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices
in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would
an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court
order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not
actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear:
Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical
future judicial review; they did so intentionally.
There's that word again.
The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow
attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction,
of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone"
(i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is
quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence
that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction
of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy
evidence except to keep it from the FBI.
In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.
As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal
investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such
actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from
my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending
federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton
and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review"
― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements
― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being,
"Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just
a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds
for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security
review'?")
And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious:
that crimes were committed.
Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her
colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis
in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something
like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation
of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this
way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly
classified information" (emphasis in original).
Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite
using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters
because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory
violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness"
and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure
to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing
his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal
statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have
intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless
could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross
negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation,
even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.
This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.
5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme
Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is
this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding
of that system's operations.
I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into
pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than
merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit
crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and
a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral
war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior
of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule
of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the
one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the
ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians
noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august
profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do
so in other instances.
When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't
realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that
standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here,
Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey
wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires
Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and
background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's
campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training,
experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself.
That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in
a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent,
but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely
prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing
prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold
for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with
Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely
powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
the government, would see things his way.
Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors
indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham
sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand
juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first
and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've
seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have
their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By
comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James
Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state
and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past
few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is
in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's
happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally
about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely,
it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.
No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary
Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about
prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers
positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of
principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James
Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially
in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not
decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time
for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey
had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors,
decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt
the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment
of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate
treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter
injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America
has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different
class and hue.
To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as
to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey
concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts
he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he
could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps
forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system
of justice.
Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University)
and the author, most recently, of
DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.